Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
HarrisCounty-Vol1_Area_Wide_Elements
� f a rEPP =- _ i Oki Harris County Multi -Hazard Mitigation Action Plan Volume 1—Area-Wide Elements April 2020 PREPARED FOR Harris County Office of Homeland Security and Emergency Management 6922 Katy Road Houston, Texas 77024 Tetra Tech Project #103S5992 H arrisCounty-Vol1 _F I NAL_2020-04.docx PREPARED BY Tetra Tech 1999 Harrison Street Suite 500 Oakland, CA 94612 Phone: 510.302.6300 Fax: 510.433.0830 www.tetratech.com Contents CONTENTS ExecutiveSummary .............................................................................................................. xx PART 1— PLANNING PROCESS AND COMMUNITY PROFILE 1. Introduction to Hazard Mitigation Planning................................................................................................ 1-1 1.1 Why Prepare This Plan?...................................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1.1 The Big Picture.......................................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1.2 Purposes for Planning................................................................................................................ 1-1 1.2 Who Will Benefit From This Plan?..................................................................................................... 1-2 1.3 Contents of This Plan.......................................................................................................................... 1-2 2. Plan Update —What Has Changed............................................................................................................... 2-1 2.1 The Previous Plan................................................................................................................................ 2-1 2.2 Why Update?....................................................................................................................................... 2-2 2.2.1 Federal Eligibility...................................................................................................................... 2-2 2.2.2 Changes in Development........................................................................................................... 2-2 2.2.3 New Analysis Capabilities......................................................................................................... 2-2 2.3 The Updated Plan —What Is Different?.............................................................................................. 2-3 3. Plan Update Approach................................................................................................................................. 3-1 3.1 Grant Funding...................................................................................................................................... 3-1 3.2 Formation of the Core Planning Team................................................................................................ 3-1 3.3 Defining Stakeholders......................................................................................................................... 3-2 3.4 Establishment of the Planning Partnership.......................................................................................... 3-2 3.4.1 Initial Outreach.......................................................................................................................... 3-2 3.4.2 Planning Partners Kickoff Meeting............................................................................................ 3-2 3.4.3 Planning Partner Expectations................................................................................................... 3-2 3.4.4 Local Mitigation Planning Teams and Jurisdictional Annexes .................................................. 3-3 3.4.5 Participating Planning Partners.................................................................................................. 3-3 3.5 Defining the Planning Area................................................................................................................. 3-3 3.6 The Steering Committee...................................................................................................................... 3-5 3.7 Coordination with Stakeholders and Agencies.................................................................................... 3-5 3.8 Review of Previous Hazard Mitigation Plan....................................................................................... 3-7 3.9 Review of Existing Programs.............................................................................................................. 3-8 3.10 Public Involvement.......................................................................................................................... 3-10 3.10.1 Strategy.................................................................................................................................. 3-10 3.10.2 Public Involvement Results................................................................................................... 3-17 3.11 Plan Development Chronology/Milestones..................................................................................... 3-17 4. Harris County Profile................................................................................................................................... 4-1 4.1 Planning Area Overview..................................................................................................................... 4-1 4.1.1 Development and Notable Features........................................................................................... 4-1 4.1.2 Transportation............................................................................................................................4-1 4.1.3 Forms of Government................................................................................................................ 4-3 4.1.4 Historical Summary................................................................................................................... 4-3 4.2 Major Past Hazard Events................................................................................................................... 4-3 4.3 Physical Setting................................................................................................................................... 4-4 4.3.1 Watersheds and Drainage Infrastructure.................................................................................... 4-4 4.3.2 Geology...................................................................................................................................... 4-5 4.3.3 Soils and Wetlands..................................................................................................................... 4-6 TETRA TECH v Harris County Multi -Hazard Mitigation Action Plan; Volume 1—Area-Wide Elements 4.3.4 Climate....................................................................................................................................... 4-6 4.4 Development Profile............................................................................................................................ 4-7 4.4.1 Building Occupancy and Estimated Value................................................................................ 4-7 4.4.2 Agricultural Uses....................................................................................................................... 4-7 4.4.3 Critical Facilities and Infrastructure.......................................................................................... 4-7 4.4.4 Future Trends in Development................................................................................................ 4-15 4.5 Demographics.................................................................................................................................... 4-15 4.5.1 Population Characteristics....................................................................................................... 4-15 4.5.2 Households and Homeownership............................................................................................ 4-18 4.5.3 Age Distribution.......................................................................................................................4-18 4.5.4 Race, Ethnicity and Language................................................................................................. 4-19 4.5.5 Individuals with Disabilities or with Access and Functional Needs ........................................ 4-20 4.5.6 Education................................................................................................................................. 4-20 4.6 Economy............................................................................................................................................ 4-21 4.6.1 Income..................................................................................................................................... 4-21 4.6.2 Industry, Businesses and Institutions....................................................................................... 4-22 4.6.3 Employment.............................................................................................................................4-23 5. Regulations and Programs........................................................................................................................... 5-1 5.1 Federal and State Agencies, Programs and Regulations..................................................................... 5-1 5.2 Local Plans, Reports and Codes.......................................................................................................... 5-1 5.3 Local Capability Assessment.............................................................................................................. 5-3 5.3.1 Legal and Regulatory Capabilities............................................................................................. 5-4 5.3.2 Fiscal Capabilities...................................................................................................................... 5-4 5.3.3 Administrative and Technical Capabilities................................................................................ 5-4 5.3.4 NFIP Compliance....................................................................................................................... 5-4 5.3.5 Public Outreach Capability........................................................................................................ 5-4 5.3.6 Participation in Other Programs................................................................................................. 5-4 5.3.7 Development and Permitting Capability.................................................................................... 5-5 5.3.8 Adaptive Capacity...................................................................................................................... 5-5 5.3.9 Integration Opportunity............................................................................................................. 5-5 PART 2- RISK ASSESSMENT 6. Identified Hazards of Concern and Risk Assessment Methodology............................................................ 6-1 6.1 Identified Hazards of Concern ............................................................................................................. 6-1 6.2 Risk Assessment Tools........................................................................................................................ 6-2 6.2.1 Mapping..................................................................................................................................... 6-2 6.2.2 Modeling.................................................................................................................................... 6-2 6.3 Risk Assessment Approach................................................................................................................. 6-3 6.3.1 Earthquake, Flood and Hurricane.............................................................................................. 6-3 6.3.2 All Other Assessed Hazards....................................................................................................... 6-4 6.4 Sources of Data Used.......................................................................................................................... 6-4 6.4.1 Building and Cost Data.............................................................................................................. 6-4 6.4.2 Hazus Data Inputs...................................................................................................................... 6-4 6.4.3 Other Local Hazard Data........................................................................................................... 6-5 6.4.4 Data Source Summary............................................................................................................... 6-5 6.5 Limitations........................................................................................................................................... 6-5 7. Coastal Erosion............................................................................................................................................ 7-1 7.1 General Background............................................................................................................................ 7-1 7.1.1 Causes........................................................................................................................................ 7-1 7.1.2 Impacts....................................................................................................................................... 7-2 Vi TETRA TECH Contents 7.1.3 Mitigation................................................................................................................................... 7-2 7.1.4 Texas Coastline Erosion............................................................................................................ 7-2 7.2 Hazard Profile...................................................................................................................................... 7-2 7.2.1 Past Events................................................................................................................................. 7-2 7.2.2 Location..................................................................................................................................... 7-2 7.2.3 Frequency................................................................................................................................... 7-4 7.2.4 Severity...................................................................................................................................... 7-4 7.2.5 Warning Time............................................................................................................................ 7-4 7.3 Secondary Hazards.............................................................................................................................. 7-4 7.4 Exposure and Vulnerability................................................................................................................. 7-4 7.5 Future Trends in Development............................................................................................................ 7-4 7.6 Scenario............................................................................................................................................... 7-4 7.7 Issues................................................................................................................................................... 7-4 8. Dam or Levee Failure.................................................................................................................................. 8-1 8.1 General Background............................................................................................................................ 8-1 8.1.1 Definition...................................................................................................................................8-1 8.1.2 Causes of Failure (Breach)......................................................................................................... 8-1 8.1.3 Impacts of Failure...................................................................................................................... 8-2 8.1.4 Regulatory Oversight................................................................................................................. 8-2 8.2 Hazard Profile...................................................................................................................................... 8-6 8.2.1 Past Events................................................................................................................................. 8-6 8.2.2 Location..................................................................................................................................... 8-6 8.2.3 Frequency................................................................................................................................. 8-10 8.2.4 Severity.................................................................................................................................... 8-10 8.2.5 Warning Time.......................................................................................................................... 8-12 8.3 Secondary Hazards............................................................................................................................ 8-12 8.4 Exposure............................................................................................................................................ 8-12 8.4.1 Population................................................................................................................................8-12 8.4.2 Property.................................................................................................................................... 8-13 8.4.3 Critical Facilities...................................................................................................................... 8-14 8.4.4 Environment............................................................................................................................. 8-14 8.5 Vulnerability...................................................................................................................................... 8-15 8.5.1 Population................................................................................................................................8-15 8.5.2 Property.................................................................................................................................... 8-15 8.5.3 Critical Facilities...................................................................................................................... 8-15 8.5.4 Environment............................................................................................................................. 8-16 8.6 Future Trends in Development.......................................................................................................... 8-16 8.7 Scenario.............................................................................................................................................8-16 8.8 Issues................................................................................................................................................. 8-16 9. Drought........................................................................................................................................................ 9-1 9.1 General Background............................................................................................................................ 9-1 9.1.1 Monitoring and Categorizing Drought....................................................................................... 9-1 9.1.2 Local Water Supply................................................................................................................... 9-4 9.2 Hazard Profile...................................................................................................................................... 9-4 9.2.1 Past Events................................................................................................................................. 9-4 9.2.2 Location..................................................................................................................................... 9-7 9.2.3 Frequency................................................................................................................................... 9-7 9.2.4 Severity...................................................................................................................................... 9-8 9.2.5 Warning Time............................................................................................................................ 9-9 TETRA TECH vii Harris County Multi -Hazard Mitigation Action Plan; Volume 1—Area-Wide Elements 9.3 Secondary Hazards.............................................................................................................................. 9-9 9.4 Exposure.............................................................................................................................................. 9-9 9.5 Vulnerability........................................................................................................................................ 9-9 9.5.1 Population................................................................................................................................9-10 9.5.2 Property.................................................................................................................................... 9-10 9.5.3 Critical Facilities...................................................................................................................... 9-10 9.5.4 Environment............................................................................................................................. 9-10 9.6 Future Trends in Development.......................................................................................................... 9-11 9.7 Scenario.............................................................................................................................................9-11 9.8 Issues................................................................................................................................................. 9-11 10. Earthquake............................................................................................................................................... 10-1 10.1 General Background........................................................................................................................ 10-1 10.1.1 Earthquake Classifications..................................................................................................... 10-1 10.1.2 Ground Shaking..................................................................................................................... 10-2 10.1.3 Liquefaction and Soil Types.................................................................................................. 10-3 10.2 Hazard Profile.................................................................................................................................. 10-4 10.2.1 Past Events............................................................................................................................. 10-4 10.2.2 Location................................................................................................................................. 10-4 10.2.3 Frequency............................................................................................................................... 10-4 10.2.4 Severity.................................................................................................................................. 10-4 10.2.5 Warning Time........................................................................................................................ 10-5 10.3 Secondary Hazards.......................................................................................................................... 10-6 10.4 Exposure.......................................................................................................................................... 10-6 10.4.1 Population.............................................................................................................................. 10-6 10.4.2 Property.................................................................................................................................. 10-7 10.4.3 Critical Facilities and Infrastructure...................................................................................... 10-7 10.4.4 Environment........................................................................................................................... 10-7 10.5 Vulnerability.................................................................................................................................... 10-7 10.5.1 Population.............................................................................................................................. 10-7 10.5.2 Property.................................................................................................................................. 10-9 10.5.3 Critical Facilities and Infrastructure.................................................................................... 10-10 10.5.4 Environment......................................................................................................................... 10-10 10.6 Future Trends in Development...................................................................................................... 10-10 10.7 Scenario......................................................................................................................................... 10-10 10.8 Issues............................................................................................................................................. 10-10 11. Flooding................................................................................................................................................... 11-1 11.1 General Background........................................................................................................................ 11-1 11.1.1 Types of Flooding.................................................................................................................. 11-1 11.1.2 Measuring Floods and Floodplains........................................................................................ 11-1 11.1.3 FEMA Regulatory Flood Zones............................................................................................. 11-2 11.1.4 Floodplain Ecosystems and Beneficial Functions................................................................. 11-3 11.1.5 Effects of Human Activities................................................................................................... 11-3 11.2 Hazard Profile.................................................................................................................................. 11-4 11.2.2 Principal Flood Problems....................................................................................................... 11-8 11.2.3 Flood Control in the Planning Area....................................................................................... 11-9 11.2.4 Flood Insurance in the Planning Area.................................................................................... 11-9 11.2.5 Past Events........................................................................................................................... 11-12 11.2.6 Location............................................................................................................................... 11-14 11.2.7 Frequency............................................................................................................................. 11-17 Viii TETRA TECH Contents 11.2.8 Severity................................................................................................................................ 11-17 11.2.9 Warning Time...................................................................................................................... 11-26 11.3 Secondary Hazards........................................................................................................................ 11-27 11.4 Exposure........................................................................................................................................ 11-27 11.4.1 Population............................................................................................................................ 11-27 11.4.2 Property ................................................................................................................................ 11-27 11.4.3 Critical Facilities and Infrastructure.................................................................................... 11-28 11.4.4 Environment......................................................................................................................... 11-30 11.5 Vulnerability.................................................................................................................................. 11-30 11.5.1 Population............................................................................................................................ 11-30 11.5.2 Property ................................................................................................................................ 11-33 11.5.3 Critical Facilities and Infrastructure.................................................................................... 11-36 11.5.4 Environment......................................................................................................................... 11-37 11.6 Future Trends in Development...................................................................................................... 11-37 11.7 Scenario......................................................................................................................................... 11-38 11.8 Issues............................................................................................................................................. 11-38 12. Hurricane and Coastal Storm................................................................................................................... 12-1 12.1 General Background........................................................................................................................ 12-1 12.2 Hazard Profile.................................................................................................................................. 12-1 12.2.1 Past Events............................................................................................................................. 12-1 12.2.2 Location............................................................................................................................... 12-12 12.2.3 Frequency............................................................................................................................. 12-12 12.2.4 Severity................................................................................................................................ 12-12 12.2.5 Warning Time...................................................................................................................... 12-17 12.3 Secondary Hazards........................................................................................................................ 12-17 12.4 Exposure........................................................................................................................................ 12-18 12.4.1 Population............................................................................................................................ 12-18 12.4.2 Property ................................................................................................................................ 12-18 12.4.3 Critical Facilities and Infrastructure.................................................................................... 12-18 12.4.4 Environment......................................................................................................................... 12-18 12.5 Vulnerability.................................................................................................................................. 12-18 12.5.1 Population............................................................................................................................ 12-18 12.5.2 Property ................................................................................................................................ 12-19 12.5.3 Critical Facilities and Infrastructure.................................................................................... 12-20 12.5.4 Environment......................................................................................................................... 12-21 12.6 Future Trends in Development...................................................................................................... 12-21 12.7 Scenario......................................................................................................................................... 12-21 12.8 Issues............................................................................................................................................. 12-22 13. Mass Movements..................................................................................................................................... 13-1 13.1 General Background........................................................................................................................ 13-1 13.1.1 Landslide................................................................................................................................ 13-1 13.1.2 Sinkholes................................................................................................................................ 13-3 13.1.3 Subsidence............................................................................................................................. 13-4 13.2 Hazard Profile.................................................................................................................................. 13-4 13.2.1 Past Events............................................................................................................................. 13-4 13.2.2 Location................................................................................................................................. 13-5 13.2.3 Frequency............................................................................................................................... 13-6 13.2.4 Severity.................................................................................................................................. 13-7 13.2.5 Warning Time........................................................................................................................ 13-7 TETRA TECH ix Harris County Multi -Hazard Mitigation Action Plan; Volume 1—Area-Wide Elements 13.3 Secondary Hazards.......................................................................................................................... 13-7 13.4 Exposure and Vulnerability............................................................................................................. 13-8 13.5 Future Trends in Development........................................................................................................ 13-8 13.6 Scenario........................................................................................................................................... 13-8 13.7 Issues............................................................................................................................................... 13-8 14. Severe Weather........................................................................................................................................ 14-1 14.1 General Background........................................................................................................................ 14-1 14.1.1 Thunderstorms....................................................................................................................... 14-1 14.1.2 Hail......................................................................................................................................... 14-2 14.1.3 Extreme Heat......................................................................................................................... 14-4 14.1.4 Tornados and Damaging Winds............................................................................................. 14-6 14.1.5 Winter Storms and Freeze...................................................................................................... 14-8 14.2 Hazard Profile................................................................................................................................ 14-10 14.2.1 Past Events........................................................................................................................... 14-10 14.2.2 Location............................................................................................................................... 14-14 14.2.3 Frequency............................................................................................................................. 14-14 14.2.4 Severity................................................................................................................................ 14-14 14.2.5 Warning Time...................................................................................................................... 14-16 14.3 Secondary Hazards........................................................................................................................ 14-16 14.4 Exposure........................................................................................................................................ 14-16 14.5 Vulnerability.................................................................................................................................. 14-16 14.5.1 Population............................................................................................................................ 14-16 14.5.2 Property................................................................................................................................ 14-17 14.5.3 Critical Facilities.................................................................................................................. 14-17 14.5.4 Environment......................................................................................................................... 14-19 14.6 Future Trends in Development...................................................................................................... 14-19 14.7 Scenario......................................................................................................................................... 14-19 14.8 issues............................................................................................................................................. 14-19 15. Tsunami.................................................................................................................................................... 15-1 15.1 General Background........................................................................................................................ 15-1 15.2 Hazard Profile.................................................................................................................................. 15-2 15.2.1 Past Events............................................................................................................................. 15-2 15.2.2 Location................................................................................................................................. 15-3 15.2.3 Frequency............................................................................................................................... 15-4 15.2.4 Severity.................................................................................................................................. 15-4 15.2.5 Warning Time........................................................................................................................ 15-4 15.3 Secondary Hazards.......................................................................................................................... 15-5 15.1 Exposure and Vulnerability............................................................................................................. 15-5 15.2 Future Trends in Development........................................................................................................ 15-5 15.3 Scenario........................................................................................................................................... 15-5 15.4 Issues............................................................................................................................................... 15-5 16. Wildfire.................................................................................................................................................... 16-1 16.1 General Background........................................................................................................................ 16-1 16.1.1 Fire Risk Index Based on Drought......................................................................................... 16-1 16.1.2 Wildfire Classifications......................................................................................................... 16-2 16.2 Hazard Profile.................................................................................................................................. 16-2 16.2.1 Past Events............................................................................................................................. 16-2 16.2.2 Location................................................................................................................................. 16-2 16.2.3 Frequency............................................................................................................................... 16-5 X TETRA TECH Contents 16.2.4 Severity.................................................................................................................................. 16-8 16.2.5 Warning Time........................................................................................................................ 16-8 16.3 Secondary Hazards.......................................................................................................................... 16-8 16.4 Exposure.......................................................................................................................................... 16-9 16.4.1 Population.............................................................................................................................. 16-9 16.4.2 Property .................................................................................................................................. 16-9 16.4.3 Critical Facilities and Infrastructure...................................................................................... 16-9 16.4.4 Environment........................................................................................................................... 16-9 16.5 Vulnerability.................................................................................................................................. 16-11 16.5.1 Population............................................................................................................................ 16-11 16.5.2 Property ................................................................................................................................ 16-11 16.5.3 Critical Facilities and Infrastructure.................................................................................... 16-11 16.5.4 Environment......................................................................................................................... 16-12 16.6 Future Trends in Development...................................................................................................... 16-12 16.7 Scenario......................................................................................................................................... 16-12 16.8 Issues............................................................................................................................................. 16-13 17. Other Hazards of Interest......................................................................................................................... 17-1 17.1 Energy Pipeline Failure................................................................................................................... 17-1 17.1.1 General Background.............................................................................................................. 17-1 17.1.2 Past Events............................................................................................................................. 17-1 17.1.3 Location................................................................................................................................. 17-2 17.1.4 Frequency............................................................................................................................... 17-2 17.1.5 Severity.................................................................................................................................. 17-3 17.1.6 Warning Time........................................................................................................................ 17-3 17.1.7 Secondary Hazards................................................................................................................. 17-3 17.2 Toxic Release/Hazardous Materials................................................................................................ 17-3 17.2.1 General Background.............................................................................................................. 17-3 17.2.2 Causes.................................................................................................................................... 17-3 17.2.3 Reporting Standards............................................................................................................... 17-4 17.2.4 Past Events............................................................................................................................. 17-4 17.2.5 Location................................................................................................................................. 17-4 17.2.6 Frequency............................................................................................................................... 17-6 17.2.7 Severity.................................................................................................................................. 17-6 17.2.8 Warning Time........................................................................................................................ 17-6 17.2.9 Secondary Hazards................................................................................................................. 17-6 18. Climate Change........................................................................................................................................ 18-1 18.1 General Background........................................................................................................................ 18-1 18.1.1 What is Climate Change?....................................................................................................... 18-1 18.1.2 How Climate Change Affects Hazard Mitigation.................................................................. 18-2 18.1.3 Current Indicators of Climate Change................................................................................... 18-2 18.1.4 Projected Future Impacts....................................................................................................... 18-3 18.1.5 Responses to Climate Change................................................................................................ 18-4 18.2 Climate Change Impacts on Natural Hazards.................................................................................. 18-5 18.2.1 Coastal Erosion...................................................................................................................... 18-5 18.2.2 Dam Failure........................................................................................................................... 18-5 18.2.3 Drought.................................................................................................................................. 18-5 18.2.4 Earthquake............................................................................................................................. 18-6 18.2.5 Flood...................................................................................................................................... 18-6 18.2.6 Mass Movement..................................................................................................................... 18-6 TETRA TECH A Harris County Multi -Hazard Mitigation Action Plan; Volume 1—Area-Wide Elements 18.2.7 Severe Weather, Including Hurricanes and Coastal Storms .................................................. 18-6 18.2.8 Tsunami................................................................................................................................. 18-7 18.2.9 Wildfire.................................................................................................................................. 18-7 18.3 Issues............................................................................................................................................... 18-7 19. Risk Ranking............................................................................................................................................ 19-1 19.1 Probability of Occurrence................................................................................................................ 19-1 19.2 Impact.............................................................................................................................................. 19-2 19.3 Risk Rating and Ranking................................................................................................................. 19-4 PART 3— MITIGATION STRATEGY 20. Mission Statement, Goals and Objectives................................................................................................ 20-1 20.1 Mission Statement........................................................................................................................... 20-1 20.2 Goals................................................................................................................................................ 20-1 20.3 Objectives........................................................................................................................................ 20-2 21. Mitigation Best Practices and Adaptive Capacity.................................................................................... 21-1 21.1 Mitigation Best Practices................................................................................................................. 21-1 21.2 Adaptive Capacity......................................................................................................................... 21-10 22. Area -Wide Action Plan............................................................................................................................ 22-1 22.1 Recommended Mitigation Actions.................................................................................................. 22-1 22.2 Benefit -Cost Review....................................................................................................................... 22-1 22.3 Action Plan Prioritization................................................................................................................ 22-3 22.4 Classification of Mitigation Actions................................................................................................ 22-3 22.5 area -wide Action Plan Implementation........................................................................................... 22-4 23. Plan Adoption, Implementation and Maintenance................................................................................... 23-1 23.1 Plan Adoption.................................................................................................................................. 23-1 23.2 Action Plan Implementation............................................................................................................ 23-1 23.3 Plan Maintenance Strategy.............................................................................................................. 23-1 23.3.1 Plan Monitoring -Annual Progress Reporting........................................................................ 23-2 23.3.2 Plan Evaluation...................................................................................................................... 23-3 23.3.3 Plan Update............................................................................................................................ 23-4 23.3.4 Grant Monitoring and Coordination...................................................................................... 23-4 23.3.5 Incorporation into Other Planning Mechanisms.................................................................... 23-5 23.3.6 Continuing Public Participation............................................................................................. 23-5 References............................................................................................................................................................ I Listof Acronyms.................................................................................................................................................1 Appendices Appendix A. Public Involvement Materials Appendix B. Summary of Federal and State Agencies, Programs and Regulations Appendix C. Risk Assessment Results Appendix D. Detailed Planning Area Flood History Appendix E. Plan Adoption Resolutions from Planning Partners xii TETRA TECH Contents Tables Table2-1. Plan Changes Crosswalk....................................................................................................................... 2-3 Table 3-1. Hazard Mitigation Planning Partners Covered Under This Plan.......................................................... 3-4 Table 3-2. Steering Committee Members............................................................................................................... 3-6 Table 3-3. Stakeholder Agencies Notified About Plan Update Progress............................................................... 3-7 Table 3-4. Core Capability Exercise Results.......................................................................................................... 3-9 Table 3-5. Summary of Public Outreach Events.................................................................................................. 3-18 Table 3-6. Plan Development Chronology/Milestones........................................................................................ 3-18 Table 4-1. Historical Harris County Natural Hazard Events.................................................................................. 4-4 Table 4-2. Planning Area Building Counts by Occupancy Type........................................................................... 4-8 Table 4-3. Farms in the Harris County Planning Area 2017.................................................................................. 4-9 Table 4-4. Typical Facilities in Designated Critical Facilities/Infrastructure Categories ...................................... 4-9 Table 4-5. Planning Area Critical Facilities......................................................................................................... 4-14 Table 4-6. Population Growth Data...................................................................................................................... 4-16 Table 4-7. Projected Population 2020-2050 by Race/Ethnicity for Harris County ........................................... 4-20 Table 4-8. Earnings for Full Time Workers in Harris County............................................................................. 4-21 Table 5-1. Summary of Relevant Federal Agencies, Programs and Regulations................................................... 5-2 Table 5-2. Summary of Relevant State Agencies, Programs and Regulations....................................................... 5-3 Table 6-1. Hazus Model Data Documentation....................................................................................................... 6-6 Table 8-1. Harris County Dam Hazard Data.......................................................................................................... 8-6 Table 8-2. Harris County Dam Inspection Dates................................................................................................... 8-9 Table 8-3. Conroe Dam Hazard Data..................................................................................................................... 8-9 Table 8-4. Corps of Engineers Hazard Potential Classification........................................................................... 8-11 Table 8-5. Conroe Dam Severity Statistics.......................................................................................................... 8-11 Table 8-6. Population Living in the Conroe Dam Failure Inundation Area ......................................................... 8-13 Table 8-7. Exposure and Value of Structures in Lake Conroe Dam Failure Inundation Areas ........................... 8-13 Table 8-8 Loss Estimates for Lake Conroe Dam Failure 8-15 ..................................................................................... Table 9-1. Harris County U.S. Drought Monitor Data 2000-2016......................................................................... 9-6 Table 9-2. USDA Farm Service Agency Drought Disaster Designations for Harris County ................................ 9-7 Table 9-3. State Drought Disaster Proclamations for Harris County (2006 - 2018).............................................. 9-7 Table 10-1. Mercalli Scale and Peak Ground Acceleration Comparison............................................................. 10-2 Table 10-2. NEHRP Soil Classification System.................................................................................................. 10-4 Table 10-3. Age of Housing Units in Planning Area........................................................................................... 10-9 Table 10-4. Estimated Impact of Earthquake Scenario Events in the Planning Area ........................................ 10-11 Table 11-1. Flood Insurance Statistics............................................................................................................... 11-10 Table 11-2. CRS Community Status in the Planning Area................................................................................ 11-11 Table 11-3. History of Flood Events.................................................................................................................. 11-12 Table 11-4. Summary of Peak Discharges in the Planning Area....................................................................... 11-21 Table 11-5. Summary of Stillwater Elevations Along Galveston Bay............................................................... 11-26 Table 11-6. Area and Structures in the Flood Hazard Areas of the Planning Area ............................................ 11-28 Table 11-7. Aggregate Values of Structures Within the Scenario Floodplains.................................................. 11-28 Table 11-8. Existing Land Use Within the Scenario Floodplains...................................................................... 11-28 Table 11-9. Estimated Flood Impact on Persons and Households..................................................................... 11-31 Table 11-10. Loss Estimates for Scenario Flood Events.................................................................................... 11-33 Table 11-11. Estimated Flood -Caused Debris.................................................................................................... 11-33 Table 11-12. Repetitive Loss Properties............................................................................................................. 11-34 Table 11-13. Damage Level to Critical Facilities Exposed to the 1-Percent-Annual-Chance Flood ................. 11-37 TETRA TECH xiii Harris County Multi -Hazard Mitigation Action Plan; Volume 1-Area-Wide Elements Table 11-14. Damage Level to Critical Facilities Exposed to the Harvey Flood Scenario ................................ 11-37 Table 12-1. The Saffir-Simpson Scale............................................................................................................... 12-16 Table 12-2. Estimated Hurricane Impact on Persons and Households............................................................... 12-19 Table 12-3. Loss Estimates for Scenario Hurricane Events............................................................................... 12-19 Table 12-4. Estimated Hurricane -Caused Debris............................................................................................... 12-20 Table 12-5. Damage Level to Critical Facilities Exposed to the 20-Year Hurricane ......................................... 12-20 Table 12-6. Damage Level to Critical Facilities Exposed to the 100-Year Hurricane ....................................... 12-20 Table 12-7. Damage Level to Critical Facilities Exposed to the Hurricane Alicia Scenario ............................. 12-21 Table 14-1. Convective Outlooks - Thunderstorm Risk Categories.................................................................... 14-2 Table 14-2. Modified NOAA/TORRO Hailstorm Intensity Scale....................................................................... 14-5 Table 14-3. Enhanced-Fujita-Pearson Scale for Tornados................................................................................... 14-8 Table 14-4. Beaufort Wind Scale......................................................................................................................... 14-9 Table 14-5. Statistical Breakdown of Severe Weather Events; 1999 to 2019.................................................... 14-11 Table 14-6. Significant Severe Weather Events by Category; 1999 to 2019..................................................... 14-11 Table 14-7. Loss Potential for Severe Weather.................................................................................................. 14-18 Table 14-8. Loss of Use Estimates for Power Failure for the Planning Area ..................................................... 14-19 Table 16-1. Wildfire Historical Occurrences in Harris County (2005 - 2016).................................................... 16-3 Table 16-2. Harris County Population Exposure to the Wildfire Hazard............................................................. 16-9 Table 16-3. Harris County Property Exposure to the Wildfire Hazard................................................................ 16-9 Table 16-4. Loss Estimates for Fire Hazard Severity Zones.............................................................................. 16-11 Table 17-1. Toxic / Hazardous Materials Responses in Harris County (2010 - 2013)......................................... 17-4 Table 19-1. Probability of Hazards....................................................................................................................... 19-2 Table 19-2. Impact on People from Hazards........................................................................................................ 19-3 Table 19-3. Impact on Property from Hazards..................................................................................................... 19-3 Table 19-4. Impact on Economy from Hazards................................................................................................... 19-4 Table 19-5. Hazard Risk Rating........................................................................................................................... 19-4 Table 19-6. Hazard Risk Ranking........................................................................................................................ 19-4 Table 19-7. Aggregate Risk Ranking Results for all Planning Partners............................................................... 19-5 Table 21-1. Alternatives to Mitigate the Dam Failure Hazard............................................................................. 21-2 Table-21-2. Alternatives to Mitigate the Drought Hazard.................................................................................... 21-2 Table-21-3. Alternatives to Mitigate the Earthquake Hazard............................................................................... 21-3 Table-21-4. Alternatives to Mitigate the Flooding Hazard.................................................................................. 21-4 Table-21-5. Alternatives to Mitigate the Hurricane Hazard................................................................................. 21-5 Table-21-6. Alternatives to Mitigate the Landslide Hazard................................................................................. 21-6 Table-21-7. Alternatives to Mitigate the Severe Weather Hazard....................................................................... 21-7 Table 21-8. Alternatives to Mitigate the Tsunami Hazard................................................................................... 21-8 Table-21-9. Alternatives to Mitigate the Wildfire Hazard................................................................................... 21-9 Table22-1. Action Plan........................................................................................................................................ 22-2 Table 22-2. Prioritization of Area -Wide Mitigation Actions............................................................................... 22-3 Table 22-3. Analysis of Mitigation Actions......................................................................................................... 22-4 Table-23-1. Plan Maintenance Matrix.................................................................................................................. 23-2 Figures Figure 3-1. Sample Page from Hazard Mitigation Plan Web Site........................................................................ 3-12 Figure 3-2. Example Planning Process Bulletin................................................................................................... 3-13 Figure 3-3. Sample Page from Survey Distributed to the Public......................................................................... 3-14 Figure 3-4. Phase 1 Public Meeting..................................................................................................................... 3-15 xiv TETRA TECH Contents Figure 3-5. Presentation at Phase 1 Public Meeting............................................................................................. 3-15 Figure 3-6. Hazus Workstation at Phase 1 Meeting............................................................................................. 3-16 Figure 3-7. Example Workstation Report ............................................................................................................. 3-16 Figure 3-8. Facebook post announcing Hazard Mitigation survey....................................................................... 3-16 Figure 4-1. Harris County Planning Area............................................................................................................... 4-2 Figure 4-2. Harris County Watersheds................................................................................................................... 4-5 Figure 4-3. Texas Climate Divisions...................................................................................................................... 4-6 Figure 4-4. Critical Facilities and Infrastructure -Government and Education .................................................. 4-10 Figure 4-5. Critical Facilities and Infrastructure-Health/Medical and Transportation ...................................... 4-11 Figure 4-6. Critical Facilities and Infrastructure -Emergency Services and Utilities ......................................... 4-12 Figure 4-7. Critical Facilities and Infrastructure -Hazardous Materials and Historic/Cultural Sites .................. 4-13 Figure 4-8. Population Distribution in Harris County.......................................................................................... 4-17 Figure 4-9. Current and Projected Population for Harris County......................................................................... 4-18 Figure 4-10. Planning Area Age Distribution...................................................................................................... 4-19 Figure 4-11. Planning Area Race Distribution..................................................................................................... 4-20 Figure 4-12. Industry in the Planning Area.......................................................................................................... 4-22 Figure 4-13. Texas and Harris County Unemployment Rate............................................................................... 4-24 Figure 4-14. Occupations in the Planning Area................................................................................................... 4-24 Figure 7-1. Shoreline Changes Between 1930s and 2012...................................................................................... 7-3 Figure 8-1. Counties Exempt from the Texas Dam Safety Program...................................................................... 8-4 Figure 8-2. Dam Locations within the Planning Area............................................................................................ 8-8 Figure 8-3. Occupancy Types in Lake Conroe Dam Inundation Areas............................................................... 8-13 Figure 8-4. Critical Facilities and Infrastructure in Conroe Dam Failure Inundation Zones Countywide........... 8-14 Figure 9-1. Palmer Z Index Short -Term Drought Conditions (September 2019).................................................. 9-2 Figure 9-2. Palmer Drought Severity Index (October 2019).................................................................................. 9-2 Figure 9-3. Palmer Hydrological Drought Index (September 2019)...................................................................... 9-3 Figure 9-4. 24-Month Standardized Precipitation Index Ending October 14, 2019............................................... 9-3 Figure 9-5. Palmer Crop Moisture Index for Week Ending October 12, 2019...................................................... 9-4 Figure 9-6. Percent Area of the Texas Gulf Basin Experiencing Severe to Extreme Drought .............................. 9-5 Figure 10-1. Peak Acceleration (%g) with 10% Probability of Exceedance in 50 Years .................................... 10-3 Figure 10-2. Probability of Experiencing an Earthquake in Texas...................................................................... 10-5 Figure 10-3. Peak Acceleration with 2% Percent Probability of Exceedance in 50 Years .................................. 10-6 Figure 10-4. 500-Year Probabilistic Earthquake Scenario................................................................................... 10-8 Figure 11-1. CRS Communities by Class Nationwide as of October 2016........................................................ 11-11 Figure 11-2. Flooding During Hurricane Harvey............................................................................................... 11-15 Figure 11-3. FEMA Flood Hazard Areas........................................................................................................... 11-16 Figure 11-4. Coastal Flood Hazard Areas in Harris County.............................................................................. 11-18 Figure 11-5. Flood Depth for the 1 % Annual Chance Riverine Flood............................................................... 11-19 Figure 11-6. Flood Depth for the Harvey Flood Event...................................................................................... 11-20 Figure 11-7. Critical Facilities and Infrastructure in Mapped Flood Hazard Areas and Countywide ................ 11-29 Figure 11-8. Flood Repetitive Loss Properties................................................................................................... 11-35 Figure 12-1. Major Hurricanes Since 1851.......................................................................................................... 12-2 Figure 12-2. All Tropical Cyclones Since 1900................................................................................................... 12-2 Figure 12-3. Ruined Homes from the Galveston Hurricane................................................................................. 12-3 Figure 12-4. Significant Business District Damage Along the Texas Coast Following Hurricane Beulah ......... 12-5 Figure 12-5. Path of Hurricane Alicia, 1983........................................................................................................ 12-6 Figure 12-6. Path of Tropical Storm Allison, 2001.............................................................................................. 12-8 Figure 12-7. Debris Over Highway 146 in Seabrook, Texas in the aftermath of Hurricane Ike ........................ 12-11 Figure 12-8. 20-Year Probabilistic Hurricane.................................................................................................... 12-13 TETRA TECH xv Harris County Multi -Hazard Mitigation Action Plan; Volume 1—Area-Wide Elements Figure 12-9. 100-Year Probabilistic Hurricane.................................................................................................. 12-14 Figure 12-10. Hurricane Alicia Deterministic Scenario..................................................................................... 12-15 Figure 12-11. Empirical Probability of a Named Storm..................................................................................... 12-16 Figure13-1. Deep Seated Slide............................................................................................................................ 13-2 Figure 13-2. Shallow Colluvial Slide................................................................................................................... 13-2 Figure13-3. Bench Slide...................................................................................................................................... 13-2 Figure13-4. Large Slide....................................................................................................................................... 13-2 Figure 13-5. Typical Debris Avalanche Scar and Trac........................................................................................ 13-2 Figure 13-6. Subsidence in Harris County from 1906-2000................................................................................ 13-5 Figure 13-7. Harris -Galveston Coastal Subsidence District Regulatory Area Map ............................................. 13-6 Figure 14-1. Annual Average Number of Thunder Events.................................................................................. 14-3 Figure 14-2. Large Hail on Streets and Grass During a Severe Thunderstorm, with Stones up to 3 Inches........ 14-3 Figure 14-3. Annual Frequency of Hailstorms in the United States..................................................................... 14-4 Figure14-4. Extreme Heat Index......................................................................................................................... 14-5 Figure 14-5. Tornado South of Dimmitt, Texas, June 2, 1995, Which Reached an F-4 Level of Intensity......... 14-6 Figure 14-6. Tornado Activity in the United States............................................................................................. 14-7 Figure 14-7. Effects of Air Temperature on Winter Precipitation Events............................................................ 14-9 Figure 14-8. Wind Chill Chart............................................................................................................................ 14-10 Figure 15-1. Common Sources of Tsunamis........................................................................................................ 15-1 Figure 15-2. Runup Distance and Height in Relation to the Datum and Shoreline .............................................. 15-2 Figure 15-3. Tsunami Risk Based on Historical Impact Events........................................................................... 15-3 Figure 15-4. Texas A&M Galveston Tsunami Model Simulation....................................................................... 15-3 Figure 16-1. Wildfire Historical Occurrence Information for Harris County ...................................................... 16-4 Figure 16-2. Texas Forest Service Wildland Urban Interface In and Around Harris County .............................. 16-4 Figure16-3. Wildfire Threat................................................................................................................................ 16-6 Figure 16-4. Wildfire Ignition Density................................................................................................................. 16-7 Figure 16-5. Critical Facilities Mapped Wildfire Ignition Density Zones Countywide ..................................... 16-10 Figure 17-1. Pipeline Failure Hazard Areas in Harris County............................................................................. 17-2 Figure 17-2. Toxic Release / Haz-Mat Hazard Areas in Harris County............................................................... 17-5 Figure 18-1. Global Carbon Dioxide Concentrations Over Time........................................................................ 18-1 xvi TETRA TECH Acknowledgments ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Harris County Office of Homeland Security & Emergency Management • Brian Murray, Planning Supervisor • Ashley Schutt, GIS Specialist • Brian Dunaway, GIS Specialist • Benzon John, Mitigation Planner Consultants • Rob Flaner, CFM, Tetra Tech, Inc., Project Manager • Carol Baumann, GISP, Tetra Tech, Inc., Risk Assessment Lead • Chrissie Angeletti, JD, Tetra Tech, Inc., Outreach • Brian Rutherford, Tetra Tech, Inc., Lead Planner • Melissa Schloss, Tetra Tech, Inc., Planner • Dan Portman, Tetra Tech, Inc., Technical Editor Planning Partners • Jamie Galloway, Emergency Management Coordinator (EMC), City of Baytown • Deacon Tittel, Fire Chief/EMC, City of Bellaire • Karen Glynn, City Administrator, City of Bunker Hill Village • Howard Miller, Fire Chief/EMC, Village Fire Department • Robert Hemminger, Emergency Services Director, City of Deer Park • Thomas Merchant, EMC, City of El Lago • Brian Mansfield, Deputy Fire Marshal/ EMC, City of Friendswood • Jorge Flores, EMC, City of Galena Park • Kelly Johnson, City Administrator, City of Hedwig Village • Susan Blevins, City Administrator, City of Hilshire Village • Jesse Morales, Permits Manager, Harris County • James Nykaza, EMC, City of Humble • Tom Fullen, City Administrator, City of Hunters Creek • Mark Bitz, Fire Chief/EMC, City of Jersey Village • Greg Goedecker, EMC, City of Katy • Dena Mahan, Assistant EMC, City of LaPorte • Matt Rios, Fire Marshall/EMC, City of Missouri City • Sherri Ditrich, Chief of Police, City of Morgan's Point • Jason E. Reynolds, City Manager, City of Nassau Bay • Frank Bengochea, EMC, City of Pasadena • Roger Nelson, City Administrator, City of Piney Point Village • Jeff Galyean, Director of the Office of Emergency Management, City of Seabrook • Troy D. Harrison, Chief of Police, City of Shoreacres • Don McCall, Chief of Police, City of Southside Place TETRA TECH xvii Harris County Multi -Hazard Mitigation Action Plan; Volume 1—Area-Wide Elements • Julie M. Robinson, City Administrator, City of Spring Valley Village • Peter Alvarado, EMC, City of Stafford • John Powell, Councilman, City of Taylor Lake Village • Randy Parr, Fire Chief/EMC, City of Tomball • Patrick Shipp, Fire Chief/EMC, City of Webster • Aaron Taylor, Fire Chief/EMC, West University Place • Matt Morgan, Assistant Superintendent for Facilities and Construction, Cypress Fairbanks Independent School District • Todd Ward, Risk Mitigation Department Manager, Harris County Flood Control District • Ray W. Higgins, Director of Emergency Management, Harris Health System • William Earl Finley, Sr. Manager, Risk Management, Houston Independent School System • Tim Brittain, Chief Financial Officer, Huffman Independent School System • Carla Merka, Chief Financial Officer, Pasadena Independent School System • Dr. Oluponmile Olonilua, Professor, Texas Southern University • Kelly Boysen, Director of Emergency Management, University of Houston • Derrick Harris, Business Analyst/Project Manager, Lone Star College • Warren J. Porter, Safety & Emergency Preparedness Manager, Texas Medical Center • Robert McCracken, Executive Director of Emergency Management, Houston Community College • James Novick, Battalion Chief, Harris County Emergency Services District 12 Coordinating Agencies • Texas Division of Emergency Management • Federal Emergency Management Agency Region VI • Insurance Services Office • Texas Water Development Board • Bayou City Waterkeeper • Coalition for Environment, Equity and Resilience • Cypress Creek Flood Control Coalition • Alamo Trust • American Institute of Architects, Houston Chapter • Bleyl Engineering • Houston Hospice • Inframark Water and Infrastructure Services • Preservation Houston • Texas Children's Hospital • Texas Medical Center • University of Houston, College of Engineering • West Houston Association • Region 4 Education Service Center • Port of Houston Authority • Greater Houston Flood Mitigation Consortium • Rice University, Severe Storm Prediction, Education, & Evacuation from Disasters Center • Rice University, Kinder Institute • Texas A&M Galveston, Center for Texas Beaches and Shores • Texas A&M Extension Service, Texas Community Watershed Partners • University of Houston, Institute of Climate and Atmospheric Science xviii TETRA TECH Acknowledgments • University of Houston, Hurricane Resilience Research Institute • Association of Water Board Directors —Texas • Bayou City Initiative • Bayou Land Conservancy • Houston Advanced Research Center • Citizens Environmental Coalition • Texas Houser • Preservation Houston • Greater Houston Partnership • Local Initiative Support Corporation Greater Houston • NAACP Houston • Houston Hispanic Chamber of Commerce • Buffalo Bayou Partnership • Armand Bayou Nature Center • American Society of Adaptation Professionals - Houston • Sierra Club Houston • Texas A&M University, Hazard Reduction and Recovery Center • Center for Houston's Future • Texas Division of Emergency Management • Texas General Land Office • Texas Water Development Board • Texas Forest Service • San Jacinto River Authority • U.S. Army Corps Galveston District • Houston Galveston Subsidence District • Brazoria County • Chamber County • Fort Bend County • Galveston County • Liberty County • Montgomery County • Waller County • City of Houston, OEM • City of Houston, Mayors Office of Resilience • City of Houston, Floodplain Management Office Special Acknowledgments The development of this plan would not have been possible without the dedication and commitment to this process by the Hazard Mitigation Plan Steering Committee. The dedication of this volunteer committee to allocate their time to this process is greatly appreciated. Also, the citizens of Harris County are to be commended for their participation in the outreach strategy identified by the Steering Committee. This outreach success will set the course for successful implementation of this plan. TETRA TECH xix EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Hazard mitigation planning for Harris County identifies ways to reduce risk from foreseeable natural hazards that may impact the county. Harris County prepared an initial hazard mitigation plan in 2015, with cities and special purpose jurisdictions in the county participating as partners in the plan. Since the completion of that plan, the County has continued to experience major growth in residential, commercial and infrastructure development. Over the last five years, 70,390 development permits were issued in Harris County, and the number of residential properties increased by 13 percent. Over the last decade, population outside the Sam Houston Tollway grew faster than the area inside the tollway, adding to development across the county. Current and future development in hazard prone areas may increase risks, impacts and vulnerabilities of people and property in the county. To address these changes, and to meet federal requirements for keeping hazard mitigation plans current, Harris County has completed the 2020 Harris County Multi -Hazard Mitigation Action Plan —the first update to the initial 2015 plan. In preparing it, Harris County again partnered with local cities and special-purpose jurisdictions-38 planning partners in all. Such multi jurisdictional planning allows these partners to pool resources and eliminate redundant activities within an area that has uniform risk exposure and vulnerabilities. This hazard mitigation plan reduces risk for those who live in, work in, and visit Harris County. The resources and background information in the plan are applicable across the county, and the plan's goals and recommendations lay groundwork for local mitigation activities and partnerships. COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT IN THE HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE This planning effort was led by a core planning team of staff from the Harris County Office of Homeland Security and Emergency Management (HCOHSEM) and consultant Tetra Tech, Inc. The broader Harris County community participated in the development of the update through the following activities: • Defining Stakeholders —The team identified stakeholders to engage during the update. "Stakeholder" was defined as any person or entity that owns or operates facilities that would benefit from the mitigation actions of this plan or has a capability to support hazard mitigation actions. • Establishing the Planning Partnership —The team identified eligible local governments to engage through this plan update process. Over 50 eligible local governments were identified by this screening process for additional outreach. Ultimately, 38 participated as full planning partners (see Table ES-1). • Forming the Steering Committee —Harris County established a 32-member Steering Committee that represents the entire planning partnership to oversee the planning process. • Reviewing Previous Hazard Mitigation Plan and Existing Programs —The planning team and Steering Committee reviewed the 2015 hazard mitigation plan, as well as all laws, ordinances and programs in effect within the county that can affect hazard mitigation actions. • Public Outreach —The update effort included a website describing update activities, a survey distributed throughout the county to gather public input, the use of social media and informational bulletins to report on update activities, and public meetings to explain the update process and gather feedback. More than 1,600 people completed surveys, and thousands attended the various public outreach events. TETRA TECH xx Executive Summary Table ES-1. Hazard Mitigation Planning Partners Covered Under This Plan Harris Coun UILY of Humble City of Seabrook Houston Independent School DlstrlCt City of Hunters Creek Village City of Shoreacres Huffman Independent School District City of Baytown City of Bellaire City of Jersey Village City of Spring Valley Village Pasadena Independent School District City of Bunker Hill Village City of Katy City of Stafford Houston Community College City of Deer Park City of La Porte City of Taylor Lake Village Lone Star College City of El Lao City of Missouri City City of Tomball University of Houston City of Friendswood City of Mor an's Point City of Webster Harris County Emergency Services District 12 City of Galena Park City of Nassau Bay City of West University Place Harris County Flood Control Texas Medical Center City of Hedwig Village City of Pasadena Harris County Hospital District City of Hilshire Village City of Piney Point Village District (dba Harris Health System) PLANNING AREA, HAZARDS OF CONCERN, AND RISK ASSESSMENT The planning area for this hazard mitigation plan update was defined to consist of the unincorporated county, incorporated cities, and special-purpose districts within the greater Harris County metropolitan area, as well as portions of neighboring counties where any individual planning partners have jurisdiction. The Steering Committee considered the full range of natural hazards that could affect the planning area and then identified those that present the greatest concern. Risk assessment is the process of estimating the potential loss of life, personal injury, economic injury, and property damage resulting from identified hazards. The risk assessments in this plan describe the risks associated with each identified hazard of concern. The following steps were used to assess the risk of each hazard: Identify and profile each hazard Determine "exposure" to each hazard —Exposure was assessed by overlaying hazard maps with an inventory of structures, facilities, and systems to decide which of them would be exposed to each hazard. Assess the "vulnerability" of exposed facilities —Vulnerability of exposed structures and infrastructure was evaluated by interpreting the probability of occurrence of each event and assessing potential damage to structures, facilities, and systems that are exposed to each hazard. Table ES-2 summarizes the findings of the risk assessment. RISK RANKING This update includes a risk ranking protocol for each planning partner, in which "risk" was calculated by multiplying probability by impact on people, property and the economy. The risk estimates were generated using methodologies promoted by the Federal Emergency Management Agency. The Steering Committee reviewed, discussed and approved the methodology and results. The countywide ranking results are listed in Table ES-3. All planning partners ranked risk for their own jurisdictions following the same methodology. MISSION STATEMENT, GOALS AND OBJECTIVES Table ES-4 lists the mission statement, goals and objectives for this hazard mitigation plan update, as established by the Steering Committee. TETRA TECH xxi Harris County Multi -Hazard Mitigation Action Plan; Volume 1—Area-Wide Elements Coastal erosion Risk not assessed because no historical damage values could be identified for losses due to erosion within the planning area. Dam or levee failure • 0.5% of total planning area population • Damage equal to 0.07% of total planning area property value (failure of the Conroe • Structures valued at 0.5% of planning Dam) area total • 1.2% of all planning area critical facilities Drought • Entire planning area exposed • No quantitative loss estimates Earthquake (500-year • Entire planning area exposed • 2 households displaced probabilistic event) • Damage equal to 0.5% of total planning area property value Flooding (1 % annual • 8.9% of total planning area population • 170,000 persons displaced chance event) • Structures valued at 8.9% of planning • Damage equal to 0.8% of total planning area property value area total • 1.4 million tons of debris to be removed • 23.0% of all planning area critical • Critical facilities structure damage equal to 9.9% of total value facilities for exposed facilities • Critical facilities content damage equal to 33.4% of total value for exposed facilities Hurricane, coastal • Entire planning area exposed • 1,083 households displaced storm (20-year • Damage equal to 0.2% of total planning area property value probabilistic event) • 240,000 tons of debris to be removed • Minor damage to 4% of critical facilities • Moderate damage to 5.5% of critical facilities • Severe damage to 0.4% of critical facilities Mass movements Exposure and vulnerability are low to none, based on the lack of historical occurrence of these types of hazards and the planning area's proactive approach to mitigating subsidence issues starting in 1999. Severe weather • Entire planning area exposed • No quantitative loss estimates Tsunami Exposure and vulnerability are low to none, based on the lack of historical occurrence of tsunami Wildfire (Moderate, • 0.7% of total planning area population No quantitative loss estimates high or very high • Structures valued at 1.0% of planning wildfire ignition area total density zone) • 0.4% of all planning area critical facilities Table ES-3. Hazard Risk Ranking �.rnr:u��.rw:au�' • �inri�-1K•u��'i1�'W'ii� Hurricane and Coastal Storms 51 High 1 Severe Weather 51 High 2 Flood 36 High 3 Wildfire 24 Medium 4 Earthquake 16 Medium Coastal Erosion 6 Low Drought 6 Low 5 Dam Failure 6 Low Mass Movements 6 Low Tsunami 6 Low a. Scores of 30 or greater are rated as "high," scores of 15 to 29 are "medium," and scores of less than 15 are "low" xxii TETRA TECH Executive Summary Table ES-4. Mission Statement, Goals and Develop and maintain 1. Expand warning systems and local 1. Improve and expand systems that provide warning and emergency a comprehensive pre- warning capabilities among communications to the whole community and post -disaster departments and between 2. Implement wildfire mitigation and watershed protection strategies hazard mitigation jurisdictions. through local, state, tribal, federal and private partnerships. program. The Mission 2. Improve and coordinate data 3. Improve understanding of the locations, potential impacts, and Statement is guided collection efforts to fully maximize linkages among threats, hazards, vulnerability, and measures needed by the effective use of the intent of the efforts and to to protect life safety and health. technology and data, improve the mitigation capabilities 4. Reduce the impacts of hazards on individuals with disabilities and improved of the county and all jurisdictions. others with access and functional needs. communications and 3. Enhance education strategies to 5. Coordinate state and local efforts to reduce greenhouse gas warning, the improve the dissemination of emissions and implement climate adaptation strategies through purchase of information to the public regarding hazard mitigation plans and actions. necessary equipment, hazards, including the steps that 6. Control access and provide buffers to maximize resource protection sound planning, the can be taken to reduce their impact. where possible. adoption of codes, 4. Improve the capabilities of local 7. Encourage all state, regional and local hazard mitigation projects and enhanced government officials to reduce or planning programs to protect the environment and promote transportation eliminate hazards that cause loss of implementation of sustainable mitigation and climate resilience networks, expanded life, inflict injuries, cause property actions. education and damage and to improve the 8. Support hazard mitigation measures that promote and enhance outreach efforts, protection of natural resources. natural processes and minimize adverse impacts on the ecosystem. strengthened public 5. Work to improve and coordinate 9. Encourage all cities, counties, special districts, Councils of facilities and existing local plans, codes and Governments and tribal organizations to develop, adopt, and infrastructure, the regulations to reduce the impacts of implement local hazard mitigation principles that may be integrated utilization/enhanceme natural hazards. with local comprehensive plan safety elements, local coastal plans, nt of natural 6. Implement property protection facilities master plans, and other local plan initiatives. resources, the measures to reduce the effects of 10. Advance community resilience through preparation, adoption, and consideration of natural hazards throughout the implementation of state, regional and local multi -hazard mitigation future hazard county, including measures that plans and projects. conditions and the reduce or eliminate repetitive loss 11. Encourage projects that simultaneously reduce risk while increasing implementation of occurrences. resilience and sustainability. projects designed to 7. Investigate and implement a range 12. Manage new and existing development in high hazard areas, reduce the of structural projects that will reduce especially those known to be repetitively damaged. vulnerability of the effects of natural hazards on 13. Support the protection of vital and essential records, and individuals, families, public and private property strengthening or replacement of buildings, infrastructure, and lifelines households, throughout the county. to minimize post -disaster disruption and facilitate short-term and long - businesses, 8. Investigate and implement a range term recovery. infrastructure and of nature -based solutions and utilize 14. Through the enforcement of relevant federal, State and local critical facilities to the and enhance natural resources and regulations, sustain life and property protection measures for all negative effects of their ability to reduce the impacts communities and structures located in the greater Harris County natural and human- from natural hazards region. caused hazards. 15. Promote disaster resistant development. MITIGATION ACTION PLANS Catalogs of hazard mitigation best practices were developed that present a broad range of action alternatives to be considered for use by the planning partners. One catalog was developed for each hazard of concern. The alternatives include actions that will mitigate current risk from hazards and actions that will help reduce risk from changes in the impacts of these hazards resulting from climate change. Hazard mitigation actions recommended in this plan were selected from an analysis of the alternatives presented in the catalogs. Each planning partner selected appropriate mitigation actions to establish an individual mitigation TETRA TECH xxiii Harris County Multi -Hazard Mitigation Action Plan; Volume 1—Area-Wide Elements action plan for its jurisdiction. Actions were selected based on an analysis of the planning partner's ability to implement the action and general feasibility. The combined action plans of the 38 planning partners include a total of 750 actions for mitigating hazard risks in the Harris County planning area. The planning partners have prioritized the actions in their action plans and can begin to implement the highest -priority actions over the next five years. PLAN IMPLEMENTATION AND MAINTENANCE The effectiveness of the hazard mitigation plan depends on its effective implementation and incorporation of the outlined action items as needed into each partner's existing plans, policies, and programs. Harris County will have lead responsibility for overseeing the plan implementation and maintenance strategy. Plan implementation will be a shared responsibility among all planning partnership members and agencies identified as lead agencies in the jurisdiction -specific action plans. A formal implementation and maintenance process will ensure that the hazard mitigation plan remains an active and relevant document and that the planning partners maintain their eligibility for applicable funding sources. The plan maintenance process includes a schedule for monitoring and evaluating the plan annually and producing an updated plan every five years. The plan maintenance matrix shown in Table ES-5 provides a synopsis of responsibilities for the overall plan maintenance strategy. Table ES-5. Plan Maintenance Matrix Monitoring- Preparation of status updates and Progress action implementation tracking as Reporting part of submission for annual progress report. Evaluation Annual progress reports will be evaluated by an oversight steering committee annually Update Reconvene the planning partners, at a minimum, every 5 years to guide a full review and revision of the plan. Grant Monitor grant funding opportunities Monitoring and via agency notifications, state Coordination associations and post -disaster response Plan Create a linkage between the hazard Integration mitigation plan and individual jurisdictions' comprehensive plans or similar plans January to January of each calendar year or upon full update to comprehensive plan or major disaster Finalized progress report completed by March 1 of each year Every 5 years or upon full update to comprehensive plan or major disaster Ongoing Ongoing as opportunities for integration become available, or according to timelines identified in individual actions plans Jurisdictional points of contact Jurisdictional implementation lead HCOHSEM Jurisdictional points of contacts HCOHSEM and oversight Jurisdictional steering committee points of contacts HCOHSEM Jurisdictional points of contacts Jurisdictional points of contact Jurisdictional implementation lead Continuing Keep the website maintained and 'Ongoing. Progress reports to be HCOHSEM will maintain the HCOHSEM and Public receive comments through it over posted annually. overall website and post the jurisdictional Involvement the course of the plan. Planning progress report annually. implementation partners will maintain links to the Each planning partner will lead website. County -wide progress provide a link to the website report will be posted to the website. and may post individual progress reports. xxiv TETRA TECH Harris County Multi -Hazard Mitigation Action Plan PART 1-PLANNING PROCESS AND COMMUNITY PROFILE 1. INTRODUCTION TO HAZARD MITIGATION PLANNING 1.1 WHY PREPARE THIS PLAN? 1.1.1 The Big Picture Hazard mitigation is defined as any action taken to reduce or alleviate the loss of life, personal injury, and property damage that can result from a disaster. It involves long- and short-term actions implemented before, during and after disasters. Hazard mitigation activities include planning efforts, policy changes, programs, studies, improvement projects, and other steps to reduce the impacts of hazards. For many years, federal disaster funding focused on relief and recovery after disasters occurred, with limited funding for hazard mitigation planning in advance. The Disaster Mitigation Act (DMA), passed in 2000, shifted the federal emphasis toward planning for disasters before they occur. The DMA requires state and local governments to develop hazard mitigation plans as a condition for federal disaster grant assistance. Regulations developed to fulfill the DMA's requirements are included in Title 44 of the Code of Federal Regulations (44 CFR). The responsibility for hazard mitigation lies with many, including private property owners, commercial interests, and local, state and federal governments. The DMA encourages cooperation among state and local authorities in pre -disaster planning. The enhanced planning network called for by the DMA helps local governments to articulate accurate needs for mitigation, resulting in faster allocation of funding and more cost-effective risk - reduction projects. The DMA also promotes sustainability in hazard mitigation. To be sustainable, hazard mitigation needs to incorporate sound management of natural resources and address hazards and mitigation in the largest possible social and economic context. 1.1.2 Purposes for Planning Hazard mitigation planning for Harris County helps to identify strategies and actions that will reduce risk for those who live in, work in, and visit the county. In addition, hazard mitigation planning provides a viable planning framework for all foreseeable natural hazards that may impact the county. Furthermore, participation in the development of the plan by key stakeholders in the county helps to ensure that outcomes will be mutually beneficial. Benefits of hazard mitigation planning include the following: • Reduce economic hardship and the loss of life, property, essential services, and critical facilities • Reduce short-term and long-term recovery and reconstruction costs • Increase cooperation and communication within the community through the planning process • Increase potential for state and federal funding for pre- and post -disaster projects. Harris County prepared a hazard mitigation plan in compliance with the DMA in 2015. Cities and special purpose jurisdictions within the county participated as planning partners in the plan. That initial plan identified resources, TETRA TECH 1-1 Harris County Multi -Hazard Mitigation Action Plan; Volume 1—Area-Wide Elements information, and strategies for reducing risk from natural hazards. It called for ongoing updates. This Harris County Multi -Hazard Mitigation Action Plan fulfills the ongoing update requirement. In preparing this update, Harris County has again partnered with local cities and special-purpose jurisdictions. One of the benefits of such multi jurisdictional planning is the ability to pool resources and eliminate redundant activities within a planning area that has uniform risk exposure and vulnerabilities. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) encourages multi jurisdictional planning under its guidance for the DMA. Elements and strategies in the plan were selected because they meet a program requirement and because they best meet the needs of all the planning partners and their citizens. The Harris County Multi -Hazard Mitigation Action Plan will help guide and coordinate mitigation activities throughout the planning area. It was developed to meet the following objectives: • Identify measures that can be taken to reduce the harmful impacts of hazards and protect lives and property. • Reassess risk and local hazards of concern considering recent disasters and identified vulnerabilities. • Meet or exceed state and federal requirements for mitigation planning. • Enable all planning partners to qualify for federal grant funding to reduce risk through mitigation. • Meet the planning requirements of FEMA's Community Rating System (CRS), allowing eligible planning partners to consider participation in the CRS program. • Coordinate existing plans and programs so that high -priority projects to mitigate possible disaster impacts are funded and implemented. • Lesson economic impacts from disasters and enhance community resiliency. 1.2 WHO WILL BENEFIT FROM THIS PLAN? All citizens and businesses of Harris County are the ultimate beneficiaries of this hazard mitigation plan. The plan reduces risk for those who live in, work in, and visit the planning area. It provides a viable planning framework for all foreseeable natural hazards. Participation in development of the plan by key stakeholders helped ensure that outcomes will be mutually beneficial. The resources and background information in the plan are applicable across the planning area, and the plan's goals and recommendations can lay groundwork for the development and implementation of local mitigation activities and partnerships. 1.3 CONTENTS OF THIS PLAN This plan has been set up in two volumes so that elements that are jurisdiction -specific can easily be distinguished from those that apply to the whole planning area: Volume 1Volume 1 includes all federally required elements of a disaster mitigation plan that apply to the entire planning area. This includes the description of the planning process, public involvement strategy, goals and objectives, planning area hazard risk assessment, and a plan maintenance strategy. Volume 2—Volume 2 includes all federally required jurisdiction -specific elements, in annexes for each participating jurisdiction. It includes a description of the participation requirements established by the Steering Committee, as well as instructions and templates that the partners used to complete their annexes. Volume 2 also includes "linkage" procedures for eligible jurisdictions that did not participate in development of this plan but wish to adopt it in the future. Both volumes include elements required under federal guidelines. DMA compliance requirements are cited at the beginning of subsections as appropriate to indicate compliance. 1-2 TETRA TECH 1. Introduction to Hazard Mitigation Planning The following appendices provided at the end of Volume 1 include information or explanations to support the main content of the plan: • Appendix A —Public involvement information used in preparation of this update • Appendix B—A summary of federal and state programs and regulations relevant to hazard mitigation. • Appendix C—Quantitative results from risk assessment modeling. • Appendix D—A detailed list of historical flood events in Harris County. • Appendix E—Plan adoption resolutions from planning partners. All planning partners will adopt Volume 1 in its entirety and at least the following parts of Volume 2: Part 1; each partner's jurisdiction -specific annex; and the appendices. TETRA TECH 1-3 2. PLAN UPDATE WHAT HAS CHANGED 2.1 THE PREVIOUS PLAN The 2015 Harris County, Texas, Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan was prepared for a planning partnership that consisted of Harris County, 28 municipalities, four special-purpose jurisdictions, and four non-profit entities within the county. This multi jurisdiction approach addressed several meaningful considerations: • Multi jurisdictional planning allows participating partners to pool resources and eliminate redundant activities within a planning area. • The County provides many services on a countywide basis that influence or directly impact all phases of emergency management. • Due to limited financial resources at the municipal level, the ability of each city and special-purpose jurisdiction to prepare a DMA -compliant plan was uncertain. • FEMA promotes multi jurisdictional planning, so a multi jurisdictional partnership was more likely to receive grant funding for the planning effort. The 2015 plan recommended 672 hazard mitigation actions. The actions address the following identified hazards of concern: • Flooding • Hurricanes and coastal storms • Severe thunderstorms • Tornados • Hail • Wildfire • Drought • Extreme heat • Winter storms and freezes • Coastal erosion • Dam/levee failure • Earthquakes • Sinkholes • Subsidence • Landslides • Tsunami • Toxic release/hazardous materials • Energy pipeline failures Participating planning partners completed jurisdiction -specific components to the plan, thereby achieving DMA compliance. FEMA issued approval of the plan on July 27, 2015. TETRA TECH 2-1 Harris County Multi -Hazard Mitigation Action Plan; Volume 1—Area-Wide Elements 2.2 WHY UPDATE? 2.2.1 Federal Eligibility Under 44 CFR, hazard mitigation plans must present a schedule for monitoring, evaluating, and updating the plan. This provides an opportunity to reevaluate recommendations, monitor the impacts of actions that have been accomplished, and determine if there is a need to change the focus of mitigation strategies. A jurisdiction covered by a plan that has expired is not able to pursue elements of federal funding for which a current hazard mitigation plan is a prerequisite. 2.2.2 Changes in Development Hazard mitigation plan updates must be revised to reflect changes in development within the planning area during the previous performance period of the plan (44 CFR Section 201.6(d)(3)). The plan must describe changes in development in hazard -prone areas that increased or decreased vulnerability for each jurisdiction since the last plan was approved. If no changes in development impacted the jurisdiction's overall vulnerability, plan updates may validate the information in the previously approved plan. The intent of this requirement is to ensure that the mitigation strategy continues to address the risk and vulnerability of existing and potential development and takes into consideration possible future conditions that could impact vulnerability. The planning area experienced a 14.8-percent increase in population between 2000 and 2018, an average annual growth rate of 1.8 percent per year. In 2018, there were 1,768,827 housing units (U.S. Census Bureau, 2018). This is a 7 percent increase over the 1,768,827 housing units recorded in 2013. Harris County and its municipalities have comprehensive plans that govern land -use decisions and policy -making, as well as building codes based on state and federal guidance. This plan update assumes that some new development triggered by increased population occurred in hazard areas. Because all such new development would have been regulated pursuant to local programs and codes, it is assumed that vulnerability did not increase even if exposure did. Jurisdiction - specific development trends for each planning partner are summarized in the annexes provided in Volume 2. Harris County continues to experience major changes in development and growth in residential, commercial and infrastructure developments across the county. Over the last five years, 70,390 development permits were issued in the planning area, of which 37,660 were residential structures, valued at an estimated $48.2 billion in new construction. The total number of residential properties in Harris County, including single family, multifamily, and agricultural property, has increased by 13 percent since 2015.Over the last decade, population outside the Sam Houston Tollway has grown significantly faster than the area inside the Tollway; adding to development within the county. Current and future development located within hazard prone areas may increase risks, impacts and vulnerabilities within the county. The mitigation actions proposed in this plan seek to reduce these adverse effects within the county. 2.2.3 New Analysis Capabilities The risk assessment for the 2015 plan used both quantitative and qualitative analyses. A multi jurisdictional planning team chose the following risk factors to use as criteria for a risk analysis: • Severity of impact • Frequency of impact • Warning time • Cascading potential • Historical occurrence • Damage vulnerability • Affected area potential 2-2 TETRA TECH 2. Plan Update —What Has Changed • Perceived risk survey of all signatories and emergency managers The planning team assigned weights to each risk factor of 10 or 15 percent, distributed to total 100 percent. Each participating jurisdiction used the weighted risk factors to assess its own risk for every hazard with the potential to affect the planning area. Risk scores were taken into account and each hazard was evaluated using a weighted average. Hazards with the highest score pose the greatest risk to the planning area. For this plan update, risk ranking used quantitative data from enhanced risk assessment modeling with the Hazus software. This methodology is built upon a definition of risk as follows: Risk = Probability x Impact where impact = the impact on the people, property and economy of the planning area Thresholds were established for each factor and weighted values were assigned so that each planning partner could individually quantify the impacts of each hazard of concern and rank those impacts as high, medium or low. This enabled each planning partner to identify and prioritize actions for hazards of concern with the highest impacts on their jurisdiction. Local knowledge based on practical experience was utilized by each planning partner to validate the results of the quantitative modeling. This approach is a quantitative assessment using data and science, rather than subjective or qualitative assessments used in the 2015 plan methodology. 2.3 THE UPDATED PLAN -WHAT IS DIFFERENT? The updated plan differs from the initial plan in a variety of ways. Table 2-1 indicates the major changes between the two plans as they relate to 44 CFR planning requirements. §201.6(b): In order to develop a more comprehensive approach to reducing the effects of natural disasters, the planning process shall include: (1) An opportunity for the public to comment on the plan during the drafting stage and prior to plan approval; (2) An opportunity for neighboring communities, local and regional agencies involved in hazard mitigation activities, and agencies that have the authority to regulate development, as well as businesses, academia and other private and non-profit interests to be involved in the planning process; and (3) Review and incorporation, if appropriate, of existing plans, studies, reports, and technical information. Table 2-1. Plan Changes Crosswalk The plan update process followed a widely recognized approach that meets the requirements of FEMA and the Texas Department of Public Safety, Division of Emergency Management. This process was deployed over three phases that included the opportunity for public comment, agency coordination and the review and incorporation of plans, programs and studies into the plan update. This was fully documented in Section 3 of the plan. This plan update process built upon the successes of the 2015 planning effort using an approach tied more closely to maximizing credit potential under FEMA's Community Rating System (CRS) program. The process was enhanced with an emphasis on maximizing CRS credit under Activity 510, for Planning Steps 1, 2, and 3 for multi -jurisdictional planning efforts. This included: • A two-phase public outreach strategy deployed to gauge the public's perception of risk early in the process, and an opportunity to comment on the draft plan late in the process. • A strategy for agency coordination and inclusion in the plan update process • A comprehensive core capability assessment process designed to identify existing core capabilities that can support or enhance the outcomes of this plan. All of this is documented in Volume 1, Chapter 3 of the plan update TETRA TECH 2-3 Harris County Multi -Hazard Mitigation Action Plan; Volume 1—Area-Wide Elements §201.6(c)(2): The plan shall include a risk assessment that provides the factual basis for activities proposed in the strategy to reduce losses from identified hazards. Local risk assessments must provide sufficient information to enable the jurisdiction to identify and prioritize appropriate mitigation actions to reduce losses from identified hazards. §201.6(c)(2)(i): [The risk assessment shall include a] description of the ... location and extent of all natural hazards that can affect the jurisdiction. The plan shall include information on previous occurrences of hazard events and on the probability of future hazard events. §201.6(c)(2)(ii): [The risk assessment shall include a] description of the jurisdiction's vulnerability to the hazards described in paragraph (c)(2)(i). This description shall include an overall summary of each hazard and its impact on the community The Plan includes a detailed risk assessment of 19 identified hazards of concern. Each hazard of concern was profiled to provide the following information: • General description of the hazard including type, location, and extent of all hazards that impact each jurisdiction within the planning area. • Discussion of destructive characteristics from a national and local perspective • Information on historical occurrences of hazard events • The probability of future hazard occurrence Each hazard of concern was profiled to include: • Mapping of the extent and location of the hazard • Overview of historical occurrence • Probabilities for future occurrences • Estimate of vulnerability to both population and general building stock Each profiled hazard of concern includes a qualitative assessment of the vulnerability of the population and general building stock to each hazard of concern within the planning area. These vulnerability assessments were broken down by municipal boundaries. Volume 1 Part 2 presents a risk assessment of 11 hazards of concern. These identified hazards were condensed from the 2015 plan to streamline the plan. The hazards are profiled as they impact the Harris County planning area. Hazard profiles are standardized for each hazard of concern, so that there is uniformity in the discussion of each hazard and the information provided can support ranking of risk for each jurisdiction. Other hazards of interest were qualitatively assessed to develop a more complete picture of the hazards facing the planning area. The planning area for this update was expanded from that utilized in the 2015 plan to include areas outside of Harris County to cover all assets at risk for planning partners that have jurisdictional boundaries in multiple counties. Volume 1 Part 2 presents a risk assessment of each hazard of concern. Each chapter includes the following components: • Hazard profile, including maps of extent and location, historical occurrences, frequency, severity, and warning time. • Secondary hazards • Exposure of people, property, critical facilities and environment. • Vulnerability of people, property, critical facilities and environment. • Future trends in development • Scenarios • Issues Vulnerability was assessed for all hazards of concern. The Hazus risk assessment platform was used for the dam failure, earthquake, flood and hurricane hazards. These were Level 2 (user defined) analyses using city and county data. Site -specific data on County -identified critical facilities were entered into the Hazus model. Hazus outputs were generated for other hazards by applying an estimated damage function to an asset inventory extracted from Hazus. The risk assessment methodology for this plan update is described in Part 2, Chapter 6 of this volume §201.6(c)(2)(ii): [The risk Appendix D of the Plan includes a summary profile Volume 1, Part 2, Chapter 13, Section 13.5.2 of assessment] must also address of repetitive loss properties by jurisdiction within the plan includes a comprehensive analysis of National Flood Insurance the Planning area. repetitive loss areas that includes an inventory of Program insured structures that the number and types of structures in the have been repetitively damaged repetitive loss area. floods Repetitive loss areas are delineated, causes of repetitive flooding are cited, and these areas are reflected on maps. 2-4 TETRA TECH 2. Plan Update —What Has Changed §201.6(c)(2)(ii)(A): The plan should describe vulnerability in terms of the types and numbers of existing and future buildings, infrastructure, and critical facilities located in the identified hazard area. §201.6(c)(2)(ii)(B): [The plan should describe vulnerability in terms of an] estimate of the potential dollar losses to vulnerable structures identified in paragraph (c)(2)(i)(A) and a description of the methodology used to prepare the estimate. §201.6(c)(2)(ii)(C): (The plan should describe vulnerability in terms ot] providing a general description of land uses and development trends within the community so that mitigation options can be considered in future land use decisions. §201.6(c)(3): The plan shall include a mitigation strategy that provides the jurisdiction's blueprint for reducing the potential losses identified in the risk assessment, based on existing authorities, policies, programs and resources, and its ability to expand on and improve these existing tools. A vulnerability assessment methodology was applied as part a risk factor ranking protocol identified for each planning partner. A detailed high-level vulnerability assessment was then completed for all hazards with the exception of coastal erosion, earthquakes, sinkholes, subsidence, landslides, and tsunamis. Each of these hazards is considered to pose negligible risk to the planning area; the reasons for which are described. The loss estimation methodology used was derived from the FEMA Inventory Assets Worksheet and Estimated Losses Worksheet identified in FEMA 386-2: Understanding Your Risks — Identifying Hazards and Estimating Losses. This process allowed the planning partnership to examine hazards using a uniform methodology. The community profile section of the plan includes a discussion on existing land use in the county, but the discussion is not hazard -specific. There is no discussion on future land uses expected for the planning area. The current update used Hazus to model impacts from dam failure, earthquake, flood and hurricane hazards. A complete inventory of the numbers and types of buildings exposed was generated for each hazard of concern. Critical facilities were defined for the planning area, and these facilities were inventoried by exposure. Each hazard chapter provides a discussion on future development trends. Dollar loss estimates were generated for all hazards of concern. These estimates were generated by Hazus for the dam failure, earthquake, flood and hurricane hazards. For the other hazards, loss estimates were generated by applying a regionally relevant damage function to the exposed inventory. In all cases, a damage function was applied to an asset inventory. The asset inventory was the same for all hazards and was generated in Hazus. There is a discussion of the overall land use within the planning area, and a spatial analysis of land use was performed for hazards with a clearly defined extent and location. There is a discussion on future development trends as they pertain to each hazard of concern. This discussion looks predominantly at the existing land use and the current regulatory environment that dictates this land use. The plan includes a robust mitigation strategy The plan contains a mission statement, goals, section, identifying prioritized actions, those objectives and actions. The actions are responsible for their implementation, potential jurisdiction specific and strive to meet multiple funding sources, and an estimated target date for objectives. The objectives of this plan are broad completion. Each action is listed with the but measurable. All objectives meet multiple accompanying information. This approach provides goals and stand alone as components of the plan. those in charge of the plan's implementation with a Each planning partner was asked to complete a clear roadmap that can serve as an important capability assessment that looks at its regulatory, monitoring tool. The collection of actions serves as technical and financial capabilities. a menu of policies and projects for decision makers who want to quickly review the key contents of the plan. §201.6(c)(3)(i): [The hazard Based on the findings of the risk assessment and A mission statement, eight goals, and 15 mitigation strategy shall include a] the capabilities assessment, the 2015 plan objectives are described in Part 3 of this volume. description of mitigation goals to identifies a mission statement, goals, policies and Goals were adapted from those in the 2015 plan. reduce or avoid long-term actions that were intended to guide both the day- Objectives were identified that meet multiple vulnerabilities to the identified to -day operations and the long-term approach goals and were used to help establish priorities hazards. taken by counties and municipalities to reduce the for the action items identified in the plan. The impacts of hazards objectives are measurable components of the plan and are the basis for identifying and prioritizing multi -objective actions. TETRA TECH 2-5 Harris County Multi -Hazard Mitigation Action Plan; Volume 1—Area-Wide Elements §201.6(c)(3)(ii): [The mitigation strategy shall include a] section that identifies and analyzes a comprehensive range of specific mitigation actions and projects being considered to reduce the effects of each hazard, with particular emphasis on new and existing buildings and infrastructure. §201.6(c)(3)(ii): [The mitigation strategy] must also address the jurisdiction's participation in the National Flood Insurance Program, and continued compliance with the program's requirements, as appropriate. §201.6(c)(3)(iii): [The mitigation strategy shall describe] how the actions identified in Section (c)(3)(ii) will be prioritized, implemented, and administered by the local jurisdiction. Prioritization shall include a special emphasis on the extent to which benefits are maximized according to a cost benefit review of the proposed projects and their associated costs. Many participants attended one of three workshops to assist jurisdictions in developing action items by providing an information sharing forum to identify actions and strategies that meet the goals of the Plan and FEMA guidelines, and that are in some cases being utilized by others in the region. All results from the workshop were provided to all participants immediately following the meeting. All actions chosen by the participants fell into one of the broad categories of mitigation techniques. NFIP-related action items were identified using the same methods as all other mitigation action items, as listed at the new mitigation action item development and workshops. All items were analyzed and prioritized using the STAPLEE (Social, Technological, Administrative, Political, Legal, Economic, and Environmental) criteria, which encompassed the technical, administrative, fiscal, and political capabilities of all jurisdictions into the prioritization process. Participants used this system in several ways. They chose actions that met the capabilities and needs of their jurisdiction, did not adversely affect a particular segment of the population, provided long-term reduction of losses with minimal secondary adverse impacts, and were consistent with the community's environmental goals. Beyond STAPLEE, prioritization of mitigation actions for each jurisdiction was based on the following: • Effect of overall risk to life and property • Ease of implementation • Political and community support • Emphasis on a general economic cost/benefit review • Funding availability Volume 1, Part 3 includes a catalog of mitigation best management practices that was developed through a facilitated process. This catalog identifies actions that manipulate the hazard, reduce exposure to the hazard, reduce vulnerability, or increase mitigation capability. The catalog segregates actions by scale of implementation. A table in each planning partner's action plan analyzes each action by mitigation type to illustrate the range of actions selected. All municipal planning partners that participate in the NFIP identified an action stating their commitment to maintain compliance and good standing under the program. Communities that participate in the Community Rating System identified actions to maintain or enhance their standing under that program. Each recommended action was prioritized using a qualitative methodology that looked at the objectives the project will meet, the timeline for completion, how the project will be funded, the impact of the project, the benefits of the project and the costs of the project. This prioritization scheme is detailed in the introduction to Volume 2 of this plan. §201.6(c)(4)(i): [The plan Section 7 of the plan includes a strategy for Volume 1, Part 3 details a plan maintenance maintenance process shall monitoring, evaluating, and updating the mitigation strategy for monitoring, evaluating, and updating include a] section describing the plan within a five-year cycle, that includes annual the mitigation plan within a five-year cycle, that method and schedule of progress reporting. includes annual progress reporting. monitoring, evaluating, and updating the mitigation plan within a five-year cycle. 2-6 TETRA TECH 2. Plan Update —What Has Changed §201.6(c)(4)(ii): [The plan shall The maintenance strategy for the 2015 plan does include a] process by which local not include a specific component for plan governments incorporate the integration; however, the plan does include requirements of the mitigation mitigation actions for plan integration. plan into other planning mechanisms such as comprehensive or capital improvement plans, when appropriate. §201.6(c)(4)(iii): [The plan The plan maintenance strategy in Section 7 of the maintenance process shall plan includes elements for continuing public include a] discussion on how the involvement that include: community will continue public 0 Publicizing meetings of the hazard mitigation participation in the plan planning committee in the local paper, public maintenance process. bulletin boards and/or city and county office buildings • Utilizing local media to update the public of any maintenance and/or periodic review • activities taking place • Utilizing city and county websites, or related social media to announce any maintenance and/or periodic review activities taking place • Providing copies of the plan for reference in public libraries. Volume 1, Part 3 details recommendations for incorporating the plan into other planning mechanisms, such as: • Comprehensive plan • Emergency response plan • Capital improvement programs • Municipal code Specific current and future plan and program integration activities are detailed in each participating jurisdiction's annex in Volume 2. Volume 1, Part 3 details a comprehensive strategy for continuing public involvement. §201.6(c)(5): [The local hazard Appendix E of the plan includes all supporting Volume 1, Appendix E includes all supporting mitigation plan shall include] documentation for adoption of the plan by all documentation for adoption of the plan by all documentation that the plan has planning partners planning partners been formally adopted by the governing body of the jurisdiction requesting approval of the plan (e.g., City Council, County Commission, Tribal Council). TETRA TECH 2-7 3. PLAN UPDATE APPROACH The planning process of developing the update to the Harris County Multi -Hazard Mitigation Action Plan had the following primary objectives: • Secure grant funding • Form a core planning team • Establish a planning partnership • Define the planning area • Establish a steering committee • Coordinate with other agencies • Review existing programs • Engage the public. 3.1 GRANT FUNDING This planning effort was supplemented by a FEMA Hazard Mitigation Assistance grant (Hazard Mitigation Grant Program for DR 4269) in fiscal year 2017. The Harris County Office of Homeland Security and Emergency Management (HCOHSEM) was the applicant agent for the grant. It covered 75 percent of the cost for development of this plan; the planning partners covered the balance through in -kind contributions. 3.2 FORMATION OF THE CORE PLANNING TEAM This multi jurisdictional planning effort was led and coordinated by HCOHSEM, which hired Tetra Tech, Inc. to assist with development and implementation of the plan through a standard Harris County procurement process. The Tetra Tech project manager provided subject matter expertise, direction, and project updates to the HCOHSEM project manager. A core planning team (CPT) was formed to lead the planning effort. The CPT was made up of the following discipline leads from Tetra Tech and key staff from HCOHSEM: • Brian Murray, HCOHSEM Planning Supervisor • Ashley Schutt, HCOHSEM GIS Specialist • Brian Dunaway, HCOHSEM GIS Specialist • Benzon John, HCOHSEM Mitigation Planner • Rob Flaner, CFM, Tetra Tech, Inc., Project Manager • Carol Baumann, GISP, Tetra Tech, Inc., Risk Assessment Lead • Chrissie Angeletti, JD, Tetra Tech, Inc., Outreach • Brian Rutherford, Tetra Tech, Inc., Lead Planner The CPT was primarily responsible for overall project management, facilitating meetings and workshops, and developing the updated multi jurisdiction hazard mitigation plan. Team coordination was through bi-weekly project coordination calls from project inception through completion. TETRA TECH 3-1 Harris County Multi -Hazard Mitigation Action Plan; Volume 1—Area-Wide Elements 3.3 DEFINING STAKEHOLDERS At the beginning of the planning process, the CPT identified a list of stakeholders to engage during the update of the Hazard Mitigation Plan. For this planning process, "stakeholder" was defined as any person or public or private entity that owns or operates facilities that would benefit from the mitigation actions of this plan, and/or has an authority or capability to support mitigation actions identified by this plan. Stakeholders were separated into two categories: Participatory Stakeholders —Stakeholders that actively participated in the planning process as planning partners or members of the Steering Committee. Coordinating Stakeholders —Stakeholders that were not able to commit to actively participating in the process as a participatory stakeholder but were kept apprised of plan development milestones or were able to provide data that was used in the plan development. 3.4 ESTABLISHMENT OF THE PLANNING PARTNERSHIP 3.4.1 Initial Outreach Hazard mitigation planning enhances collaboration among diverse parties who can be affected by hazard losses. Harris County opened this planning effort to all participants in the previous multi jurisdictional hazard mitigation plan, along with all eligible local governments in the planning area that choose to join the partnership. The CPT identified a roster of eligible local governments within the identified planning area to engage through this plan update process. Over 50 eligible local governments were identified by this screening process for additional outreach by the CPT. This roster is available for review upon request. 3.4.2 Planning Partners Kickoff Meeting The CPT made a presentation at a kickoff meeting on September 18, 2018 to introduce the mitigation planning process and solicit planning partners. Key meeting objectives were as follows: • Provide an overview of the Disaster Mitigation Act. • Describe the reasons for a plan. • Outline the hazard mitigation plan update. • Outline planning partner expectations. • Seek commitment to the planning partnership. • Seek volunteers for the Steering Committee. 3.4.3 Planning Partner Expectations Planning partners were provided with a packet explaining the following expectations for all planning partners in the hazard mitigation planning process: • Complete administrative tasks: ➢ Establish a local mitigation planning team ➢ Designate points of contact for the organization ➢ Approve the Steering Committee ➢ Complete a letter of intent designating a point of contact for the jurisdiction and confirming a commitment to the process and understanding of expectations • Participate, as able in additional opportunities: 3-2 TETRA TECH 3. Plan Update Approach ➢ Attend Steering Committee meetings ➢ Attend or host public meetings or open houses ➢ Participate in and advertise the public review and comment period prior to adoption • Support the Steering Committee • Support the public involvement strategy • Participate in the critical facility update • Complete the jurisdictional annex template: ➢ Attend the mandatory workshops ➢ Perform a capability assessment ➢ Review the risk assessment and identify hazards and vulnerabilities specific to their jurisdiction ➢ Review county -wide mitigation recommendations ➢ Develop a mitigation action plan • Adopt the plan 3.4.4 Local Mitigation Planning Teams and Jurisdictional Annexes Each participating jurisdiction established a local mitigation planning team to be responsible for preparing a jurisdictional annex to this plan. Team members represented agencies with authority to regulate development and enforce local ordinances or standards. The jurisdictional annexes are presented in Volume 2 of this plan. Each represents required hazard mitigation planning information specific to individual planning partners. The content of the annexes is tailored to distinguish between municipalities and special-purpose jurisdictions. The annexes were developed through a three-phase process: Phase 1—Jurisdiction profiles and review of actions from previous plan Phase 2—Core capability assessment Phase 3—Risk ranking and action plan development 3.4.5 Participating Planning Partners The planning partners covered under this plan are shown in Table 3-1. Linkage procedures have been established (see Volume 2 of this plan) for any jurisdiction wishing to link to the Harris County Multi -Hazard Mitigation Action Plan in the future. 3.5 DEFINING THE PLANNING AREA The planning area was defined to consist of the unincorporated county, incorporated cities, and special-purpose districts within the greater Harris County metropolitan area. The planning area does not include areas outside of the Harris County boundary except where it was expanded into other counties to account for planning partners that have jurisdictional areas outside Harris County. This represents an expansion in scope from the 2015 plan. All partners to this plan have jurisdictional authority within the defined planning area. TETRA TECH 3-3 Harris County Multi -Hazard Mitigation Action Plan; Volume 1—Area-Wide Elements Table 3-1. Hazard Mitigation Planninq Partners Covered Under This Plan Harris County Jonathan Steiber Permits Manager Yes Citu of Baufown Jamie Gallowa &MC Yes City of Bellaire City of Bunker Hill Village Ci of Deer Park Deacon Tittel Karen H. Glynn Robert Hemmin er Fire Chief/EMC City Administrator Emergency Services Director Yes No Yes i of El Lao Thomas Merchant EMC No City of Friendswood Brian Mansfield Fire Marshal/EMC EMC CityAdministrator City Administrator Yes City of Galena Park City of Hedwig Village City of Hilshire Village Jorge Flores Kelly Johnson No No Susan Blevins No City of Humble James N kaza EMC No City of Hunters Creek Village Tom Fullen City Administrator No City of Jersey Village Mark Bitz Fire Chief/EMC No City of Katy Greg Goedecker EMC No City of La Porte City of Missouri UL Dena Mahan Assistant EMC Fire Marshall/Dep. EMC Yes Matt Rios Yes City of Morgan's Point Sherri Ditrich Chief of Police No City of Nassau Ba City of Pasadena J e nolds ity Manager EMC City Administrator Yes Frank Ben ochea Yes City of Piney Point Village qr Roger Nelson No City of Seabrook Jeff Galyean Director OEM Yes City of Shoreacres Troy D. Harrison Chief of Police Yes City of Spring Valley Villaa Julie M. Robinson City Administrator No City of Stafford City of Taylor Lake Village Peter Alvarado EMC No John Powell Councilman Fire Chief/EMC Fire Chief/EMC Yes City of Tomball Randy Parr No City of Webster Patrick Shi No City of West University aron T JIIIIILFi_reChiefIEMC No Houston Independent School District William Earl Finle Sr. Mana er, Risk Management No Independent School DistricM Iff Tim Br ttainV Chief Financial Officer= No Pasadena Independent School District Carla Merka Chief Financial Officer No Houston CommunityCollege Lone Star College Robert McCracken Derrick Harris Exec. Dir of EM'Vr No Business Analyst/Project Manager No IMMINNEr- University of Houston Kelly Boysen Director of Emergency Management No Harris County Flood Control District Todd Ward Risk Mitigation Department Mana er Battalion Chief Director of Emergency Management No No Harris County Emergency Services District 12 James Novick Harris County Hospital District (dba Harris Ray W. Higgins No Health System) Texas Medical Center Warren J. Porter Safety & Emergency Preparedness Manager No 3-4 TETRA TECH 3. Plan Update Approach 3.6 THE STEERING COMMITTEE A key element of the public engagement strategy for this plan update was the formation of a stakeholder steering committee to oversee all phases of the update. Harris County established a Steering Committee that represents the entire planning partnership to oversee the planning process. The members of this committee included planning partner representatives, citizens, and other stakeholders from within the planning area. The CPT assembled a list of candidates representing interests within the planning area that could have recommendations for the plan or be impacted by its recommendations. One of the identified objectives for this plan update was to maximize the Community Rating System (CRS) credit potential under CRS Activity 510 for all CRS-participating jurisdictions in the planning area. With this objective in mind, the CPT targeted all planning partner cities that participate in the CRS program for seats on the Steering Committee. The CPT identified guidance that each city seeking CRS credit for this plan update must designate two representatives for the Steering Committee and ensure that at least one attended each Steering Committee meeting. The planning partners confirmed a committee of 32 members at the kickoff meeting. Table 3-2 lists the Steering Committee members and designated alternates. Leadership roles and ground rules were established during the Steering Committee's first meeting, on October 18, 2018. The Steering Committee met bi-monthly through the course of this update process; a total of six times from October 2018 through October 2019. All meetings were open to the public and were advertised on the hazard mitigation plan website (see section 3.10.1). Residents, neighboring communities, and stakeholders were invited to participate in the plan update by attending Steering Committee meetings. Public comments were invited at all Steering Committee meetings. The CPT facilitated each Steering Committee meeting, which addressed a set of objectives based on an established work plan. Agendas were posted to the website prior to each scheduled Steering Committee meeting, and meeting summaries were posted to the hazard mitigation plan website following their approval by the Steering Committee. Meeting summaries and attendance logs are provided in Appendix A to this volume. 3.7 COORDINATION WITH STAKEHOLDERS AND AGENCIES Opportunities for involvement in the planning process must be provided to neighboring communities, local and regional agencies involved in hazard mitigation, agencies with authority to regulate development, businesses, academia, and other private and nonprofit interests (44 CFR, Section 201.6(b)(2)). Agency coordination for this plan was accomplished as follows: • Steering Committee Involvement —Agency representatives were invited to participate on the Steering Committee. • Agency Notification —The agencies listed in Table 3-3 were invited to participate in the plan development process from the beginning and were kept apprised of plan development milestones. These agencies received meeting announcements, meeting agendas, and meeting minutes by e-mail throughout the plan development process and were provided the option to attend meetings. Some agencies supported the effort by attending meetings or providing feedback on issues. • Pre -Adoption Review —All the agencies listed in Table 3-3 were provided an opportunity to review and comment on this plan, primarily through the hazard mitigation plan website (see Section 3.10). All were sent an e-mail message informing them that draft portions of the plan were available for review. Upon completion of a public comment period, a complete draft plan was sent to the Texas Division of Emergency Management for a pre -adoption review to ensure program compliance. TETRA TECH 3-5 Harris County Multi -Hazard Mitigation Action Plan; Volume 1—Area-Wide Elements Table 3-2. Steerinq Committee Members Communities/Jurisdictions Brian Murraya Public Information Officer HCOHSEM Jamie Galloway Emer ency Management Coordinator City of Baytown Deacon Tittel Fire Chief/EMC City of Bellaire Steven Simmons Fire Marshal / EMC City of Friendswood Dena Mahan Emergency Management Coordinator Cit of La Porte Dakota Duncanb Emergency Management Coordinator (former) City of Missouri City (formerly) Jason Reynolds Emergencv Management Coordinaic ity of Nassau Bay Frank Ben ochea Deputy Emergency Management Coordinator CiN of Pasadena Building Official / Floodplain Manage Citv of Sea Troy Harrison Mayor City of Shoreacres Jon Keeney MM Emergency Management Coordinator City of Taylor Lake Village James Novak Fire Chief/ EMC City of West University Place Todd Ward Risk Mitigation Department Manager Harris County Flood Control Distric James Novick Fire Chief / Business Administrator Harris County Emergency Services District 12 Ecomet Burley Emergency Management Coordinator Harris County Department of Education 'Other Stakeholders . Kelly Snook, PLA, LI Executive Director Greens Bayou Coalition Mary Anne Piacentini President and CEO Katy Prairie Conservancy Mark S. Mitchell President I& Lake Houston Economic Development Partnershi Jenna Armstrong President and CEO Lake Houston Area Chamber of Commerce sa Graiff ston Parks Board Houston Parks Board Steve Pine President Texas Collections Emergency Response Alliance onmile Olonilua, PhD, CFM sociate Professor Texas Southern University, School of Public Affair Kelly Bo sen Director, Emergency Management University of Houston Mark Steuer, PhD Vice Presi ite Oak Bayou Associa Lori Upton, RN, BSN, MS, CEM Director, Regional Preparedness Southeast Texas Regional Adviso Council Dinah Massie, MPA Executive Director Houston TranStar Joey Kaspar Senior Planner Houston Galveston Area Council Dawn Blackmar, DVM Director, Emergency Management Houston SPCA / Harris County Disaster Animal _ Management Task Force Rogelio Martinez Hazard Mitigation Planner City of Houston, Office of Emergency Management Jeffry Evans Meteorologist in Charge National Weather Service — Houston Galveston Dan Reilly Warning Coordination Meteorologist Greens Bayou Coalition Andy Meyer Disaster Program Manager American Red Cross a. Chairperson b. No longer with the City of Missouri City 3-6 TETRA TECH 3. Plan Update Approach Table 3-3. Stakeholder Aqencies Notified About Plan Update P Texas Division of Emer lencv Mana ement FEMA Region VI Insurance Services Office Texas Water Development Board Bayou City Waterkee er Coalition for Environment, Equity and RM Cypress Creek Flood Control Coalition Alamo Trust American Institute of Architects, Houston leyl Engineerin Houston Hospice ress State Hazard mitigation Officer Lead Community Planner CRS Specialist Chief Communications Officer Legal Director Co -Founder President Conservator Executive Director Senior Directo Facility Manager framark Water and Infrastructure Services Vice President Preservation Houston Community Outreach Coordinator exas Children's Hospital Manager, Emergency Management Texas Medical Center Director of Strategy Jniversity of Houston College of Engineering West Houston Association CEO Ikegion 4 Education Service Center Executive Director Port of Houston Authority Emergency Management Coordinator K Director Greater Houston Flood Mitigation Consortium Rice University Severe Storm Prediction, Education, & Evacuation from Disasters Center Director niversity Kinde Texas A&M Galveston Center for Texas Beaches and Shores exas A&M Extension gervicii, Texas Community Watershed Partners University of Houston Institute of Climate and Atmospheric Science University of Houston Hurricane Resilience Research Institute W Director Director Director Special assistance with the planning process was provided by the following federal and state agencies: • FEMA Region VI provided updated planning guidance, provided summary and detailed data for the planning area from the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) (including repetitive loss information), and conducted plan review. • The Texas Division of Emergency Management facilitated FEMA review, provided updated planning guidance, provided guidance on how to address planning for jurisdictions whose boundaries intersect more than one county, and reviewed the draft and final versions of the plan prior to FEMA review. • The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration provided historical weather data. • The Texas A&M Forest Service provided wildfire risk data. 3.8 REVIEW OF PREVIOUS HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN Participants in the planning process reviewed the current plan, provided updates on their populations, development trends, capabilities, flood insurance data, and previous mitigation actions, and identified opportunities for integration of mitigation actions with other planning initiatives. This review reexamined hazards and sought input from the public regarding their perceptions of risk, vulnerability and how hazard mitigation resources should be prioritized. Updates that pertained to the greater Harris County region were shared with the TETRA TECH 3-7 Harris County Multi -Hazard Mitigation Action Plan; Volume 1—Area-Wide Elements Steering Committee for inclusion in the plan update. Each section of the plan was reviewed and updated as needed. Workshops were conducted with participating jurisdictions and special districts to assist them in updating and in identifying new mitigation actions to include in the plan. The workshops also provided guidance in cost benefit analysis of potential projects. 3.9 REVIEW OF EXISTING PROGRAMS Chapter 5 of this plan provides a review of laws and ordinances in effect within the planning area that can affect hazard mitigation actions. In addition, the following programs can affect mitigation within the planning area: • Texas Minimum Construction Standards • State of Texas Hazard Mitigation Plan Federal Requirement 44 CFR §201.6(d)(3) states, "A local jurisdiction must review and revise its plan to reflect changes in development, progress in local mitigation efforts, and changes in priorities, and resubmit it for approval within five (5) years in order to continue to be eligible for mitigation project grant funding." Federal Requirement Hazard mitigation planning must include review and incorporation, if appropriate, of existing plans, studies, reports and technical information (44 CFR, Section 201.6(b)(3)). • Local capital improvement programs (see jurisdictional annexes in Volume 2). • Local emergency management plans (see jurisdictional annexes in Volume 2). • Local comprehensive plans (see jurisdictional annexes in Volume 2). • Land use elements of comprehensive plans • Local zoning ordinances • Local coastal program policies • Harris County Basic Plan: Outlines the HCOHSEM approach to emergency operations and is applicable to Harris County, cities within the county and emergency service districts adhering to the plan. Assessments of all planning partners' regulatory, technical and financial capabilities to implement hazard mitigation actions are presented in the individual jurisdiction -specific annexes in Volume 2. Many of these relevant plans, studies and regulations are cited in the capability assessments. A key step under this phase of the planning process was a "core capability" exercise facilitated with the Steering Committee by the CPT. During the fifth Steering Committee meeting, on July 16, 2019, posters were presented illustrating 30 statements of core capabilities within the planning area. Steering Committee members were asked to review each statement and place a green dot by statements they considered to be strengths for the planning area, and a red dot by those they considered to be weaknesses. The primary objective for this exercise was to inform the identification and prioritization of actions that could increase the core capabilities of the planning partnership, and to identify limitations in capability to implement mitigation actions. Table 3-4 summarizes the results, which were provided to the Steering Committee and all planning partners via project bulletins and were used at jurisdictional annex workshops (see the introduction to Volume 2 of this plan). 3-8 TETRA TECH 3. Plan Update Approach Emergency management is provided by a unified authority or program. 19 90% 2 100 0 0% Current land uses within identified hazard areas are appropriate for the risk posed by 29 100% each hazard. 6 22% There Is a good understanding of the risk posed by the hazards Gem County is 21 78% to. _susceptible Emergency response functions for the County are clearly defined and are effective. 23 88% 3 12% Members of the public know where to find information about hazards and risk. 16 55% 13 45% 0 0% 24 100% Areas that provide natural resource protection are identified and protected within the County. 10 34% 19 66% Existing flood control systems are effective and well maintained. Roles and responsibilities for emergency management within Harris County are clearly defined. Planning Partnership staff are knowledgeable about hazards and their impacts and are 29 100% 0 0% willing to share that knowledge with the public 21 7 25% Le capability to assess and mitigate risk from natural hazards is high. 26 96% 1 4% Planning Partnership Staff members with emergency management functions are adequately trained. 22 76% 7 24% arris County Citizens have a good understanding of natural hazard exposure and risk. The funding to support risk reduction within Harris County is adequate. 1 4% 27 96% 81% 5 19% Strong collaboration and coordination exist between the City, neighboring jurisdictions, 22 the County and state and federal agency partners. 96% 1 4% Appropriate and timely warning systems are in place. 25 56% 12 44% The Planning Partnership currently has a variety of regulatory and non -regulatory 15 strategies to reduce risk. 8% 23 920 The Planning Partnership currently has adopted policies that encourage development to 2 be located outside of high risk areas. 26% 20MIL 74% Risk from natural hazards within Harris County is adequately mapped and regulated. 7 75% 7 25% There is strong public support for risk reduction within Harris County. 21 4% 'Mr. The Planning Partnership is prepared for the probable impacts on natural hazards due to 1 the impacts from a changing climate. 24% Coordinated public outreach regarding risk from all hazards convey clear, consistent 12 39 76% messaainq to the public. The Planning Partnership risk management programs are fair and equitable. 6 30% 1 70% Information on flood insurance is readily available within the County. 13 54% 11 46% There is political support for risk management within the City/County All relevant stakeholders are engaged in the City/County's risk management efforts. The Planning Partners development regulations for new development within identified hazards zones are adequate to address that risk. There is a coordinated program to maintain drainage systems free of debris. The enforcement of Codes and Standards within the planning area is strong. 16 2 1 1 13 62% 8% 4% 5% 52% 10 38% 23 92% 24 96% 21 95% 12 TETRA TECH 3-9 Harris County Multi -Hazard Mitigation Action Plan; Volume 1—Area-Wide Elements 3.10 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT The following sections describe the efforts to involve the public in development of this updated hazard mitigation plan. For this plan update, "public" was defined as the general public within the Harris County planning area. This includes, but is not limited to: • Residents • Visitors F Federal Requirement Broad public participation in the planning process helps ensure that diverse points of view about local needs are considered and addressed. The public must have opportunities to comment on disaster mitigation plans during the drafting stages and prior to plan approval (44 CFR, Section 201.6(b)(1). FEMA's Community Rating System expands on these requirements by making CRS credits available for optional public involvement activities • Employers within the county • Employees within the county • Students (primary and secondary education levels). 3.10.1 Strategy The strategy for involving the public in this plan emphasized the following elements: • Include members of the public and non -governmental stakeholders on the Steering Committee. • Use a survey to determine if the public's perception of risk and support of hazard mitigation has changed since the initial planning process. • Attempt to reach as many planning area citizens as possible using multiple media. • Identify and involve planning area stakeholders. Stakeholders and the Steering Committee Stakeholders are the individuals, agencies and jurisdictions that have a vested interest in the recommendations of the hazard mitigation plan, including all planning partners. The effort to include stakeholders in this process included stakeholder participation on the Steering Committee. The CPT invited all the following potential stakeholders to actively participate in the plan update process: • Federal Agencies—FEMA Region VI provided updated planning guidance and data from the National Flood Insurance Program (including repetitive loss information) and conducted plan review. • State Agencies— Texas Division of Emergency Management (TDEM) facilitated FEMA review, provided updated planning guidance, and reviewed the draft and final versions of the plan prior to FEMA review. Regional and Local Stakeholders —The following organizations received information about the planning process and invitations to provide input, and elected to participate in the planning process as members or subject matter advisors to the Steering Committee: ➢ Bayou City Waterkeeper ➢ Bayou Land Conservancy ➢ Buffalo Bayou Partnership ➢ Center for Houston's Future ➢ Citizens Environmental Coalition ➢ Coalition for Environment, Equity and Resilience ➢ Cypress Creek Flood Control Coalition ➢ Greater Houston Flood Mitigation Consortium 3-10 TETRA TECH 3. Plan Update Approach ➢ Greater Houston Partnership ➢ Houston Hispanic Chamber of Commerce ➢ Local Initiative Support Corporation Greater Houston ➢ NAACP Houston ➢ Preservation Houston ➢ Rice University Severe Storm Prediction, Education, & Evacuation from Disasters Center ➢ Sierra Club Houston ➢ Texas A&M Extension Service, Texas Community Watershed Partners ➢ Texas A&M University, Hazard Reduction and Recovery Center ➢ University of Houston, College of Engineering ➢ University of Houston, Institute of Climate and Atmospheric Science Internet At the beginning of the plan development process, a website was created to keep the public posted on plan development milestones and to solicit relevant input (htips://www.readyharris.or /g miti atg ion; see Figure 3-1). The site's address was publicized in all press releases, mailings, surveys and public meetings. Each planning partner established a link to this site on its own agency website. Information on the plan development process, the Steering Committee, a plan survey, and drafts of the plan was made available to the public on the site throughout the process. Harris County intends to keep a website active after the plan's completion to keep the public informed about successful mitigation projects and future plan updates. This site as well as the social media Facebook sites will be useful to facilitate community involvement via web -based outreach after the plan update process has completed. Planning Partner and Stakeholder Bulletin Planning partners and coordinating stakeholders were kept apprised of plan development milestones via a Planning Partner Bulletin that the CPT deployed as needed throughout the process (see Figure 3-2). This bulletin was forward facing and made available to the general public by posting on the hazard mitigation plan website. Survey A hazard mitigation plan survey (see Figure 3-3) was developed by the CPT with guidance from the Steering Committee. The survey was used to gauge household preparedness for natural hazards and the level of knowledge of tools and techniques that assist in reducing risk and loss from natural hazards. This survey was designed to help identify areas vulnerable to one or more natural hazards. The answers to its 26 questions helped guide the Steering Committee in selecting goals, objectives and mitigation strategies. The survey was made available on the hazard mitigation plan website and advertised throughout the course of the planning process. During the course of this planning process, 1,627 completed surveys were submitted. The complete survey and a summary of its findings can be found in Appendix A of this volume. Public Notices The HCOHSEM Public Information Office was utilized to keep the public and media outlets apprised of plan development milestones via a series of public notices released over the course of the plan update process. Six public notices were released, following a standard public notice protocol, from October 2018 to November 2019. All of these notices can be viewed on the hazard mitigation website. TETRA TECH 3-11 Harris County Multi -Hazard Mitigation Action Plan; Volume 1—Area-Wide Elements for elms One ad a JW o tEHecave T—r. a Community can u fa Reduce Hazard Yulnerabirityis W Devernp and Yainunn a Local us d lfiog.6o Pfau. Harris County is vulnerable to a wide range of natural hazards including flooding, tornadoes, tropical storms, and hurricanes_ These hazards threaten the safety of residents and have the potential to damage property, disrupt the local economy, and impact the quality of life of residents of Harfis County. Whil we cannot eliminate natural hazards, there is much we can do to lessen their potential impact upon our community and residents. We are required to file new plan every five year9. Throughout 2019, the Harris County Office of Homeland Security & Emergency Management will be working with our jurisdictional partners as well as others in the public and private sector to produce the 2020 edition of the Harris County All Hazard Mitigation Plan. The information on this website is intended as a reference for our mitigation planning partners as well as the public_ Oc,ober24, 20' 9 Steering Committee Meeting I Ober 24,, 2019 November 21, 2019 Steering Committee Meeting I November 21, 2019 P&N.hed ChOnher 24, 2019 PuUdmd August 16, 2019 Published June 01, 2019 Pddr NdielQ bA— 24, 1A19 S—ig Cammiuee Yedieg BMP Ds� 14LL W.6" Suv-ry Hur& Llrtr•u kdo tk dBA b. J.—Mg .............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. Puhlished September 04, 2019 Published August 16, 2019 PuWW,.aAp iI 01, 2019 %I PAW, Nodmj^ t— 1%2MI99teviig Cbmmin—M-9 NMP llocumerrt 'kd Lk—g roles He nc Ca-rAN B—k Pl—1 bd.—.dB lk i. Apt 2019 55% Figure 3-1. Sample Page from Hazard Mitigation Plan Web Site 3-12 TETRA TECH 3. Plan Update Approach InformwtionalBulletin Impomird Nate for All Planning Partners: Please track the numberof Apri 10, 2019 hours that you or your staff members spend working of this project. These hours can be applied toward the in -kind contri bution needed for our Core Planning Tesln grant requirements. Partners vrill be asked to report these hours after Chairperson fuming in their completed annex. 6aisnMurray L **NOTICE** The Steering Committee will meet from 9am-12pm on May 16, Vice -Chairperson 2019. The extra hour will account for lack of quorum at the March 21 meeting. Aryan Dunaway CRS Corrwmnities-{Baybownr Bellaire, Deer Park, Friiwdswoodr LaPorte, Missouri City, Mnah,ao,a ffl4Jk&=ObLI1et Nassau Bay, Pasadena, Seabrook, Shmeacres, Taylor Lake Village) A total of 9 CR5 members must attend each 9c committee meeting in order for all CR5 communities to ASIrIeyS#�utt rereme credit. Ifyou did not at -and previous SC rneetinas, you PAUST brine 2 mernbers Ashk-V. SMAUMem.W=IreC from your community to the next SC meeting - Project Manager Upcoming Deliverables for Panccipatinl=, Jurisdictions Rob Fkrlier, CFM '•]U a' e R }ta rla C Pd 7.6} T 'Fartiripmting Jurisdiction - ataaingentity ar PNP with Critiol Facilities in the Planning area. .fl 0 ObjeVives Exerdse. Select 10-20 objective statements from the following link Lead Planner tiatadd value #ffthe Plan- (httm:Uwww.surueymor u.aamlriHarris Dbicrtiyej Brien Airt7erfard . Invohre: People from different deparbrrents_ 6Ywh_R�rJSerfor• e7Getretecltaorrr . psk:'Khatgoals will this objective meet2 fyou have a gap inyour cure capa- bilities, then ask why and what can we. do to fill the gap? Outreach co chest r + Nlote: An action receives more points rf it meets multiple objectives. ChrissieAngelefiGl JD Chrtzie.eh0elEIJ:AlrWbbteMn= } pha,a 2 Arrrex 46% of planning par &r rs have complete Phase 2 Media Relations 22% have completed Phase i Annexes n7iF6Hr�rniR.•om hrri oat + 36% of planning partners have yet to complete a Phase 1 or 2 Annex Nest Steering Please ernai I completed templates tia Brian Rutherford Committee Meeting Brian.Rurtherford�Dtetratedr-cam YUy 16.2019 Darn-12:00 prn We understand that some of you may have questions_ Please contact a Housnn Tr2nSt2r member of the Core Planning Team fiar assistance with any issue_ We can 6922 Katp Ed. work With you to finish the required de iverables! Flauston, t X 7M4 Figure 3-2. Example Planning Process Bulletin TETRA TECH 3-13 Harris County Multi -Hazard Mitigation Action Plan; Volume 1—Area-Wide Elements 1. Survey Introduction 11'Nrsaler Harris -County Region, Flazard Mitigation questionnaire A range of natural and hu man- caused d isai[ers can affect any ca mrn u nily. Har ris Courily. its incorporated cities and special pu rpase di ziric ti. c oil ectively known as i he Greater Dais County Region-, work diligently to mitigate threats and prepare for disasters. Tb maintain a high level ul preparedness, we need your help to identify and plan for hllWre dtirise Fs_ ba[a col Iected ihroug h this su rvey wil I hs Ip the -Greater Harris County F[egivna] Local lUWAird Mitiga[ian Plan Stewing Committee ta: • Asie is av r re silents- level of aware mess regard ing di sailers; Driermine areas vulnerable to various types DI disasters: i; oord inate a,ciivities to reduce ihs risk of inju ry u r property damage in the future; and- u pdate th a multi•'urisd iction Luca! Hazard Miiig at ion plan. Local Hazard Miiigation Plans aze required to he updated every five years by the federal Gagster M i[iga[ion Acl DI 213H in order for ihs R egianal Area to rem ain el igi ble lur c el-ain federal pre• d isaster and post -disaster ass iiiance. T he (plan details th a ris ks of bo[h nAturnl and human• caused haze rds i n the G realer Ftarri s Cou niy R eg ion an d i nc Iudes p mgram i and prajec[s that can help red uce the ex poi u re of residents and businesses sha u Id a n eveni occu r. Thks survey consists of three sections of questions- The li ml iectia n is about your experience and knowledge of naiu ral and human-Gaused frazards in general. and steps your hauseha Id ha:i taken to prepare for dhiaste rs. T he second section is about the potential h azards near you and whether you r krrorr ledge al paten tial hara.Tds infiluerrced where you chose to live. T he Iasi sectio n consists al demug raphic inlor matian th ai will he used in sxefua[ing the respa uses to the quesiionnai re. 'please naie chat the inlorma[ion collected through this survey will be used solely lar mitigation plann ing activities. T hank yDu for inking the rim a to pariic ipate in the 2A 19 Hazard Miiigation I�uestia nnaire! Figure 3-3. Sample Page from Survey Distributed to the Public 3-14 TETRA TECH 3. Plan Update Approach Public Outreach The public outreach process for this plan update consisted of two phases. Phase 1 took place early in the process to share information with the public from the risk assessment and gauge perception of risk within the planning area. The second phase was conducted at the end of the process during a formal public comment period to provide the public an opportunity to review and comment on the draft plan. Phase 1 The Phase 1 public outreach was held during an advertised public meeting on June 20, 2019, at the TranStar facility at 6922 Katy Road in Houston (see Figure 3-4). This was a 3-hour, open house format meeting where members of the public could engage subject matter expertise on risk and risk reduction and learn about individual risks to their property. A short PowerPoint presentation was provided (see Figure 3-5), and hazard extent and location maps were available to review for the entire planning area. Figure 3-4. Phase 1 Public Meeting Figure 3-5. Presentation at Phase 1 Public Meeting The main attraction for this event was the availability of Hazus workstations where property owners could view property -specific information on risk to multiple hazards (see Figure 3-6 and Figure 3-7). Also available at this meeting were hard copies and computer workstations where the attendees could complete the hazard mitigation survey. Nineteen members of the public attended this meeting and the CPT received comments that were incorporated into the planning process and outcomes. Phase 2 Phase 2 of the public outreach was the two -week final public comment period, November 7 — 22, 2019, following release of the draft hazard mitigation plan. One public meeting at the TranStar facility was held to provide the public an opportunity to comment on the draft plan on Thursday, November 14. This meeting, advertised via a press release, presented a short overview of the draft plan and provided an opportunity for the public to comment. Participants discussed local hazard mitigation planning strategies and the value of coordinating with volunteer agencies in the development and implementation of hazard mitigation actions. The public comment period gave the public an opportunity to comment on the draft plan update prior to its submittal to TDEM. The principle avenue for public comment on the draft plan was the website established for this plan update. The five comments received through the website were reviewed by the CPT. None resulted in changes to the draft plan; all are available upon request. Three comments also were received from residents who reviewed the draft plan in person at County offices during the public comment period. TETRA TECH 3-15 Harris County Multi -Hazard Mitigation Action Plan; Volume 1—Area-Wide Elements t Fora®r�m."'r.®•I�i®avo:cis� �.i,..i;, n. '.aa©oic::—io-® tio<awieas I&Iel Harris County Hazard Report .--��aio-..mom. , o a-•-e-_- •� a �. a. W aa- awa Figure 3-6. Hazus Workstation at Phase 1 Meeting Figure 3-7. Example Workstation Report Social Media Another key core capability that was available to support this plan update process was the availability to reach thousands of residents in real time via social media platforms utilized by the HCOHSEM Public Information Office. HCOHSEM has established Facebook, Twitter and Instagram accounts that were utilized during this planning process to provide access to the public on key planning milestones (see Figure 3-8). 9 Events R erg. Related E Events !� orlIIFaRME JUN What's Your Risk? Hazard Mitigation Plan 20 Public Meeting Public Hosted by ReadyHarris * Interested 0 invite Thursday, June 20. 2019 at ill PM - 9,00 PM CDT English (US) Starts in about 9 hours - 34"C Partly Cloudy Fran { ais Fr O 6922 Katy Rd, Houston. TX 77024, United States Show Map Pnvacy - Te rt Cookies M Facebook 3 Going • 23 Interested Details You are invited to an interactive public meeting on Hards County's 2020 Hazard Mitigation Action Plan (HMAP). Experts will use GIS-based software to display your risk from both natural and man-made hazards, personalized to where you live and work, In addition, it a great opportunity to become more familiiarwith the HMAP process and what it can do for Harris County in the future. About Readyl-larris Figure 3-8. Facebook post announcing Hazard Mitigation survey 3-16 TETRA TECH 3. Plan Update Approach 3.10.2 Public Involvement Results Survey Detailed analysis of the survey findings is presented in Appendix A; a summary is as follows: • Number of hard copy surveys received —None • Number of surveys completed via the internet-327 • Surveys acquired via social media-1,300 • Total surveys analyzed-1,627 • Surveys were received from each planning partner • Over 70 percent of respondents have experienced a flood, hurricane or severe weather event in the last 20 years. • Survey respondents ranked flooding as the hazard of greatest concern, followed by hurricane/coastal storms, severe weather, hazardous materials/toxic release, active shooter, tornado, terrorism, dam failure, drought and wildfire. • Over 45 percent of respondents feel that they are "somewhat prepared" for a hazard event • Most respondents (93 percent) expect to receive information on immediate threats caused by hazards from social media, followed by television (84 percent). More than half would expect to be notified by "Ready Harris Alerts." • 59 percent of respondents indicated that they did consider the impact a disaster could have on their home before purchasing it. • 76 percent of respondents stated that the presence of a natural hazard risk zone was not disclosed to them before they purchased their home. • 85 percent of respondents support policies and/or regulations that prohibit or restrict development in identified hazard zones. Survey results were provided to the Steering Committee for use in confirming the mission statement, goals, and objectives for this plan update. Additionally, the survey results were included in the toolkit provided to each planning partner through the jurisdictional annex process described in Volume 2. Each planning partner was able to use the survey results to help identify actions as follows: • Gauge the public's perception of risk and identify what citizens are concerned about. • Identify the best ways to communicate with the public. • Determine the level of public support for different mitigation strategies. • Understand the public's willingness to invest in hazard mitigation. Public Outreach Events The public involvement strategy used for this plan update introduced the concept of mitigation to the public and provided the Steering Committee with feedback to use in developing the plan. All citizens of the planning area were provided ample opportunities to provide comment during all phases of this plan update process. Details of attendance and comments received from the public outreach events are summarized in Table 3-5. 3.11 PLAN DEVELOPMENT CHRONOLOGY/MILESTONES Table 3-6 summarizes important milestones in the plan update process. TETRA TECH 3-17 Harris County Multi -Hazard Mitigation Action Plan; Volume 1—Area-Wide Elements Table 3-5. Summary of Public Outreach Events 5/30/2019 East Harris County Manufacturers Assn. Meeting 6181201 Extreme Weather Expo 6/11/2019 Allen Community Safety_Fair, HCOHSEM Booth 6/13/2019 _ Quarterly Homeland Security Briefing - HCOHSEM 6/13/2019 Smart PAWZ, Pet preparedness event 611812019 2019 Boeing Houston Safety Fair 6/18/2019 Exxon Hurricane and Safet and Pre aredness Briefing 6/20/2019 TranStar Facility 6/2912019 Harris County Public Health, Mobile Health Village 9/1212019 Cities of Harris County Meeting, Federal Reserve Bank - Houston 9/2612019 Quarterly Homeland Security Briefing - HCOHSEM 11/14/2019 TranStar Facility 11/7-22/2019 In -Person Review of Draft Plan at Countv Offices 12018 1 ` 5/18 Organize Resources 5/30 Public Outreach 6/13 1 Public Outreach 7/20 Organize Resources Table 3-6. Plan Development Chronologv/Milestones 100 0 i None recorded None recorded None Recorded None recorded None Recorded 150 200 None recorde 85 19 300 None Recorded None recorded 40 None recorded 50 None recorded 1 None recorded 2 1,797 3 County released request for proposals for a technical support contractor to facilitate the update to the hazard mitigation elan. HCOHSEM staff provided a briefing on the hazard mitigation plan update at the East Harris County Manufacturers Association Meeting HCOHSEM staff provided a briefing on the hazard mitigation plan update at the quarterly Homeland Security briefing conducted at the HCOHSEM offices. County selected Tetra Tech as its technical assistance contractor to facilitate the plan update N/A 100 50 N/A 8/23 Organize A Planning Partner kickoff meeting invitation letter was sent to eligible local governments within N/A Resources the planning area by the HCOHSEM Emergency Management Coordinator HCOHSEM staff provided a briefing on the hazard mitigation plan update at the Cities of Harris 9/12 Public Outreach 40 County Meeting, Federal Reserve Bank - Houston. Planning Process kickoff meeting to organize planning partnership and confirm Steering 9/18 Organize 105 Resources Committee 9/26 Public Outreach HCOHSEM staff provided a briefing on the hazard mitigation plan update at the quarterly 50 Homeland Security briefing conducted at the HCOHSEM offices. Public Notice press release distributed to all media outlets by HCOHSEM Public Information 10/1 Public Outreach N/A Office staff 10/118 Steering • Organized Steering Committee 50 Committee • Defined planning area Meeting #1 • Defined critical facilities/infrastructure • Identified hazards of concern • Discussed options for public involvement strateav 3-18 TETRA TECH 3. Plan Update Approach 2019 1/19 Steering • Provided update on Phase 1 development Committee • Discussed the risk assessment process Meeting #2 • Discussed the Texas State Mitigation Plan • Defined mission statement .9 • Discussed current plan goals and objectives • Discussed public survey and outreach 3/21 Steering • Due to a petrochemical explosion that affected many participating jurisdictions, there were 31 Committee not enough planning partner jurisdictions present at the meeting to achieve a quorum. Meeting #3 Discussion was limited to project updates and other matters not requiring Steering Committee consensus. • Provided an update on the risk assessment • Discussed jurisdictional annex development • Discussed objective survey anticipation and bulletin dissemination N/A 4/8 Public Outreach Hazard Mitigation survey deployed 39 5/16 Steering • Update on risk assessment process Committee • Identified objectives for the plan Meeting #4 • Discussed the public involvement strategy and survey • Established date for Phase 1 public meeting • Discussed the Phase 3 jurisdiction annex workshop and established dates 6/20 Public Outreach HCOHSEM Facebook post announcing the Hazard Mitigation survey N/A 6/20 Public Outreach Phase 1 Public Meeting at TranStar facility at 6922 Katy Road in Houston 19 7/16 Steering • Presentation of Risk Assessment results 52 Committee Meeting #5 • Phase 1, Public Meeting -recap . Hazard Mitigation survey status • Core capability Exercise • Reviewed proposed plan maintenance strategy 7/16 Planning Process 1 st of 5 Phase-3 Jurisdictional Annex Workshops 22 7/17 Planning Process 2nd of 5 Phase-3 Jurisdictional Annex Workshops, 9:00 AM to Noon 17 7/17 Planning Process 3rd of 5 Phase-3 Jurisdictional Annex Workshops, 1:00 PM to 4:00 PM 6 7/18 Planning Process 4th of 5 Phase-3 Jurisdictional Annex Workshops, 9:00 AM to Noon 13 718 Planning Process 5th of 5 Phase-3 Jurisdictional Annex Workshops, 1:00 PM to 4:00 PM 4 10/24 Steering • Reviewed Critical Facility/Infrastructure results 48 Committee Meeting #6 • Reviewed Core Capability Exercise results • Presented internal review Draft of the plan • Confirmed final Plan Maintenance strategy 11/7 Public Outreach Beginning of the 2-week public comment period on the draft plan N/A 11/14 Public Outreach Phase 2 Public Meeting at TranStar facility located at 6922 Katy Road in Houston 6 — 8 p.m. 1 11/22 Public Outreach End of the 2-week public comment period on the draft plan N/A 12/4 Plan Submittal Pre -adoption review draft of the plan submitted to TDEM. N/A 4/21 APA Approval Pending Adoption APAprovided by FEMA Region VI N/A 4/22 Adoption Adoption Window opens for planning partnership N/A N/A TBD Approval Final Plan approval issued by FEMA Region VI TETRA TECH 3-19 4. HARRIS COUNTY PROFILE 4.1 PLANNING AREA OVERVIEW Harris County is located on the upper Gulf Coast in Southeast Texas and is bounded by Waller County on the north and west, Montgomery County on the north, Liberty and Chambers counties on the east, Galveston and Brazoria counties on the south, and Fort Bend County on the west (see Figure 4-1). The county comprises 1,778 square miles (1,729 in land) and is the largest Texas county east of the Nueces River. (Texas State Historical Association, 2019a) 4.1.1 Development and Notable Features Most of Harris County consists of developed urbanized areas. The county has more than 310 Class A high-rise office properties, hundreds of millions of square feet of warehouse and retail properties, tens of thousands of apartment units and more than 1.2 million homes. There are 23 incorporated cities in the county, including Houston, which is the fourth largest city by population in the United States. (Harris County Appraisal District, 2017) Industrialized areas of the county include the port facilities of the Houston Ship Channel and Port of Houston, the busiest port in the United States in terms of foreign tonnage and the second busiest in overall tonnage. Harris County is one of the world's major petrochemical centers and includes five refineries, thousands of miles of pipeline and tank storage and dozens of petrochemical processing facilities. The Texas Medical Center in Houston is the largest medical center complex in the world, containing many world class hospitals and medical research facilities including the world's largest children's hospital and the world's largest cancer hospital. Harris County is also the home to the Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center where NASA's Mission Control is housed as well as the San Jacinto Battleground where the battle for Texas' independence from Mexico was won in 1836. 4.1.2 Transportation Major highways serving the county include the following: • Interstate Highways: 69, 35, 45, 10, 110, 610 (Loop) • U.S. Highways: 59, 75, 80, 90, 281, 290 • State Highways: 6, 225, 249 • Tollways: ➢ Maintained by the Harris County Toll Road Authority: Hardy Toll Road, Sam Houston Tollway, Tomball Tollway, Katy Managed Lanes, Ship Channel Bridge ➢ Maintained by Texas Department of Transportation: Grand Parkway ➢ Maintained by the Fort Bend County Toll Road Authority (partially located within Harris County: Westpark Tollway, Grand Parkway TETRA TECH 4-1 y - L-.Tomball 2a9 rI 'Jersey, AI,� Village' r I- --- n. � s \ Hiishi,--. la . Village \Piney c Point Village _-I � f Figure 4-1. Harris County Planning Area j Incorporated Cities r ,L= Harris County Humble J % Jacinto City r' — �: — - ;� Baytown Galena. ,:, '' Park' ty qouLnsiur� � I Park � Ilaire lace l_Morgan's j La Porte point 90 88 Pasadena — S _ Shoreacres N A 0 2 4 8 Miles 4. Harris County Profile The county has three major international airports— Dan Jones International Airport, William P. Hobby Airport, and George Bush Intercontinental Airport —and numerous regional airports, including Ellington Field, West Houston Airport, La Porte Municipal Airport, David Wayne Hooks Memorial Airport, Baytown Airport, and Weiser Airpark. Public transportation by bus and light rail across most of the county is provided by the Metro transit authority. Amtrak provides passenger rail service. 4.1.3 Forms of Government County powers and duties in Texas are specifically granted and limited by the state constitution and state law. Each county has a commissioner's court, which consists of four commissioners, each elected from the Commissioner's precinct, and a county judge elected from the entire county. In smaller counties, the county judge retains judicial responsibilities in probate and insanity cases. Special-purpose jurisdictions are created to perform a specific function. In Texas, each city follows the local government code, which defines cities' rights and responsibilities regarding properties within their boundaries and surrounding areas (extraterritorial jurisdiction). This code give cities authority to manipulate their boundaries via annexation or dis-annexation (City of Houston, 2019). Texas cities of more than 5,000 citizens adopt home -rule charters and are governed by city councils and either city managers, city administrators, or mayors. Cities with fewer than 5,000 residents, or "general law" cities, have powers and duties specifically granted by the Texas Constitution and state law. A city manager or city administrator plan can be adopted in any general law city. Some home rules cities now have fewer than 5,000 residents because their population has declined since they adopted their home rule charters. Jurisdictional annexes in Volume 2 of this plan describe the government form of each participating planning partner. 4.1.4 Historical Summary Harris County was founded in 1836, organized in 1837 and named after John Richardson Harris, who also founded the town of Harrisburg. There are records of European settlers in Harris County in the early 1820s, but they did not stay long. Immigrants later settled the areas along the Buffalo Bayou and the City of Morgan's Point. These settlers attempted to utilize the Buffalo Bayou as a trading post for the Brazos River Valley, which now serves as the Houston Ship Channel. John Richardson Harris arrived in the area in 1824 and settled on land at the junction of Bray's and Buffalo bayous. In 1825, he laid out the city of Harrisburg. Harrisburg Municipal was created by the General Council on December 30, 1835 and designated the town as the seat of its government. On April 21, 1836, the Battle of San Jacinto was fought in the area. This was the deciding battle of the Texas Revolution, which separated the Republic of Texas from Mexico. The name of the area was changed to Harrisburg County in 1836 and to Harris County in December 1839. 4.2 MAJOR PAST HAZARD EVENTS Presidential disaster declarations are typically issued for hazard events that cause more damage than state and local governments can handle without assistance from the federal government, although no specific dollar loss threshold has been established for these declarations. A presidential disaster declaration puts federal recovery programs into motion to help disaster victims, businesses and public entities. Some of the programs are matched by state programs. Review of presidential disaster declarations helps establish the probability of reoccurrence for each hazard and identify targets for risk reduction. Table 4-1 shows the declared disasters that affected Harris County from 1973 through 2018. TETRA TECH 4-3 Harris County Multi -Hazard Mitigation Action Plan; Volume 1—Area-Wide Elements Hurricane Harvey Table 4-1. Historical Harris Countv Natural Hazard Events 4332 DR 2017 Severe Storms and Flooding Severe Storms and Flooding Severe Storms, Tornados, Straight Line Winds and Flooding 4269 DR 2016 4272 DR 2016 4245 DR 2015 4223 DR 2015 Severe Storms, Tornados, Straight Line Winds and Flooding Forest Brook Fire 2011 Hurricane Ike 1791 DR 2008 Hurricane Ik Hurricane Gustav 3290 EM 2008 Hurricane Dean 3277 EM do Tropical Storm Erin Extreme Wild ire rest jffi, 1730 DR 1624 UK 2007 2006 2005 2005 Hurricane Rita 1606 DR Hurricane Rita dw 3261 EM Hurricane Katrina Evacuation 3216 EM 2005 Severe Storms, Tornados and Flooding 1439 DR 2002 Tropical Storm Allison 1379 DR 2001 Extreme Fire Hazards 3142 EM 1999 Flooding 1257 DR 1998 ro ical Storm Charley 1239 DR 1998 Hurricane Georges 1245 DR 1998 Severe Thunderstorms and Floodin 1041 DR 1994 1992 1992 Severe Thunderstorms and Tornados Severe Storms and Flooding 970 DR 37 DR Tropical Storm Allison 836 DR 1989 1989 1984 Severe Storms, Tornados and Flooding 828 DR Severe Storms and Flooding 727 DR Hurricane Alicia 689 DR 1983 Severe Storms, Tornados and Flooding 580 DR 1979 Severe Storms and Flooding Severe Storms and Flooding Severe Storms and Flooding= 603 DR 1979 1976 1973 510 DR 398 DR Source: FEMA, 2019. 4.3 PHYSICAL SETTING 4.3.1 Watersheds and Drainage Infrastructure Harris County is drained by 22 watersheds (see Figure 4-2). Buffalo Bayou, the last 16 miles of which make up the Houston Ship Channel, bisects the county from west to east before joining the north -to -south San Jacinto River just above its estuary on upper Galveston Bay. The eastern third of the county is drained by Cedar Bayou. The southern part of the county is drained by Clear Creek and Clear Lake. Spring Creek forms its northern boundary and, joined by parallel Cypress Creek, becomes the West Fork of the San Jacinto River. 4-4 TETRA TECH 4. Harris County Profile Source: Harris County Flood Control District Farris County'County's Watemheds SPRING GRE€K LUCE BAYOU i WILLOW CREEK r SM C NT# .�-. CYpR£ss CREEK " t ER S.v , - t L @AiU4. CEDAR -- " GREENSJ YOU BAYOU AadICKS WHITE DAK SAYOU I RESERVOIR 111UN- ndfC R3 IN BAYOU VW ,r CULLY • BA�tI{ER J EkAr� 13A VIN CE. @AYOU, SIMS BAYOU - hRMAND GALVESTON BAYOU BAY ti - C LEAR CREEK � r Figure 4-2. Harris County Watersheds A dam below the East and West Forks of the San Jacinto River created Lake Houston in 1954. The lake is now a popular recreational spot. This reservoir for the City of Houston lessened dependence on subsurface water, the use of which has caused up to 9 feet of subsidence around the confluence of Buffalo Bayou and the San Jacinto River (Texas State Historical Association, 2019a). In western Harris County, Addicks and Barker Dams provide substantial flood control. 4.3.2 Geology The landscape in Harris County is level to gently undulating with slow surface drainage (Texas State Historical Association, 2019b). The elevation slowly rises from sea level at the county's southeast edge where the land comes in contact with Galveston Bay, to approximately 50 feet above sea level at mid -county, to as high as 300 feet at the far northwest corner of the county. Buffalo Bayou runs through the middle of the county from the City of Katy at the west end of the county to the Houston Ship Channel on the southeast corner of the county. The Houston Ship Channel empties into Galveston Bay and leads to the Gulf of Mexico. TETRA TECH 4-5 Harris County Multi -Hazard Mitigation Action Plan; Volume 1—Area-Wide Elements Several fault lines lie within county. The largest of these, the Long Point -Eureka Heights fault system, runs from the center of the Houston metropolitan area out to the west side of the county. While there have been no earthquakes reported in the county, the potential risk cannot be discounted. 4.3.3 Soils and Wetlands The coast prairie soil of Harris County consists of mostly deep, dark -gray, neutral to slightly acid clay loams and clays. (Texas State Historical Association, 2019b). Harris County's humid climate supports well -vegetated wetlands. These wetlands are generally flat and consist mostly of grasses and temperate -climate plants. Due to its flat terrain and slow drainage, much of the area is considered wetland with lush marshes throughout most of the year (Texas A&M Agrilife Extension Service, 2019). 4.3.4 Climate Climate divisions are regions that are climatically homogenous as possible. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has divided the continental U.S. into 344 climate divisions. The boundaries of these divisions typically coincide with county boundaries. Harris County is located in the Texas Climate Division 8 — Upper Coast (see Figure 4-3). The average annual rainfall in Harris County is 47 inches, and the mean temperature is 69.1°F. The average growing season in the Harris County planning area and all participating jurisdictions is 300 days, with the first freeze generally occurring around mid -December (Texas State Historical Association, 2019a). Source: South Central Climate Science Center, 2015 Texas Climate Divisions 1 - High Plains - Low Rolling Plains 3 - North Central 4 - East 5 - Trans Pecos 6 - Edwards Plateau 7 - South Central 8 - Upper Coast 9 - South 10 - Lower Valley Figure 4-3. Texas Climate Divisions 4-6 TETRA TECH 4. Harris County Profile 4.4 DEVELOPMENT PROFILE Much of the land in the Harris County planning area has been developed, and the primary land use is urban, with highly populated residential areas, along with commercial and industrial areas. 4.4.1 Building Occupancy and Estimated Value According to Central Appraisal districts for Harris, Fort Bend and Galveston Counties, there are 1,355,132 buildings in the Harris County planning area, with a total appraised value of over $928 billion. The majority of buildings in the planning area are designated for residential use, as indicated in Table 4-2. 4.4.2 Agricultural Uses Agriculture in the planning area encompasses 50,000 irrigated acres planted with rice, soybeans, grains, hay, corn, and vegetables. Cattle, hogs, horses, and poultry are raised on agricultural lands, as well (Texas State Historical Association, 2019a). Table 4-3 summarizes agricultural land use in the Harris County planning area. 4.4.3 Critical Facilities and Infrastructure Critical facilities and infrastructure are assets that are essential to the health and welfare of the population. The Steering Committee for this plan reviewed example definitions of critical facilities/infrastructure from other planning efforts and confirmed the following definition for critical facilities and infrastructure: Critical facilities and infrastructure are assets that are vital to the Harris County planning area's ability to provide essential services and protect life and property. Major damage to such facilities and infrastructure that causes a long-term loss of their function would likely result in a severe health and welfare, life- sustainment, economic, or other catastrophic impact. For hazard mitigation planning purposes, critical infrastructure and facilities are assets in the following categories: Government Facilities —Buildings and facilities owned or leased by local governments, political subdivisions, and special purpose districts such as general -use office buildings and other structures that may house critical equipment, networks, or provide essential government services. ➢ Education Facilities —Pre -kindergarten through 12th grade schools, school support facilities, and institutions of higher education. ➢ Health and Medical Facilities —Health and medical services facilities providing direct patient care, public health services, healthcare delivery, and mass fatality services. ➢ Transportation Systems —Transportation modes used to move people and goods through the county, state, country and overseas. ➢ Utility Systems —Lifeline systems that support and sustain all other facilities and infrastructure such as water, wastewater, electrical, and telecommunications. ➢ Emergency Services —Facilities used by first responder and public safety agencies that provide law enforcement, fire response, emergency medical services, incident response, and emergency management. ➢ Environmental Areas —Natural resources, environmentally sensitive areas, wetlands, land preserves, conservation areas, parks and open space, and coastal areas. ➢ Historic and Cultural Sites —Historic properties, art and cultural institutions, cultural resources, and monuments. ➢ Hazardous Material Sites —Tier II chemical facilities, facilities included on the federal Toxics Release Inventory, and federally designated Superfund sites. ➢ Water Control Facilities —Irrigation systems, drainage and pumping systems, levees, dams, and flood control channels. TETRA TECH 4-7 Harris County Multi -Hazard Mitigation Action Plan; Volume 1-Area-Wide Elements Table 4-2. Planninq Area Buildinq Counts by Occui)ancv T Baytownc 1 20,309 1,849 22,158 $11,458,106,691 VIlaire Bunker Hill Villa a Deer Par l El Lago Friendswoodc 6,307 196 1 _ 795 29 450 256 91 6,503 $5,726,227,131 1,302 1,303 $1,322,346,729 10,575 11,370 $5,845,168,035 1,078 1,107 $469,295,696 13,072 13,529 $6,185,226,675 Galena Park 3,032 3,288 909 321 $1,178,706,765 $1,142,111,969 $207,926,478 LHedwig Village Hilshire Village 818 311 10 oustona, b 544,150 48,016 592,166 $487,379,428,234 Humble 3,979 911 4,890 $4,570,456,883 untersCreek Villa 1552 20 1,572 $1,787,651,957 Jacinto Citya 2,745 241 2,986 $1,261,111,221 Jersey Village 2,348 179 2,527 $2,275,428,136 Katyc 4,921 631 5,552 $3,396,517,744 La Porte 11,467 960 12,427 $6,575,613,440 League Cit a, b 386 8 394 $280,449,911 Missouri Cit c 23,412 914 24,326 $12,398,706,197 Mor an's Point 150 10 160 $262,314,866 Nassau Bay 1,504 70 1,574 $1,635,924,802 Pasadena 37,128 3,511 40,639 $22,505,882,445 Pearlano Piney Point Village 791 1,188 43 7 834 $709,046,327 $1,817,131,583 1,195 4,105 285 4,390 $2,537,671,414 Shoreacres 656 1 657 $218,188,519 outh Houstona 4,050 951 5,001 2,162,541,092 Southside Placea 491 17 508 $471,918,214 Spring Valley Village 1,466 43 1,509 $1,227,871,955 Staffordc 3,967 1,038 5,055 $6,102,429,982 Lake Village 1,385 5 1,390 $690,404,692 _Taylor Tomball 2,933 716 3,649 $3,569,286,191 Wallera, b 197 1,774 64 261 $221,680,638 613 2,387 $5,700,342,104 _ 57 A 5,525 $3,722,134,705 31,128 573,070 $321,033,774,612 94,116 1,355,132 $928,049,024,033 Webster blest University Place Unincorporated 5,468 541,942 a. City at least partly in Harris County not participating as planning partner to his hazard mitigation plan b. City extends beyond Harris County. Values shown are for Harris County portion only. c. City extends beyond Harris County. Values shown are for entire city. 4-8 TETRA TECH 4. Harris County Profile Table 4-3. Farms in the Harris Countv Planninq Area 2017 1,891 218,659 1,137,280 19.2% $998,851 per farm $50.6 million Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2017 Table 4-4 shows examples of facilities under each of the above categories. The CPT created an inventory of assets that meet the definition based on best available data. This inventory was basis for all critical facility analyses completed for this plan. The number and types of facilities within the planning area that meet this definition is considered to be dynamic. It is the intent of the planning partnership to maintain an inventory of these facilities during the performance period of this plan as new information becomes available. Table 4-4. Typical Facilities in Designated Critical Facilities/Infrastructure Categories Government Facilities Education Facilities Hazardous Material Sites Courthouse Records Storage Library Post Office County Facilities City Facilities State Facilities Federal Facilities Health and Medical Facilities Hospitals Nursing Homes (8) Senior Homes Assisted Living Dialysis Centers Hospice Southeast Texas Regional Advisory Council Mass Fatality Management Services Emergency Services Law Enforcement Emergency Operation Center Fire Services Emergency Medical Systems 911 Dispatch /Public Safety Answering Point Schools (public, private, charter) Super Fund Sites Colleges and Universities Tier II Chemical Facilities Harris County Department of Education Toxics Release Inventory Sites Region 4 Education Service Center Historic and Cultural Sites School Support Facilities Monuments Transportation Systems Museums Airport / Aviation Religious Organizations Passenger Rail Auditoriums Maritime Transportation Community Centers Roads Historic Sites Bridges Art and Cultural Institutions Highways Zoo Pipelines Water Control Facilities Railways Detention ponds Mass Transit Dams/levees Environmental Areas Drainage systems Wetlands Irrigation systems Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Channels and canals Wildlife Preserve Pumping facilities Land Conservation Area Flood control channels Coastal Shorelines and Beaches Utility Systems Natural Resources Electric Telecommunications Water Wastewater The designated categories were used to identify critical facilities and infrastructure in the planning area. In order to perform a risk assessment of critical facilities, the identified facilities and infrastructure were reassigned to different categories, as defined in the risk assessment software that was used (FEMA's Hazus software). The Hazus-categorized critical facilities and infrastructure identified for this plan are mapped on Figure 4-4 through Figure 4-7 and listed in Table 4-5. TETRA TECH 4-9 �I 0(6 i i O 0 O 6; ` r_ fi ), O b O1 mof\ °a a p 1,° p op °CP o o�d_c�? , �0 o o°p9Q0o bI°° 0 o f ° °0 \O OppdQ"(O -(: p0�00 0 0 0�O o o C1 l4gfO pOD° O z7'9kO00 Poo O c, O o6o9p Ioo O O 0 $ °00 o�o p - .- tir a e p g C6 O ° ® 00 I�_ ° p °� °o Harris County HMP Project Area Critical Facilities O Government Facilities — — j Incorporated Cities -----� Harris County Critical Facilities O Education Facilities — — j Incorporated Cities -----� Harris County o 00 ° ° 1. t F L �i`' O :J C•7 101 0 3 6 TETRATECH N 12 n Miles N 0 3 6 12 Miles Figure 4-4. Critical Facilities and Infrastructure —Government and Education - OI O/ �I y10o _1 < 0 0�1 m ° -J r O 8Q 1 f °O 6, O -I O 4 O ' 0 1 0° / O'COO 0 p I �pr'I �v� O 0 O lJ0 ', -I O ti O 0 �__ t ;c10-r 0 �O 0 I J " 0 O F y CO O r-- °—_r 00 � p CDO0 ° L 1` 0� J-1 0 0 0C9 0 p (Do O 7 y p �~ O --� 0 O ONE 0 00 0 0 000-000,100 0 7�1f ;�J;00�o t1 , (�0 `T"-y d Vt 00 BO 6�' OL--O Q 0 p 0 O (b O 0,fO� 00 0 i - - rn O 0000 0 Harris County HMP Project Area, p OOP p ° Critical Facilities 0 Health and Medical Facilities — — j Incorporated Cities -----� Harris County Harris County HMP Project Area Critical Facilities 0 Transportation Systems — — j Incorporated Cities -----� Harris County 04 0 3 6 •4P ,• • •• • • • • • 1• • • • �• • a• • I • •• • • i `•' • • �� • • • • • • 1 • • • • • • •%,• • • l • • j •��a,• '•• •/• • • � • ••• • • �•1 •• ••j •!` ( • • • ••.� VO-Ocloel- ••1 •• �: • (. •frr ••: • • • • • • •••1 �. 1•:1 ila� • • TETRATECH N 12 n Miles N CA— � •T* �• i • •• • ice' 0. l�• : : •••.-• • S C bL • • •.•,�i, •,• •� a• • • • 2 k • • •• • TEX P`� 0 � Figure 4-5. Critical Facilities and Infrastructure—Health/Medical and Transportation r / O j Lt' 0 0 00 0 0 cp '_ ° 1° d ° 0 e 0 00- � O� O I O n� o p O p00 �CO� 0 Cly Oo o �tl �, 000 o p �O p 0 �iSb o o° 04�0 �b�o g' I _d S °g \ $o cb0 �b o° p o \ ° p )),99 0p fq q� , o o o o L' o o f Pq� 9, o f�/ 0 o o �b 0,0 0 0 CP 0 01gqt_L f'- �� � O U LS� p 0 p I i--o 1 1 O O O O 01-rn 0 Harris County HMP Project Area ��'. ° r07-� r-0 `o%Q ° ` ` Critical Facilities'� `` X 011 u o O Utility Systems` Q!/ TETRA TECH j Incorporated Cities << O r-----1 0 3 6 12 n -----� Harris County Miles A 0 / O \ 0 0 / ,rr O - _ �� , p ' Si'� 0 o 0 p 0 0 0 / �0 0 \0 0 0 0 g 0 O \` '00 0 0� 1 f 0 0, t o �, ° Q o L'dO _ o r , 00 ° 0 O I o p l O ,J o b I_yt--; O - r'_cIJ b r __s O O O O O o -. O •- O O 0 00 i �0 O ° p �p : DSO o ® o 0* o 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 og_a d (PO O L0 OO�y,p -Q j-1. o� 0, col-' o 0 0 ° °,,t o ° o 00 0 �j��T1' ` _ �- o00 o00O o o - — 0 00 ° o o'o $ p °o 0 1 0 0 0 �4 o p p o o I1__ = Harris County HMP Project Area 0 o 0 ° °° ° ��--- — Critical Facilities • Emergency Services — — j Incorporated Cities -----� Harris County O_J 0 r �0 0 C1 0 O` O '60Qo o� o 0 ° TETRATECH O 0 N 0 0 3 6 12 n Miles N Figure 4-6. Critical Facilities and Infrastructure —Emergency Services and Utilities Harris County Multi -Hazard Mitigation Action Plan; Volume 1—Area-Wide Elements Bellaire 6 2 1 10 0 0 2 6 10 1 1 Bunker Hill Villa e 2 0 5 1 0 Deer Park 10 4 2 34 1 22 10 2 El Lago 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 -endswoodc 3 5 1 0 2 1 Galena Park 6 3 2 13 1 9 14 1 Ila e 1 2 1EIWM 0 2 0 Hilshire Village 1 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 Houstona, b 492 133 471 1,180 249 1,822 1,083 74 Humble 4 5 9 21 10 40 7 1 Hunters Creek Village 1 0 0 1 0 1 2 0 Jacinto Citya 2 2 1 3 1 7 5 0 Jersey Village 1 3 1 10 0 2 10 2 Katyc 4 2 3 11 3 11 1 0 La Porte 8 4 6 29 1 30 32 2 League Citya, b 0 7 7 1 0 2 0 1 Missouri Cityc 0 5 0 2 1 1 6 4 Morgan's Point 0 1 0 6 1 0 0 1 Nassau Bay 0 5 1 1 1 3 0 3 Pasadena 39 11 59 60 13 82 87 5 Pearlan��Il 0 3 2 2 0 2 3 1 Piney Point Village 2 1 0 2 0 5 3 1 2 2 6 6 0 6 4 1 Shoreacres 1 4 0 0 0 0 7 0 2 0 11 1 1 0 outh Houstona 6 2 3 16 0 Southside Placea 0 1 1 1 0 pring Valley Village 0 2 ME 1 2 1 4 2 0 Staffordc 2 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 aylor Lake Village 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 Tomball 6 4 5 13 14 11 2 1 Wallera, b 1 2 1 0 0 2 1 0 Webster 2 4 2 12 11 19 5 1 West University Place 1 2 1 1 1 6 2 1 37 10 85 4 19 49 9 5 5,504 97 5 21 29 35 112 18 19 9 14 356 13 14 27 7 46 4 12 6 4 56 7 56 15 Unincor orated 561 83 483 1,216 94 717 714 681 4,549 3W 1,083 2,690 421 2,904 2,035 _D0 11,416 a. City at least partly in Harris County not participating as planning partner to his hazard mitigation plan b. City extends beyond Harris County. Values shown are for Harris County portion only. c. City extends beyond Harris County. Values shown are for entire city. 4-14 TETRA TECH 4. Harris County Profile 4.4.4 Future Trends in Development Harris County has experienced significant recent growth, increasing in population by 14.5 percent from 2010 to 2018 (Texas Demographic Center, 2019). The Texas A&M University Texas State Data Center population projections indicate that by 2050, with no migration rates, 5,392,104 people will be residing in Harris County and its 34 incorporated communities. This would represent a 14 percent increase from the County's 2018 population. It is anticipated that future growth in the planning area will push into agricultural areas, converting the land use from agricultural to urban. The planning area experienced a 4.2 percent decrease in agricultural/farmlands during the past performance period. This trend is anticipated to continue through the next performance period of this plan update. It is likely that future growth will extend into hazard areas identified and assessed by this plan. Harris County and its planning partners are equipped with the core capabilities assed by this plan update to manage growth so that the increased risk can be minimized to the best extent possible. The municipal planning partners have adopted basic or comprehensive plans that govern land use decision- and policy -making in their jurisdictions. Decisions on land use will be governed by these programs. This plan will work together with these programs to support wise land use in the future by providing vital information on the risk associated with natural hazards. All municipal planning partners will incorporate this hazard mitigation plan update in their local plans by reference. This will ensure that future development trends can be established with the benefits of the information on risk and vulnerability to natural hazards identified in this plan. 4.5 DEMOGRAPHICS Some populations are at greater risk from hazard events because of decreased resources or physical abilities. Elderly people, for example, may be more likely to require additional assistance. Research has shown that people living near or below the poverty line, the elderly, women, children, ethnic minorities, renters, individuals with disabilities, and others with access and functional needs, all experience more severe effects from disasters than the general population. These vulnerable populations may vary from the general population in risk perception, living conditions, access to information before, during and after a hazard event, capabilities during an event, and access to resources for post -disaster recovery. Indicators of vulnerability —such as disability, age, poverty, and minority race and ethnicity —often overlap spatially and often in the geographically most vulnerable locations. Detailed spatial analysis to locate areas where there are higher concentrations of vulnerable community members would help to extend focused public outreach and education to these most vulnerable citizens. 4.5.1 Population Characteristics Knowledge of the composition of the population and how it has changed in the past and how it may change in the fixture is needed for making informed decisions about the future. Information about population is a critical part of planning because it directly relates to land needs such as housing, industry, stores, public facilities and services, and transportation. Population Distribution The total population of Harris County, based on 2018 Census estimates, is 4,698,619. Currently, Harris County is the third most populous county in the United States behind Cook County, Illinois and Los Angeles County, California. The city with the highest population in the county is the City of Houston with a 2010 population of 2,099,451. Houston is the fourth largest city in the nation (U.S. Census Bureau, 2018). Table 4-6 lists the population distribution by city. Figure 4-8 shows the distribution of Harris County's population across the planning area, based on Census 2010 data. TETRA TECH 4-15 Harris County Multi -Hazard Mitigation Action Plan; Volume 1-Area-Wide Elements Table 4-6. Population Growth Data Ba towna 73 552 76 205 2 653 36 Bellaire 17,134 18,479 3,936 33,748 2,759 38,811 1,345 7.8 Bunker Hill Village 3672 264 7.2 Deer Park 32,849 899 2.7 El Lago 2709 50 1.8 Friendswooda 6,552 2,259 6.1 Galena Park 11,804 11,103 -701 -5.9 Hedwig Village 2608 662 5 Hilshire Villaa 761 846 103 13.5 Houstona, b 2,157111W2,267.336 110,240 Humble 15,482 15,736 254 1.6 Hunters QMWIageft 4,74 347 .9 Jacinto City Jersey Village 10,763 1 10,748 ,89 -15 145 -0.1 1.9 Katya 14,535 17,265 2,730 18.9 La Porte 34,421 35,216 795 2.3 League Citya, b 86,806 98,215 11,409 13.1 Missouri Citya 70,016 72,688 2,672 3.8 Mor an's Pointa 343 333 -10 -2.9 Nassau Bay 4,028 4,092 64 1.6 Pasadena 152,137 153,909 1,772 1.1 Pearlan&4&M 95,359 113,693 18,334 19.2 Piney Point Village 3,128 3,358 13,325 1,796 17,563 11704 4,175 230 7.3 Seabroo 12,331 Shoreacres 1,510 South Houstonb Southside Placeb 1,745 Spring Valley 3,817 Stafforda 18,229 a for Lake Villa r 3,545 Tomball 10,973 994 1 286 -41 1 18.9 -2.3 358 18,092 3 NEW_ 11,535 -137 ill 562 0.7 Annou- 5.1 allera, b 2,342 2,737 395 16.9 Webster 10,622 11,128 est University Place 15,107 15,477 Unincorporated 1,274,273 1,430,542 ULCII NIIIIIIIIIIIIIIr 4,209,769 4,525,519 ffll�315,768 506 4.8 370 2.4 156,269 12.2 a. City extends beyond Harris County. Values shown are for entire city. b. City at least partly in Harris County not participating as planning partner to his hazard mitigation plan 4-16 TETRA TECH 4. Harris County Profile 2014 HARRIS COUNTY LMP "' POPULATION DISTRIBUTION W E (Based on Census 2010) S Montgomery Liberty Waller � -- Chambers Legend Hams County Lake Population: Census 2010 (By Tract) Less than 2,000 (units: persons) 2.001 - 4,000 - 4,001 - 6,000 - 6,001 - 9,000 .9,001 - 12,000 - More than 12,000 Population Trends it ,.. _-�i-_i_. •.,,� II r', ! Fo�Bend. Brazorla Figure 4-8. Population Distribution in Harris County Galveston Galveston Bay Population changes are useful indicators —growing population can indicate a growing economy and decreasing population may signify economic decline. Harris County is growing rapidly due to births and international migration, and, according to the Census Bureau, has been one of the nation's fastest growing counties in terms of numeric change in population for the past 8 years. Between 2010 and 2013, the population of the Houston Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical Area grew 7.5 percent. By comparison, the nation's population increased 3.8 percent over the same period (U.S. Census Bureau, 2019). Table 4-6 shows the population of incorporated municipalities and unincorporated areas in Harris County from 2012 to 2017. The portion of residents living outside incorporated areas was roughly constant over those years, at about 30 percent. Overall growth during the period was 3.1 percent in unincorporated areas and about 2.8 percent in incorporated areas. Figure 4-9 shows current and projected Harris County population through 2045. According to Texas A&M University's Texas State Data Center and the Office of the State Demographer, the County population is expected to increase from 4,092,459 in 2010 to 5,288,278 in 2045 (assuming a migration rate of zero). Population projections by Texas State Data Center indicate that by 2050 5,400,000 people will be residing in Harris County. TETRA TECH 4-17 Harris County Multi -Hazard Mitigation Action Plan; Volume 1—Area-Wide Elements Source: Texas State Data Center Figure 4-9. Current and Projected Population for Harris County 4.5.2 Households and Homeownership From 2013 to 2017, the Harris County planning area had an estimated 1,583,000 households. This represents an average of 2.87 people per household. The owner -occupied housing unit rate from 2013 to 2017 was 54.7 percent. Population per square mile in 2010 was 2,404.4 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2019) 4.5.3 Age Distribution As a group, the elderly are more apt to lack the physical and economic resources necessary for response to hazard events and are more likely to suffer health -related consequences making recovery slower. Additionally, the elderly are more likely to live in assisted -living facilities where emergency preparedness occurs at the discretion of facility operators. These facilities are typically identified as "critical facilities" by emergency managers because they require extra notice to implement evacuation. Elderly residents living in their own homes may have more difficulty evacuating their homes and could be stranded in dangerous situations. This population group is more likely to need special medical attention, which may not be readily available during natural disasters due to isolation caused by the event. Specific planning attention for the elderly is an important consideration given the current aging of the American population. Children under 14 are particularly vulnerable to disaster events because of their young age and dependence on others for basic necessities. Very young children may additionally be vulnerable to injury or sickness; this vulnerability can be worsened during a natural disaster because they may not understand the measures that need to be taken to protect themselves from hazards. The overall age distribution for the planning area is illustrated in Figure 4-10. Based on U.S. Census data, 10.2 percent of the planning area's population is 65 or older and 26.9 percent of the population is under 18. According to U.S. Census data, 11.3 percent of the over-65 population have incomes below the poverty level. Of children under 18, 25 percent live below the poverty level. 4-18 TETRA TECH 4. Harris County Profile 85 years and over 75 to 84 years 65 to 74 years 60 to 64 years 55 to 59 years 45 to 54 years Q 35 to 44 years 25 to 34 years 20 to 24 years 15 to 19 years 10 to 14 years 5 to 9 years Under 5 years Source: American Fact Finder, 2012-2016 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, 2018 100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000 500,000 600,000 700,000 800,000 Number of People Figure 4-10. Planning Area Age Distribution 4.5.4 Race, Ethnicity and Language Research shows that minorities are less likely to be involved in pre -disaster planning and experience higher mortality rates during a disaster. Post -disaster recovery can be ineffective and is often characterized by cultural insensitivity. Since higher proportions of ethnic minorities live below the poverty line than the majority white population, poverty can compound vulnerability. According to the U.S. Census, the racial composition of the planning area is predominantly white, at about 69.8 percent. The largest minority population is black or African American at 19.7 percent. While not considered a separate race, the planning area has a 43 percent Hispanic or Latino population. Figure 4-11 shows the racial distribution in the planning area. The planning area has a 26-percent foreign -born population. In 2017, only 56.3 percent of the Harris County population spoke only English at home. Other than English, the most commonly spoken language in the planning area is Spanish. The 2010 census found that no racial or ethnic group constituted a majority of the Houston metro area population; by 2030, under reasonable scenarios, Hispanics could become a majority (see Table 4-7). Asians --over 6 percent of the population in 2010— are projected to increase to 10 percent within the next two decades. (U.S. Census Bureau,2019) TETRA TECH 4-19 Harris County Multi -Hazard Mitigation Action Plan; Volume 1—Area-Wide Elements White 65% Two or Mc 1 °y Other 8% Other Pacific... Asian 7% African American 19% n CUM P%1abRa ryuLIve 0.4% Figure 4-11. Planning Area Race Distribution Table 4-7. Projected Population 2020-2050 by Race/Ethnicity for Harris County 2020 4,978,446 1,448,275 927,092 2,107,349 495,730 2025 5,446,430 1,492,051 1,014,616 2,331,411 608,352 2030 5,922,906 1,528,178 1,099,527 2,558,266 736,935 2035 6,403,762 1,557,438 1,181,044 2,780,373 884,907 2040 6,892,477 1,586,178 1,258,987 2,990,485 1,056,827 2045 7,392,260 1,617,212 1,332,346 3,185,311 1,257,381 1,399,520 3,362,429 1 1,488,137 2050 7,900,994 1,650,908 Source: Texas State Data Center, Harris County 4.5.5 Individuals with Disabilities or with Access and Functional Needs The 2010 U.S. Census estimates that 54 million non -institutionalized Americans with disabilities live in the U.S. This equates to about one -in -rive persons. Individuals with disabilities are more likely to have difficulty responding to a hazard event than the general population. Local government is the first level of response to assist these individuals, and coordination of efforts to meet their access and functional needs is paramount to life safety efforts. It is important for emergency managers to distinguish between functional and medical needs in order to plan for incidents that require evacuation and sheltering. Knowing the percentage of population with a disability will allow emergency management personnel and first responders to have personnel available who can provide services needed by those with access and functional needs. According to U.S. Census data, 8.7 percent of the of the population reported a disability. Of those with a disability, 0.5 percent were under 5 years old, 9.5 percent were age 5 to 17 years, 55.9 percent were age 18 to 64 years, and 34 percent were 65 and older. 4.5.6 Education In 2018, 1,264,758 people in the Harris County planning area were enrolled in school (U.S. Census Bureau, 2019). Countywide, 80.5 percent had a high school diploma or higher and 30.5 percent held a bachelor's degree or higher between 2013 and 2017 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2019). 4-20 TETRA TECH 4. Harris County Profile 4.6 ECONOMY Harris County has a diverse economy with 114,218 businesses spanning a wide spectrum of industries. The largest industry sector driving the Harris County economy is health care and social assistance, employing 296,287. The Texas Medical Center, located in Houston, is the largest medical complex in the world, employing 106,000. The energy sector (oil, coal, power) is also a leading driver of the Harris County economy, employing 96,312 (Lone Star College, 2018). Houston has every major energy company represented locally. 4.6.1 Income In the United States, individual households are expected to use private resources to prepare for, respond to and recover from disasters to some extent. This means that households living in poverty are disadvantaged when confronting hazards. Additionally, the poor typically occupy more poorly built and inadequately maintained housing. Mobile or modular homes, for example, are more susceptible to damage in earthquakes and floods than other types of housing. In urban areas, the poor often live in older houses and apartment complexes, which are more likely to be made of un-reinforced masonry, a building type that is particularly susceptible to damage during earthquakes. Furthermore, residents below the poverty level are less likely to have insurance to compensate for losses incurred from natural disasters. This means that residents below the poverty level have a great deal to lose during an event and are the least prepared to deal with potential losses. The events following Hurricane Katrina in 2005 illustrated that personal household economics significantly impact people's decisions on evacuation. Individuals who cannot afford gas for their cars will likely decide not to evacuate. Based on U.S. Census Bureau estimates, per capita income in the planning area in 2017 was $30,856, and the median household income was $57,791. Table 4-8 shows the distribution of earnings for full time workers in Harris County. Median household income in Harris County was $57,791 which was higher than the median household income for the State of Texas at $57,051, as well as the U.S. median at $57,652. Per capita income in 2017 in Harris County was $30,856 versus $28,985 in the State of Texas and $31,177 for the U.S. (U.S. Census Bureau, 2019). Table 4-8. Earninas for Full Time Workers in Harris $1 to $9,999 or less 1.8 $50,000 to $64,999 15.3 $10,000 to $14,999 4.1 $65,000 to $74,999 5.9 $15,000 to $24,000 15.0 $75,000 to $99,999 9.0 $25,000 to $34,999 15.9 $100,000 or more 15.1 $35,000 to $49,999 17.9 Source: Census Bureau 2017 According to U.S. Census Bureau data, the 5-year poverty status estimate for Harris County from 2013 to 2017 was 16.8 percent or 751,985 people. Statewide, 4,291,394 individuals, or 16.0 percent of the population fell below poverty level. For both Harris County and the State of Texas, the percentage below poverty level exceeded the United States poverty level of 14.6 percent. The Texas Health and Human Services Commission reported for state fiscal year 2018 that Harris County had a Medicaid caseload of 712,504 people, 579,849 of them under the age of 21. 68,228 of the cases were disability related and 51,670 of the cases were age- and Medicare -related. The State of Texas defines "Small and Impoverished Communities" based on the following criteria: • Population is less than 3,000 • Community is not located within the boundaries of a larger city • Average per capita annual income does not exceed 80 percent of the national per capita income • Local unemployment rate exceeds the national unemployment rate by 1 percentage point or more. TETRA TECH 4-21 Harris County Multi -Hazard Mitigation Action Plan; Volume 1—Area-Wide Elements According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the per capita income of the United States was $31,177; 80 percent of which is $24,941. All communities listed in Table 4-6 exceed the maximum per capita income criterion, with the lowest at $27,915 in the City of Waller. Therefore, no communities assessed in this plan meet the state's criteria to be classified as small and impoverished. 4.6.2 Industry, Businesses and Institutions The planning area's economy is strongly based in education, health and social services (18.8 percent of employed residents), followed by professional and management (13.3 percent); retail trade (10.8 percent); and manufacturing (10 percent). Figure 4-12 shows the breakdown of industry types in the planning area. Professional, scientific, and management, and administrative and waste management_ services 13.3% Finance and insurance, and real estate and rental and leasing 6.0% Information 1.3% Transportation and warehousing, and utilities 6.2% Educational services, and health care and social assistance r 18.8% Arts, entertainment, and recreation, and accommodation and food services 9.0% Retail trade- ` 10.8% Wholesale trade Manufacturing 3.7% 10.0% Figure 4-12. Industry in the Planning Area Other services 5.8% Public administration 2.5% Agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting, and mining 2.7% Construction 9.8% The local economy has greatly diversified to a variety of industries. Houston ranked fourth among U.S. cities in 2019 with the most Fortune 500 company headquarters-74 (following New York with 217, Chicago with 105, and Los Angeles with 82) (World Atlas, 2019). The top 20 employers in the planning area are as follows (Houston Chronicle, 2019): 1. Walmart 2. Memorial Hermann Healthcare System 3. H-E-B 4. Houston Methodist Hospital System 5. The University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer 6. McDonald's Corporation 7. Kroger 8. Exxon Mobil Corp. 9. Texas Children's Hospital 10. United Airlines 4-22 TETRA TECH 4. Harris County Profile 11. HCA Gulf Coast Division Family of Hospitals 12. Landry's 13. University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston Health 14. Schlumberger 15. Shell Oil Co. 16. Whataburger 17. University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston (UT Health) 18. Baylor College of Medicine 19. Harris Health System 20. Goodman Manufacturing 4.6.3 Employment Employment Rates The county labor force was 2,215,947 in 2017, a slight increase from the 2012 level of 2,200,985. According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor statistics, the total nonfarm employment in the Houston -The Woodlands -Sugar Land Metropolitan Statistical Area stood at 3,169,300 in July 2019, up 93,600 or 3.0 percent, from one year earlier. During the same period, the national job count increased 1.5 percent. Among the 12 largest metropolitan areas in the country, Houston ranked second in the annual rate of job growth and third in the number of jobs added over the year. Harris County has a relatively low unemployment rate of 3.8 percent (March 2019), down from 5.1 percent the prior year (Bureau of Labor Statistics). Figure 4-13 compares the U.S., Texas and Harris County unemployment trends from 2010 through 2018. The county's rate tracks consistently with statewide and national averages. Occupations Service occupations and management, business, science, and arts occupations make up 35 percent of the jobs in the planning area. Figure 4-14 shows the overall distribution of county employment by occupation class. Commuting Between 2013 and 2017, the mean travel time to work in Harris County was 28.9 minutes, compared to the state average of 26.1 minutes. The number of people over age 16 who commuted to work was 2,140,881. The number that worked from home was 79,181. (U.S. Census Bureau, 2019). TETRA TECH 4-23 Harris County Multi -Hazard Mitigation Action Plan; Volume 1—Area-Wide Elements 10 9 8 0 w 7 6 H z w 5 O 4 w 75 w 3 z 2 1 0 2010 U.S. —Texas Harris County 2011 2012 2013 Source: Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, 2019 .80 0 t8OZZZ 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Figure 4-13. Texas and Harris County Unemployment Rate Production, Transportation, and Material Moving 4 uoi Natural Resources, Construction and Maintenance 18% Sales & Office-/ 17% Figure 4-14. Occupations in the Planning Area Management, Business, Science and Arts 35% Service 11% 4-24 TETRA TECH 5. REGULATIONS AND PROGRAMS Existing regulations, agencies and programs at the federal, state and local level can support or impact hazard mitigation actions identified in this plan. Hazard mitigation plans are required to include a review and incorporation, if appropriate, of existing plans, studies, reports, and technical information as part of the planning process (44 CFR, Section 201.6(b)(3)). Information presented in this section can be used to review local capabilities to implement the action plan this hazard mitigation plan presents. Individual review by each planning partner of existing local plans, studies, reports, and technical information is presented in the annexes in Volume 2. 5.1 FEDERAL AND STATE AGENCIES, PROGRAMS AND REGULATIONS State and federal regulations and programs that need to be considered in hazard mitigation are constantly evolving. For this plan, a review was performed to determined which regulations and programs are currently most relevant to hazard mitigation planning. The findings are summarized in Table 5-1 and Table 5-2. Short descriptions of each program are provided in Appendix B. 5.2 LOCAL PLANS, REPORTS AND CODES Plans, reports and other technical information were identified and provided directly by participating jurisdictions and stakeholders or were identified through independent research by the planning consultant. These documents were reviewed to identify the following: • Existing jurisdictional capabilities. • Needs and opportunities to develop or enhance capabilities, which may be identified within the local mitigation strategies. • Mitigation -related goals or objectives, considered during the development of goals and objectives. • Proposed, in -progress, or potential mitigation projects, actions and initiatives to be incorporated into the updated jurisdictional mitigation strategies. The following local regulations, codes, ordinances and plans were reviewed in order to develop complementary and mutually supportive goals, objectives, and mitigation strategies that are consistent across local and regional planning and regulatory mechanisms: • Comprehensive plans (housing elements, safety elements) • Building codes • Zoning and subdivision ordinances • NFIP flood damage prevention ordinances • Stormwater management plans • Emergency management and response plans • Land use and open space plans • Climate action plans • Community wildfire protection plans TETRA TECH 5-1 Harris County Multi -Hazard Mitigation Action Plan; Volume 1—Area-Wide Elements Table 5-1. Summary of Relevant Federal Agencies, Programs and Regulations ProgramHazard Mitigation A Collaborative Approach for Wildfire Hazard This strategy implementation plan prepared by federal and Western state Reducing Wildfire Risks to agencies outlines measures to restore fire -adapted ecosystems and reduce Communities and the hazardous fuels. Environment Americans with Disabilities Act Action Plan FEMA hazard mitigation project grant applications require full compliance with Implementation applicable federal acts. Bureau of Land Management Wildfire Hazard The Bureau funds and coordinates wildfire management programs and structural fire management and prevention on BLM lands. Civil Rights Act of 1964 Action Plan FEMA hazard mitigation project grant applications require full compliance with Implementation applicable federal acts. Clean Water Act Action Plan FEMA hazard mitigation project grant applications require full compliance with Implementation applicable federal acts. Community Development Block Action Plan Funding This is a potential alternative source of funding for actions identified in this Grant Disaster Resilience plan. Program Community Rating System Flood Hazard This voluntary program encourages floodplain management activities that exceed the minimum National Flood Insurance Program requirements. Disaster Mitigation Act Hazard Mitigation This is the current federal legislation addressing hazard mitigation planning. Planning Emergency Relief for Federally Action Plan Funding This is a possible funding source for actions identified in this plan. Owned Roads Program Emergency Watershed Program Action Plan Funding This is a possible funding source for actions identified in this plan. Endangered Species Act Action Plan FEMA hazard mitigation project grant applications require full compliance with Implementation applicable federal acts. Federal Energy Regulatory Dam Failure Hazard This program cooperates with a large number of federal and state agencies to Commission Dam Safety ensure and promote dam safety. Program National Environmental Policy Action Plan FEMA hazard mitigation project grant applications require full compliance with Act Implementation applicable federal acts. Federal Wildfire Management Wildfire Hazard These documents mandate community -based collaboration to reduce risks Policy and Healthy Forests from wildfire. Restoration Act National Dam Safety Act Dam Failure Hazard This act requires a periodic engineering analysis of most dams in the country National Fire Plan Wildfire Hazard This plan calls for joint risk reduction planning and implementation by federal, state and local agencies. National Flood Insurance Flood Hazard This program makes federally backed flood insurance available to Program homeowners, renters, and business owners in exchange for communities enacting floodplain regulations National Incident Management Action Plan Adoption of this system for government, nongovernmental organizations, and System Development the private sector to work together to manage incidents involving hazards is a prerequisite for federal preparedness grants and awards Presidential Executive Order Flood Hazard This order requires federal agencies to avoid long and short-term adverse 11988 (Floodplain Management) impacts associated with modification of floodplains Presidential Executive Order Action Plan FEMA hazard mitigation project grant applications require full compliance with 11990 (Protection of Wetlands) Implementation applicable presidential executive orders. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Dam Failure Hazard This program is responsible for safety inspections of dams that meet size and Dam Safety Program storage limitations specified in the National Dam Safety Act. 5-2 TETRA TECH 5. Regulations and Programs U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Flood Hazard, Action The Corps of Engineers offers multiple funding and technical assistance Flood Hazard Management Plan Implementation, programs available for flood hazard mitigation actions Action Plan Funding U.S. Fire Administration Wildfire Hazard This agency provides leadership, advocacy, coordination, and support for fire agencies and organizations. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Wildfire Hazard This service's fire management strategy employs prescribed fire throughout the National Wildlife Refuge System to maintain ecological communities. Table 5-2. Summary of Relevant State Agencies, Programs and Regulations bdilull Program Texas Government Code State and Local Establishes roles and responsibilities for emergency management directors. Chapter 418; Texas Authority; Addresses disaster declarations. Requires emergency operations plans. Administrative Code Title 37, Emergency Part 1, Chapter 7 Management Plans Texas Planning Law Growth Enables local governments to adopt comprehensive plans and authorizes the Management; Open creation of a conservation easement Space Preservation Texas Property Code Hazard Disclosure Requires flood -related disclosures for property sales. Texas Stormwater Management Stormwater Establishes water quality requirements that will apply to any proposed hazard Program Management mitigation actions HB 108, Texas Water Code Floodplain Requires flood damage prevention ordinances and enrollment in the National Management Flood Insurance Program. HOME Program Housing Includes disaster relief funding. Texas Water Development Floodplain Manages flood hazard mapping and monitors NFIP program compliance. Board Management Texas Flash Flood Coalition Flood Safety Works to decrease the number of deaths caused by flash flooding in Texas. Texas Silver Jackets Inter -Agency Provides for an interagency approach to planning and implementing measures Coordination to reduce flood risks. Community Hazard Analysis Risk Communication Provides data, maps and other information to support hazard assessment. and Mitigation Planning Support Texas General Land Office Public Education/ Supports mitigation planning along the Texas coast. Awareness 5.3 LOCAL CAPABILITY ASSESSMENT All participating jurisdictions compiled an inventory and analysis of existing authorities and capabilities called a "capability assessment." A capability assessment creates an inventory of a jurisdiction's mission, programs and policies, and evaluates its capacity to carry them out. This assessment identifies potential gaps in the jurisdiction's capabilities. The planning partnership views all core jurisdictional capabilities as fully adaptable to meet a jurisdiction's needs. Every code can be amended, and every plan can be updated. Such adaptability is itself considered to be an overarching capability. If the capability assessment identified an opportunity to add a missing core capability or expand an existing one, then doing so has been selected as an action in the jurisdiction's action plan, which is included in the individual annexes presented in Volume 2 of this plan. TETRA TECH 5-3 Harris County Multi -Hazard Mitigation Action Plan; Volume 1—Area-Wide Elements Capability assessments for each planning partner are presented in the jurisdictional annexes in Volume 2. The sections below describe the specific capabilities evaluated under the assessment. 5.3.1 Legal and Regulatory Capabilities Jurisdictions have the ability to develop policies and programs and to implement rules and regulations to protect and serve residents. Local policies are typically identified in a variety of community plans, implemented via a local ordinance, and enforced through a governmental body. Jurisdictions regulate land use through the adoption and enforcement of zoning, subdivision and land development ordinances, building codes, building permit ordinances, floodplain, and stormwater management ordinances. When effectively prepared and administered, these regulations can lead to hazard mitigation. 5.3.2 Fiscal Capabilities Assessing a jurisdiction's fiscal capability provides an understanding of the ability to fulfill the financial needs associated with hazard mitigation projects. This assessment identifies both outside resources, such as grant - funding eligibility, and local jurisdictional authority to generate internal financial capability, such as through impact fees. 5.3.3 Administrative and Technical Capabilities Legal, regulatory, and fiscal capabilities provide the backbone for successfully developing a mitigation strategy; however, without appropriate personnel, the strategy may not be implemented. Administrative and technical capabilities focus on the availability of personnel resources responsible for implementing all the facets of hazard mitigation. These resources include technical experts, such as engineers and scientists, as well as personnel with capabilities that may be found in multiple departments, such as grant writers. 5.3.4 NFIP Compliance Flooding is the costliest natural hazard in the United States and, with the promulgation of recent federal regulation, homeowners throughout the country are experiencing increasingly high flood insurance premiums. Community participation in the NFIP opens up opportunity for additional grant funding associated specifically with flooding issues. Assessment of the jurisdiction's current NFIP status and compliance provides planners with a greater understanding of the local flood management program, opportunities for improvement, and available grant funding opportunities. 5.3.5 Public Outreach Capability Regular engagement with the public on issues regarding hazard mitigation provides an opportunity to directly interface with community members. Assessing this outreach and education capability illustrates the connection between the government and community members, which opens a two-way dialogue that can result in a more resilient community based on education and public engagement. 5.3.6 Participation in Other Programs Other programs, such as the Community Rating System, StormReady, and Firewise USA, enhance a jurisdiction's ability to mitigate, prepare for, and respond to natural hazards. These programs indicate a jurisdiction's desire to go beyond minimum requirements set forth by local, state and federal regulations in order to create a more resilient community. These programs complement each other by focusing on communication, mitigation, and community preparedness to save lives and minimize the impact of natural hazards on a community. 5-4 TETRA TECH 5. Regulations and Programs 5.3.7 Development and Permitting Capability Identifying previous and future development trends is achieved through a comprehensive review of permitting since completion of the previous plan and in anticipation of future development. Tracking previous and future growth in potential hazard areas provides an overview of increased exposure to a hazard within a community. 5.3.8 Adaptive Capacity An adaptive capacity assessment evaluates a jurisdiction's ability to anticipate impacts from future conditions. By looking at public support, technical adaptive capacity, and other factors, jurisdictions identify their core capability for resilience against issues such as sea level rise. The adaptive capacity assessment provides jurisdictions with an opportunity to identify areas for improvement by ranking their capacity high, medium or low. 5.3.9 Integration Opportunity The assessment looked for opportunities to integrate this mitigation plan with the legal/regulatory capabilities identified. Capabilities were identified as integration opportunities if they can support or enhance the actions identified in this plan or be supported or enhanced by components of this plan. Planning partners considered actions to implement this integration as described in their jurisdictional annexes. TETRA TECH 5-5 Harris County Multi -Hazard Mitigation Action Plan PART 2-RISK ASSESSMENT 6. IDENTIFIED HAZARDS OF CONCERN AND RISK ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY Risk assessment is the process of estimating the potential loss of life, personal injury, economic injury, and property damage resulting from identified hazards. The process focuses on the following elements: Hazard identification —Use all available information to determine what types of hazards may affect a jurisdiction, how often they can occur, and their potential severity. Exposure identification —Estimate the total number of people and properties in the jurisdiction that are likely to experience a hazard event if it occurs. Vulnerability identification and loss estimation —Assess the impact of hazard events on the people, property, environment, economy and lands of the region, including estimates of the cost of potential damage or cost that can be avoided by mitigation. The risk assessment for this hazard mitigation plan evaluates the risk of natural hazards prevalent in the planning area and meets requirements of the Disaster Mitigation Act (44 CFR, Section 201.6(c)(2)). To protect individual privacy and the security of critical facilities, information on properties assessed is presented in aggregate, without details about specific individual personal or public properties. 6.1 IDENTIFIED HAZARDS OF CONCERN The Steering Committee considered the full range of natural hazards that could affect the planning area, beginning with those hazards that were profiled in the prior plan, and then listed hazards that present the greatest concern. The process incorporated a review of state and local hazard planning documents as well as information on the frequency of, magnitude of, and costs associated with hazards that have struck the planning area or could do so. Anecdotal information regarding natural hazards and the perceived vulnerability of the planning area's assets to them was also used. Based on the review, this plan addresses the following hazards of concern (presented in alphabetical order; the order of listing does not indicate the hazards' relative severity): • Coastal erosion • Dam/levee failure • Drought • Earthquakes • Flooding • Hurricanes and coastal storms • Mass movement (landslides, sinkholes, and subsidence) • Severe weather (thunderstorms, hail, extreme heat, tornados and damaging winds, winter storms and freezes) • Tsunami • Wildfire The coastal erosion, mass movement and tsunami hazards are included in this list more for their potential to occur in the future than based on historical occurrence with impacts in the planning area. Given their lack of historical TETRA TECH 6-1 Harris County Multi -Hazard Mitigation Action Plan; Volume 1—Area-Wide Elements occurrence in the planning area, these hazards rank as low or negligible risk under the risk ranking protocol utilized in this plan (Chapter 19 of this volume). However, the County and the Steering Committee have determined that they warrant inclusion in this plan, as they did in previous versions. This forward -looking treatment of these hazards positions the planning partnership for benefit eligibility should an event of this type occur during the performance period of this plan. An additional chapter provides a profile of other hazards of concern, calling attention to hazards that may impact the planning area but whose risk is difficult to quantify due to a lack of data or well -established assessment parameters. This chapter does not assess these hazards to the same level of detail as the primary hazards of concern, and they are not included in the risk ranking for this plan update. These other hazards include: • Toxic release/hazardous materials • Energy pipeline failures 6.2 RISK ASSESSMENT TOOLS 6.2.1 Mapping National, state, and local databases were reviewed to locate available spatially based data relevant to this planning effort. Maps were produced using geographic information system (GIS) software to show the spatial extent of hazards when such datasets were available. These maps are included in the hazard profile chapters of this document and the jurisdiction -specific annexes in Volume 2. 6.2.2 Modeling Overview In 1997, FEMA developed the standardized Hazards U.S. (Hazus) computer simulation model to estimate losses caused by earthquakes and identify areas that face the highest risk and potential for loss. Hazus was later expanded into a multi -hazard methodology with additional capabilities to estimate potential losses from hurricanes and floods. Hazus is a GIS-based software program that provides a wide range of inventory data, such as demographics, building stock, critical facilities, transportation elements, and utilities. The program maps and displays hazard data and the results of damage and economic loss estimates for buildings and infrastructure. Its advantages include the following: • Provides a consistent methodology for assessing risk across geographic and political entities. • Provides a way to save data so that they can readily be updated as population, inventory, and other factors change and as mitigation planning efforts evolve. • Facilitates review of mitigation plans because it helps to ensure that FEMA methodologies are incorporated. • Supports grant applications by calculating benefits using FEMA definitions and terminology. • Produces hazard data and loss estimates that can be used in communication with local stakeholders. • Is administered by the local government and can be used to manage and update a hazard mitigation plan throughout its implementation. 6-2 TETRA TECH 6. Identified Hazards of Concern and Risk Assessment Methodology Levels of Detail for Evaluation Hazus provides default data for inventory, vulnerability, and hazards; these default data can be supplemented with local data to provide a more refined analysis. The model can carry out three levels of analysis, depending on the level of detail of information about the planning area: • Level 1—All of the information needed to produce an estimate of losses is included in the software's default data. These data are derived from national databases and describe in general terms the characteristic parameters of the planning area. • Level 2—More accurate estimates of losses require more detailed information about the planning area. Tc produce Level 2 estimates of losses, detailed information is required about local geology, hydrology, hydraulics, and building inventory, as well as data about utilities and critical facilities. This information is needed in a GIS format. • Level 3—This level of analysis generates the most accurate estimate of losses. It requires detailed engineering and geotechnical information to customize it for the planning area. 6.3 RISK ASSESSMENT APPROACH The risk assessments in this plan describe the risks associated with each identified hazard of concern. The following steps were used to assess the risk of each hazard: • Identify and profile each hazard —The following information is given for each hazard: ➢ A summary of past events that have impacted the planning area ➢ Geographic areas most affected by the hazard ➢ Event frequency estimates ➢ Severity estimates ➢ Warning time likely to be available for response. Determine exposure to each hazard —Exposure was assessed by overlaying hazard maps with an inventory of structures, facilities, and systems to decide which of them would be exposed to each hazard. Assess the vulnerability of exposed facilities —Vulnerability of exposed structures and infrastructure was evaluated by interpreting the probability of occurrence of each event and assessing structures, facilities, and systems that are exposed to each hazard. Tools such as GIS and Hazus were used for this assessment for the flood, earthquake, and tsunami hazards. Outputs similar to those from Hazus were generated for other hazards, using data generated through GIS. 6.3.1 Earthquake, Flood and Hurricane The following hazards were evaluated using Hazus: Earthquake —A Level 2 analysis was performed to assess earthquake vulnerability for the 500-year probabilistic event. Flood —A Level 2 user -defined analysis was performed for general building stock in flood zones and for critical facilities and infrastructure. Current flood mapping for the planning area was used to delineate flood hazard areas and estimate potential losses from the 1-percent-annual-chance and Hurricane Harvey flood events. To estimate damage that would result from a flood, Hazus uses pre -defined relationships between flood depth at a structure and resulting damage, with damage given as a percent of total replacement value. Curves defining these relationships have been developed for damage to structures and for damage to typical contents within a structure. By inputting flood depth data and known property replacement cost values, dollar -value estimates of damage were generated. TETRA TECH 6-3 Harris County Multi -Hazard Mitigation Action Plan; Volume 1—Area-Wide Elements Hurricane —A Level 2 analysis was performed to assess hurricane wind vulnerability for one historical and two probabilistic events: ➢ Hurricane Alicia (1983) historical event. ➢ The standard Hazus 20- and 100-year probabilistic events. 6.3.2 All Other Assessed Hazards Historical datasets were not adequate to model future losses for most of the hazards of concern. However, areas and inventory susceptible to some of the hazards of concern were mapped by other means and exposure was evaluated. A qualitative analysis was conducted for other hazards using the best available data and professional judgment. The risk assessment for drought was more limited and qualitative than the assessment for the other hazards of concern because drought does not affect structures. 6.4 SOURCES OF DATA USED 6.4.1 Building and Cost Data Replacement cost values and structure information derived from parcel and tax assessor data provided by Harris County were loaded into Hazus. As several of the planning partner jurisdictions extend into neighboring counties, parcel and tax assessor data for these areas were also acquired. When available, an updated inventory was used in place of the Hazus defaults for critical facilities and infrastructure. Replacement cost is the cost to replace the entire structure with one of equal quality and utility. Replacement cost is based on industry -standard cost -estimation models published in RS Means Square Foot Costs (RS Means, 2018). It is calculated using the RS Means square foot cost for a structure, which is based on the Hazus occupancy class (i.e., multi -family residential or commercial retail trade), multiplied by the square footage of the structure from the tax assessor data. The construction class and number of stories for single-family residential structures also factor into determining the square foot costs. 6.4.2 Hazus Data Inputs The following hazard datasets were used for the Hazus Level 2 analysis conducted for the risk assessment: • Flood: ➢ The effective Digital Flood Insurance Rate Map (DFIRM) for the planning area was used to delineate flood hazard areas and estimate potential losses from the 1-percent-annual-chance flood event. The DFIRM is effective as of May 2, 2019, with the latest incorporated letter of map revision dated May 13, 2019. A 1-percent-annual-chance flood depth grid provided by the Harris County Flood Control District was used as the base and updated to reflect the effective DFIRM and include coastal flood zones and the pending DFIRM (to be effective November 15, 2019). Updates were generated using the floodplain boundaries and the U.S. Geological Survey's (USGS) 2-meter digital elevation model. For areas where planning partner jurisdictions extended into neighboring counties, the flood depth grid was extended using the DFIRM data for those counties. ➢ For the Hurricane Harvey flooding analysis, a depth grid of calculated inundation areas generated by FEMA Region VI in November 2017 was integrated into the Hazus model. This depth grid was created using high water mark data from Harris County Flood Control District, USGS, and Individual Assistance data. • Hurricane —Probabilistic and Hurricane Alicia historical event data contained in Hazus were used for the analysis of the hurricane wind hazard. 6-4 TETRA TECH 6. Identified Hazards of Concern and Risk Assessment Methodology • Earthquake—Hazus probabilistic data were used for the analysis of the earthquake hazard. 6.4.3 Other Local Hazard Data Locally relevant information on hazards was gathered from a variety of sources. Frequency and severity indicators include past events and the expert opinions of geologists, emergency management specialists, and others. Data sources for specific hazards were as follows: • Dam Failure —Lake Conroe Dam breach inundation area data was provided by Harris County. • Wildfire —Wildfire threat and ignition density data was acquired from the Texas Wildfire Risk Assessment Portal. 6.4.4 Data Source Summary Table 6-1 summarizes the data sources used for the risk assessment for this plan. 6.5 LIMITATIONS Loss estimates, exposure assessments, and hazard -specific vulnerability evaluations rely on the best available data and methodologies. Uncertainties are inherent in any loss estimation methodology and arise in part from incomplete scientific knowledge concerning natural hazards and their effects on the built environment. Uncertainties also result from the following: • Approximations and simplifications necessary to conduct a study • Incomplete or outdated inventory, demographic or economic parameter data • The unique nature, geographic extent, and severity of each hazard • Mitigation measures already employed • The amount of advance notice residents have to prepare for a specific hazard event. These factors can affect loss estimates by a factor of two or more. Therefore, potential exposure and loss estimates are approximate and should be used only to understand relative risk. Over the long term, Harris County will collect additional data to assist in estimating potential losses associated with other hazards. TETRA TECH 6-5 Harris County Multi -Hazard Mitigation Action Plan; Volume 1—Area-Wide Elements 49AU U- I. rldLUS wIUUUI Vdld UUUUII IV, f IId UU[l Data Source Date Format STY D Harris County propertyparcel data Harris County Appraisal District 2018 Digital GIS format Harris County building footprints Harris County Appraisal District 2018 Digital GIS format Harris County surveyed first floor elevations Harris County Flood Control District 2018 Digital GIS format Harris County real property data Harris County Appraisal District 2018 Digital (tabular) format Fort Bend County certified parcel data Fort Bend Central Appraisal District 2018 Digital GIS format Fort Bend County building footprints Fort Bend County 2016 Digital GIS format Galveston County parcels Galveston Central Appraisal District 2018 Digital (GIS) format Galveston County certified roll Galveston Central Appraisal District 2018 Digital (tabular) RS Means format Building replacement cost 2018 Paper format. Updated RS Means POPULATION AND GROWTH DATA Population data FEMA Hazus version 4.2 SP03 72010 Digital (GIS and tabular) format 2017 Digital GIS format Regional Growth Forecast (land use) Houston -Galveston Area Council HAZARD AND TOPOGRAPHY DA 100-yr Flood depth grid (5-ft horizontal resolution) Harris County Flood Control District 2019 Digital GIS format FEMA 2019 Digital (GIS) format Harris County Effective DFIRM (May 2, 2019; latest letter of map revision May 13, 2019) FEMA 2019 Digital GIS format Harris County Pending DFIRM (November 15, 2019) Brazoria County Preliminary DFIRM (June 29, 2018) FEMA 2018 Digital GIS format Chambers County Effective DFIRM (January 19, 2018 FEMA 2018 Digital GIS format Fort Bend County Effective DFIRM (December 21, FEMA 2018 Digital (GIS) format 2017; latest letter of map revision June 12, 2018 Galveston County Preliminary DFIRM (February 28, FEMA 2018 Digital (GIS) format 2018) Montgomery County Effective DFIRM (December 21, FEMA 2018 Digital (GIS) format 2017; latest letter of map revision June 12, 2018 Waller County Effective DFIRM (February 18, 2009; FEMA 2016 Digital (GIS) format latest letter of map revision September 30, 2016 Depth Grid of Calculated Inundation Areas for Disaster FEMA 2017 Digital (GIS) format Declared Counties, Texas, USA, DR-4332 (Hurricane Harvey) Harris County 2018 Digital GIS format Lake Conroe Dam breach analysis inundation area Texas Wildfire Risk Assessment Portal Wildfire Threat Texas A&M Forest Service Unknown Digital (GIS) format & Ignition Density U.S. Geological Survey 2008 Digital (GIS) format 2-meter Digital Elevation Model 6-6 TETRA TECH 6. Identified Hazards of Concern and Risk Assessment Methodology Data LCRITICAL FACILITIES DATA Harris County facilities Source Date 1111" Harris County Unknown Format md Digital GIS format Correctional institutions Harris County Unknown Digital GIS format Libraries Harris County 2015 Digital GIS format Post offices Harris County 2015 Digital GIS format Educational facilities Harris County 2017 Digital GIS format Elementary schools Harris County & Houston Independent School 2017 District Middle schools Harris County & Houston Independent School 2017 District High schools Harris County & Houston Independent School 2017 District Universities & colleges Harris County 2013 Community colleges Harris County 2016 Texas Medical Center facilities Texas Medical Center 2019 Medical facilities (Southeast Texas Regional Advisory Harris County 2018 Council County health facilities Harris County Unknown Medical clinics Harris County 2015 Hospices Harris County 2015 Nursing/convalescent homes Harris County 2013 Residential care homes Harris County 2015 Adult care facilities Harris County 2015 Airports Harris County 2004 METRO transit centers Houston METRO 2004 Digital (GIS) format Digital (GIS) format Digital (GIS) format Digital GIS format Digital GIS format Digital (GIS) format Digital (GIS) format Digital GIS format Digit I GIS format Digital GIS format Digital GIS format Digital GIS format Digital GIS format Digital GIS format Digital GIS format METRO bus park & rides Houston METRO 2005 Digital GIS format METRO rail stations Houston METRO 2015 Digital GIS format Highway bridges TXDOT 2017 Digital GIS format Communications facilities Harris County 2012 Digital GIS format Water treatment plants Harris County 2009 Digital GIS format Municipal wastewater treatment plants Harris County 2017 Digital GIS format Wastewater lift stations Harris County 2009 Digital GIS format Emergency operations centers Harris County Unknown Digital GIS format Police stations Harris County, Houston Police Department, Harris County Sheriff's Office Greater -Harris County 911 2009- 2016 Digital (GIS) format Fire stations 2013 Digital GIS format Community centers Harris County 2015 Digital GIS format Churches Harris County 2015 Digital GIS format Synagogues Harris County 2015 Digital GIS format Mosques Harris County Unknown Digital GIS format Museums Harris County 2015 Digital GIS format Zoos Harris County 2015 Digital GIS format Tier II facilities Harris County Unknown Digital GIS format TETRA TECH 6-7 7. COASTAL EROSION 7.1 GENERAL BACKGROUND Coastal erosion is the gradual breakdown and movement of shoreline due to physical and chemical processes of water, wind, and meteorological conditions. The extent of coastal erosion is measured in terms of loss of shoreline. Natural erosion has occurred since the Earth's formation and continues at a slow and uniform rate. 7.1.1 Causes Soil erosion consists of two types: Wind erosion can cause significant soil loss. Winds blowing across sparsely vegetated or disturbed land can pick up soil particles and carry them through the air, thus displacing them. Water erosion can occur over land or in streams and channels. Water erosion that takes place over land may result from raindrops, shallow sheets of water flowing off the land, or surface flow, which is concentrated in areas of lower elevation. Stream channel erosion may occur as the volume and velocity of water flow increases enough to cause movement of the streambed and bank soils. Major storms such as hurricanes may cause significant erosion by combining high winds with heavy surf and storm surge to significantly impact the rate of shoreline erosion. An area's potential for erosion is determined by the following factors: • Soils —Soils composed of a large percentage of silt and fine sand are most susceptible to erosion. As the clay and organic material content of soils increases, the potential for erosion decreases. Well -drained and well -graded gravels and gravel -sand mixtures are the least likely to erode. Coarse gravel soils are highly permeable and have a good capacity for absorption, which can prevent or delay the amount of surface runoff. • Vegetative Cover —Vegetative cover can help control erosion by shielding the soil surface from falling rain, absorbing water from the soil, and slowing the velocity of runoff. • Topography —Runoff is affected by the topography of the area, including size, shape and slope. The greater the slope length and gradient, the more potential an area has for erosion. • Climate —Climate can affect the amount of runoff, especially the frequency, intensity and duration of rainfall and storms. When rainstorms are frequent, intense, or of long duration, erosion risks are increased, all other factors held constant. Seasonal changes in temperature and rainfall amounts define the period of highest erosion risk. TETRA TECH 7-1 Harris County Multi -Hazard Mitigation Action Plan; Volume 1—Area-Wide Elements 7.1.2 Impacts The primary concerns with regard to coastal erosion relate to the economic impacts that result when property and infrastructure close to the eroding coasts lose their natural protection from the water and waves or are affected by destabilization of the land upon which they were constructed. Environmental impacts from erosion include the loss of animal habitats and esthetic losses. Fishing industries that depend on coastal habitats can suffer losses from changes caused by coastal erosion. A loss of tourism can result in similar economic impacts. 7.1.3 Mitigation During the past 25 years, the importance of erosion control has gained increasing attention. Erosion control measures consistent with sound agricultural and construction operations are needed to minimize the adverse effects associated with settling out of soil particles due to water or wind. Increased government regulatory programs and public concern in the United States have resulted in a wide range of erosion control products, techniques, and analytical methodologies. The preferred method of erosion control in recent years has been the restoration of vegetation. 7.1.4 Texas Coastline Erosion According to the Texas General Land Office, Texas once had one of the highest erosion rates in the country. It is estimated that over 27,000 acres of gulf shoreline were lost to coastal erosion from the mid- 1800s through 1982. The geomorphic features that span the Texas Gulf coast include deltaic headlands, peninsulas, barrier islands, and spits, and their depositional origins provide clues on sediment erodibility. Variations in the wave climate impacting those features influence the amounts of sediment that are supplied to the littoral drift (the amount of sediment carried along the shoreline) as well as the direction the sediment travels. Elevations of beaches and dunes can control whether episodic high wave and tidal events allow overwash and landward barrier migration or merely erosion of the beach -face that can be repaired by quieter waves. If left unmitigated or managed, the severity of the coastal erosion hazard in Texas could significantly impact critical assets in identified coastal erosion zones. Along the 367 Gulf miles and more than 3,300 bay miles of Texas shoreline, erosion has resulted in habitat loss, navigational challenges, and structures on the beach or teetering on the line of vegetation threatening public access. 7.2 HAZARD PROFILE 7.2.1 Past Events No historical damage values could be identified for losses due to erosion within the planning area. In fact, Figure 7-1 shows that shoreline areas closest to the Harris County planning area, at the mouth of Galveston Bay, have been gaining shoreline rather than losing it since the 1930s. 7.2.2 Location The Harris County planning area has a minimal coastal exposure. Coastal erosion is not likely to occur within any of the planning area. 7-2 TETRA TECH 7. Coastal Erosion TEXAS -., Jackson Matagorda Victoria _ 5- elfu ip ',Calhoun Matagorda Island San Patricia San Jose Island Nueces, Kleberg i ti� F enedy t_ Willacy Cameron # Mustang Island N Padre Island Mansneid Channef Source: Texas General Land Office, 2014 Jefferson _ L Chambers Sabine Pass Rollover Pass Bolivar Peninsula Galveston Island BrazoslColorado headland -- Coiorada River Matagorda Peninsula Gulf of Mexico Statistics, 1930°s — 2012 n = 11,749 Average: -1 .25 m Range: -16.8 to +20.5 ml r 20% Advance 80% Retreat Net: -72 halyr {-178 ac}yr) Change rate ftlyr mlyr ?14€3 0 >45 119-148 Q :35-4.5 82-119 C. 75-35 49-8.2 Q 15-2.5 1.6-4.9 (] 45-1.5 -1_6 - 1.6 O -0.5 - 0.5 -4.9 - -1.0 O -8.2 - -4,9 • -11.5 — -8.2 • 148--11.5 • -4.5--3.5 <-14.8 • <-4.5 S. Padre Island 0 60 120 km Rio GraWe 0 40 80 mi Figure 7-1. Shoreline Changes Between 1930s and 2012 TETRA TECH 7-3 Harris County Multi -Hazard Mitigation Action Plan; Volume 1—Area-Wide Elements 7.2.3 Frequency The Harris County planning area is not projected to be impacted by the coastal erosion hazard. Based on the recorded erosion rates for the Texas Gulf Coast counties from the 1930s to 2012 (Figure 7-1), the planning area has not experienced significant losses in land or shoreline due to coastal erosion, and none should be expected in the future. 7.2.4 Severity Once again, the Harris County planning area is not projected to be impacted by the coastal erosion hazard. 7.2.5 Warning Time The warning time for a coast erosion hazard event is associated with the monitoring of erosion rates in areas susceptible to the costal erosion hazard. The key for warning for this hazard in knowing the linear distance from the shorelines that are experiencing erosion to the assets that are at risk. That distance can be divided by the observed erosion rates, and a lead time can be determined for response or even preparedness options. 7.3 SECONDARY HAZARDS No secondary hazards have been identified that are likely to result from coastal erosion in the planning area. 7.4 EXPOSURE AND VULNERABILITY For reasons described above, a detailed hazard exposure and vulnerability assessment was not performed for coastal erosion. It can be assumed that the risk of coastal erosion in the Harris County planning area and all participating jurisdictions, as well as potential losses due to coastal erosion impact, is negligible. 7.5 FUTURE TRENDS IN DEVELOPMENT Any future development within the Harris County planning area is not anticipated to interface any coastal erosion hazards during the 5-year performance period for this plan. This is due to the fact that there are no clearly identified areas of risk to this hazard as of this plan update. 7.6 SCENARIO There are currently no identified scenarios for this hazard that could impact the planning area during the 5-year performance period for this plan. 7.7 ISSUES Harris County and its planning partners will continue to monitor coastal erosion hazard potential within the planning area, especially as coastal hydrologic and hydraulic conditions change due to impacts from sea -level rise in the future. 7-4 TETRA TECH H. DAM OR LEVEE FAILURE 8.1 GENERAL BACKGROUND 8.1.1 Definition Dams A dam is an artificial barrier that has the ability to store water, wastewater, or liquid -borne materials for many reasons —flood control, human water supply, irrigation, livestock water supply, energy generation, containment of mine tailings, recreation, or pollution control. Many dams fulfill a combination of these functions. They are an important resource in the United States (Association of State Dam Safety Officials, 2013). Dams can be classified according to their purpose, the construction material or methods used, their slope or cross section, the way they resist the force of the water pressure, or the means used for controlling seepage. Materials used to construct dams include earth, rock, tailings from mining or milling, concrete, masonry, steel, timber, plastic, rubber, and combinations of these. Levees A levee is a physical barrier constructed to protect areas from rising floodwaters. Levees are not feasible in most cases in Harris County for a variety of reasons. Levees typically remove valuable floodplain storage and block the ability of the channel to move water. There are also concerns with rainfall that falls on the levee itself. Most important is the possibility for catastrophic and sudden failure under extreme flood events, potentially resulting in loss of life and total destruction of property. 8.1.2 Causes of Failure (Breach) Dams Dam failures typically occur when spillway capacity is inadequate and excess flow overtops the dam, or when internal erosion (piping) through the dam or foundation occurs. Complete failure occurs if internal erosion or overtopping results in a complete structural breach, releasing a high -velocity wall of debris -filled water that rushes downstream, damaging anything in its path. Dam failures in the United States typically occur in one of four ways: • Overtopping of the primary dam structure, which accounts for 34 percent of all dam failures, can occur due to inadequate spillway design, settlement of the dam crest, blockage of spillways, and other factors. • Foundation defects due to differential settlement, slides, slope instability, uplift pressures, and foundation seepage can also cause dam failure. These account for 30 percent of all dam failures. • Failure due to piping and seepage accounts for 20 percent of all failures. These are caused by internal erosion due to piping and seepage, erosion along hydraulic structures such as spillways, erosion due to animal burrows, and cracks in the dam structure. • Failure due to problems with conduits and valves, typically caused by the piping of embankment material into conduits through joints or cracks, constitutes 10 percent of all failures. TETRA TECH 8-1 Harris County Multi -Hazard Mitigation Action Plan; Volume 1—Area-Wide Elements The remaining 6 percent of U.S. dam failures are due to miscellaneous causes. Many dam failures in the United States are secondary results of other disasters. The prominent causes are earthquakes, landslides, extreme storms, massive snowmelt, equipment malfunction, structural damage, foundation failures, and sabotage (Association of State Dam Safety Officials, 2016). Levees A levee breach occurs when part of a levee gives way, creating an opening through which floodwaters may pass. A breach may occur gradually or suddenly. The most dangerous breaches happen quickly during periods of high water. Earthen levees can be damaged in several ways. Strong river currents and waves can erode the surface. Trees growing on a levee can blow over, leaving a hole where the root wad and soil used to be. Burrowing animals can create holes that enable water to pass through a levee. If severe enough, any of these situations can lead to a zone of weakness that could cause a levee breach. In seismically active areas, earthquakes and ground shaking can cause a loss of soil strength, weakening a levee and possibly resulting in failure. Seismic activity can also cause levees to slide or slump, both of which can lead to failure. 8.1.3 Impacts of Failure Dams More than a third of the country's dams are 50 or more years old. Approximately 14,000 of those dams pose a significant hazard to life and property if failure occurs. There are about 2,000 unsafe dams in the United States, located in almost every state. Dam hazard definitions, as accepted by the National Interagency Committee on Dam Safety, are as follows: Low Hazard Potential —Dams assigned the low hazard potential classification are those where failure or mis-operation results in no probable loss of human life and low economic and/ or environmental losses. Losses are principally limited to the dam owner's property. Significant Hazard Potential —Dams assigned the significant hazard potential classification are those dams where failure or mis-operation results in no probable loss of human life but can cause economic loss, environment damage, disruption of lifeline facilities, or other concerns. Significant hazard potential classification dams are often located in rural or agricultural areas but could be located in areas that contain large populations and significant infrastructure. High Hazard Potential —Dams assigned the high hazard potential classification are those where failure or mis-operation will likely cause the loss of human life. Levees The resulting torrent from a levee breach can quickly swamp a large area behind the failed levee with little or no warning. When a levee system fails or is overtopped, severe flood damage can occur due to increased water surface elevation associated with levees and the resulting increase in water velocity. 8.1.4 Regulatory Oversight Dams National Dam Safety Act Potential for catastrophic flooding due to dam failures led to passage of the National Dam Safety Act (Public Law 92-367). The National Dam Safety Program requires a periodic engineering analysis of the majority of dams in the country; exceptions include the following: 8-2 TETRA TECH 8. Dam or Levee Failure Dams under jurisdiction of the Bureau of Reclamation, Tennessee Valley Authority, or International Boundary and Water Commission Dams constructed pursuant to licenses issued under the Federal Power Act Dams that the Secretary of the Army determines do not pose any threat to human life or property. The goal of this FEMA-monitored effort is to identify and mitigate the risk of dam failure so as to protect lives and property. The National Dam Safety Program is a partnership among states, federal agencies, and other stakeholders that encourages individual and community responsibility for dam safety. Under FEMA's leadership, state assistance funds have allowed all participating states to improve their programs through increased inspections, emergency action planning, and purchases of needed equipment. FEMA has also expanded existing and initiated new training programs. Grant assistance from FEMA provides support for improvement of dam safety programs that regulate most of the dams in the United States. Texas State Dam Safety Program The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality Dam Safety Program monitors and regulates private and public dams in Texas. The program periodically inspects dams that pose a high or significant hazard and makes recommendations and reports to dam owners to help them maintain safe facilities. This program is governed by Texas Administrative Code Title 30, Part 1, Chapter 299: Dams and Reservoirs. Effective September 1, 2013, dams are exempt from safety requirements if they meet all of the following criteria: • Are located on private property • Have a maximum impoundment capacity of less than 500 acre-feet • Are classified as low or significant hazard • Are located in a county with a population of less than 350,000 (per the 2010 census) • Are not located within the corporate limits of a municipality. Owners of exempt dams still have to comply with maintenance and operation requirements. There is no exemption expiration date. Figure 8-1 shows the counties covered by the population exemption. Harris County is not an exempt county. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Dam Safety Program The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers operates and maintains approximately 700 dams nationwide. It is also responsible for safety inspections of some federal and non-federal dams in the United States that meet the size and storage limitations specified in the National Dam Safety Act. The Corps has inventoried dams; surveyed each state and federal agency's capabilities, practices and regulations regarding design, construction, operation and maintenance of the dams; and developed guidelines for inspection and evaluation of dam safety. The Corps maintains the National Inventory of Dams, which contains information about a dam's location, size, purpose, type, last inspection and regulatory status (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2019). Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Dam Safety Program The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) cooperates with a large number of federal and state agencies to ensure and promote dam safety. More than 3,000 dams are part of regulated hydroelectric projects in the FERC program. Two-thirds of these are more than 50 years old. As dams age, concern about their safety and integrity grows, so oversight and regular inspection are important. TETRA TECH 8-3 Harris County Multi -Hazard Mitigation Action Plan; Volume 1—Area-Wide Elements Texas County Population Exemptions rz ' County Fop. y l o >=abo,000{N� Barra Hidalgo Prn[ec[inq 7rxns by 17eaa4 Uenlon liedurirtg and "1'anant Bm r Fort Send eaorugoalery Prcvcn[irtg Polhjrfon �ra.ia wSOiammrn /� TCEQ i7 vasn C�o�eron 14���CE w � i; x�m CammkLm an E-nl qu,Nry rnlolr�,-ao-,�nworwoa W. SafirtX 5ud13n IMr-1771 a 25 5a 1 UG 15d 200 P_0. a 13 7 Mi1ea au G1n, U. M711 307 Figure 8-1. Counties Exempt from the Texas Dam Safety Program FERC inspects hydroelectric projects on an unscheduled basis to investigate the following: • Potential dam safety problems • Complaints about constructing and operating a project • Safety concerns related to natural disasters • Issues concerning compliance with the terms and conditions of a license. Every five years, an independent engineer approved by the FERC must inspect and evaluate projects with dams higher than 32.8 feet (10 meters), or with a total storage capacity of more than 2,000 acre-feet. FERC monitors seismic research and applies it in performing structural analyses of hydroelectric projects. FERC also evaluates the effects of potential and actual large floods on the safety of dams. During and following floods, FERC visits dams and licensed projects, determines the extent of damage, if any, and directs any necessary studies or remedial measures the licensee must undertake. The FERC publication Engineering Guidelines for the Evaluation of Hydropower Projects guides the FERC engineering staff and licensees in evaluating dam safety. The publication is frequently revised to reflect current information and methodologies. 8-4 TETRA TECH 8. Dam or Levee Failure FERC requires licensees to prepare emergency action plans and conducts training sessions on how to develop and test these plans. The plans outline an early warning system if there is an actual or potential sudden release of water from a dam due to failure. The plans include operational procedures that may be used, such as reducing reservoir levels and reducing downstream flows, as well as procedures for notifying affected residents and agencies responsible for emergency management. These plans are frequently updated and tested to ensure that everyone knows what to do in emergency situations. Levees Corps of Engineers and FEMA Levee Oversight The Corps and FEMA have differing roles and responsibilities related to levees. The Corps addresses operation and maintenance, risk communication, risk management, and risk reduction issues as part of its responsibilities under the Levee Safety Program. FEMA addresses mapping and floodplain management issues related to levees, and it accredits levees as meeting requirements set forth by the National Flood Insurance Program. Depending on the levee system, the Corps and FEMA may be involved with a levee sponsor and community independently or jointly. The two agencies' long-term goals are similar: to reduce risk and lessen the devastating consequences of flooding. Corps and FEMA partnering activities related to levees include the following: • Joint meetings with levee sponsors and other stakeholders • Integration of levee information into the National Levee Database • State Silver Jackets teams • Sharing of levee information • Targeted task forces to improve program alignment. Coordination between the Corps and FEMA on levees is now standard within many of each agency's policies and practices. Over the past several years, both agencies coordinated policies where appropriate; jointly participated in meetings with stakeholders; and participated in many multiagency efforts, such as the National Committee on Levee Safety, the Federal Interagency Floodplain Management Task Force, and the Silver Jackets Program, which brings together state, federal, tribal, and local agencies to learn from each other and apply their knowledge to reduce risk from hazards. National Committee on Levee Safety Congress created the National Committee on Levee Safety —made up of representatives from state, regional, and local agencies; the private sector; the Corps; and FEMA—to develop a national levee safety program. The Committee has been working toward this goal since October 2008. Maintenance Requirements No levee provides protection from events for which it was not designed, and levees require maintenance to continue to provide the level of protection they were designed and built to offer. Maintenance responsibility belongs to a variety of entities including local, state, and federal government and private landowners. Well - maintained levees may obtain certification through independent inspections. Levees may not be certified for maintaining flood protection when the levee owner does not maintain the levee or pay for an independent inspection. The impacts of an un-certified levee include higher risk of levee failure. In addition, insurance rates may increase because FEMA identifies on Flood Insurance Rate Maps that the structures are not certified to protect from a 1-percent annual chance flood event. TETRA TECH 8-5 Harris County Multi -Hazard Mitigation Action Plan; Volume 1—Area-Wide Elements 8.2 HAZARD PROFILE 8.2.1 Past Events There is no record of significant dam failure in the Harris County planning area. While technically not considered "dam failures," dam operation by design can cause significant impacts during flood events. This was evidenced during Hurricane Harvey, most notably at the Lake Houston Dam. During Hurricane Harvey, water entered the lake at a rate of 430,000 cubic feet per second, causing the lake to reach an elevation of 53.01 feet. The lake was not able to release water fast enough, which caused water to back up and contributed to the flooding of thousands of homes and businesses in the Lake Houston area. 8.2.2 Location Dams The National Inventory of Dams lists 30 dams in Harris County (see Table 8-1). Figure 8-2 shows the locations of these dams within the planning area. Table 8-2 provides the most recent inspection dates for these dams. Dam failure inundation mapping to the scope and scale needed for risk and vulnerability assessment of the dam failure hazard was not available to support this plan update. Table 8-1. Harris County Dam Hazard Data Seaberg Reservoir TX03384' I Off Ch-Tr-Adlong Roy Seaberg 1948 No. 3 Dam Ditch Seaberg Reservoir TX03385 I Off Ch-Cedar Roy Seaberg 1952 No. 3 Dam Bayou Seaberg Levee TX03386 I Off Ch-Cedar Ra Seaberg Et 196E No.2 Bayou Al Seaberg Levee TX03387 I Off Ch-Cedar Ra Seaberg Et 1 No.1 Bayou Al _ Hegar Brothers TX03389 I Off Ch-Little Hegar Brothers 1962 Lake Dam Cypress Creek 1 Dennison Lake TX03391 I Off Ch-Mound As Dennison 196C Dam Creek Adams Lake Dam TX03392 S Tr -Spring Creek Bud Adams 196C Ranches Inc Japhet Lake Dam TX03393 P Tr -Spring Creek EC Japhet Lynch Lake Dam TX03394 P Tr -Spring Creek Bud Adams 196C Ranches Inc Cedar Bayou Lake TX03397 I Off Ch-Cedar Gene Brown 19 Dam Bayou Warren Lake Dam TX03398 R Rock Hollow Warren Group 1961 Creek Inc; Katy Prairie Conservancy 1 Chudleigh Farms TX03403 IP Tr -Cypress Creek Chudleigh 195E Dam No. 1 Farms Inc Chudleigh Farms TX03404 I Off Ch-Cypress Chudleigh 197C Dam No. 2 1 Creek Farms Inc RE 6750 8 267 N RE 16,133 8 713 N RE 1 6000 1 10 1 790 N 2800 1 RE 1 2640 1 9 I 414 I N RE 7500 J0i RE 1140 19037 N RE 1230 ' N RE 720 1 14 1 112 N RE N RE 2009 1 19 1 2000 U RE RE 1 2550 1 10 1 90 1 N 8-6 TETRA TECH 8. Dam or Levee Failure House Lake Dam TX03405 I Off Ch-Cypress Calvin House 1962 RE 10 120 N Creek Fisher Lake Dam TX03406 I Off Ch-Cypress H Fisher 1962 RE 8 144 N Creek Hegar Lake Dam TX03408 I Off Ch-Langham Lh Hegar 1970 RE 12600 8 960 N Creek Cypress Farms TX03409 0 Off Ch-Langham Cypress Farms 1970 RE 2500 9 225 N Lake No. 1 Dam Creek Lynchburg TX03413 0 Off Ch-San Coastal Water 1976 RE 15315 35 5188 N Reservoir Dam Jacinto River Authority Highlands TX03414 S Off Ch-Goose San Jacinto 1944 RE 34700 20 5885 U Reservoir Dam Creek River Authority Sheldon Reservoir TX03415 R Carpenters Texas Parks 1944 RE 36600 12 21138 U Dam Bayou And Wildlife Department Lake Houston TX03416 IORS San Jacinto River City Of Houston 1954 CBCNRE 12097 65.8 281800 U Dam Buckhorn Lake TX04391 P Granite Creek George 1967 RE 2238 9 256 N Dam Faulkner Sludge Fill Pond TX04819 0 Off Ch-San St Regis Paper 1976 RE 3000 19 71 N Levee No. 1 Jacinto River Company Sludge Pond TX04820 0 Off Ch-San Champion 1966 RE 2450 12 53 N Levee No. 1 Jacinto River International Corporation Ramey Lake Dam TX05858 I Off Ch-Cypress 1953 RE 10530 7 650 N Creek Teal Lake Dam TX05859 I Off Ch-Cypress 1953 RE 6560 8 325 N Creek Cook Levee TX06277 I Tr -Buffalo Bayou Pv Cook 1979 RE 2728 7 70 N Logenbaugh TX06278 I Tr- Buffalo Bayou Logenbaugh 1981 RE 3728 9 95 U Estate Dam Estate Lower Greens TX06947 C Greens Bayou Harris County 1995 CNRE 21400 47 4684 N Bayou Regional Flood Control Detention Facility District Bayport Reservoir TX07291 S Off -Channel Near Coastal Water 1975 PGRE 3380 16 326 U Dam Armand Bayou Authority Source: Texas Commission on Environmental Quality and National Inventory of Dams a. 1= Irrigation, S= Water Supply, P=Fire Protection, R= Recreation, 0= Other, C= Flood Control b. RE= Earth, ER= Rockfill, PG=Gravity, CB=Buttress, VA=Arch, MV= Multi -Arch, CN= Concrete, MA = Masonry, St=Stone, TC=Timber Crib, OT=Other c. C=Controlled, U= Uncontrolled, N=None TETRA TECH 8-7 Lake�Da Adams �!T Lake Dam - -�. Tya. �t : �Se ffdrg Brothers ir� , � +�* 1- 1 d k 1 . �Reservo��\Seaberg s j Lake Dam t MW r 0 4 Dam'"Levee No 1 De�n�niso f Se�a��g Seaberg House ' . — Reservoir Levee No 2 Lake Dam Lake 1 J `� N�3 Dam 1 Fisher Lake Dam Chudleigh Dam Dam No 1 ` • a ? i Warren Lake Dam Farms Dam No 2 I - Lake ton Ram e a_e Dam —`'� i \ Teal Lake Dam Cypress Farms _� I �,rIl� � HouDam Buckhorn Cedar Bayou Lake No 1 Dam ; I `i Lake Lake Dam Sludge Pond Logenb�augh Hegar I �—= \j s* L'owerGreens Dam Levee No 1 Estate Dam Lake Dam I r ;' \ r ='I Bayou Regional n Q' i r -- -- Sludge Coo\Le�ee _ 'q��' Ly Letention Facility `� ~ 1 F,iIIr�Pond O i_ ti r' Levee No 1 Highlands - `Sheldon Reservoir Dames �$1 W,4 ervoirdl�'� ; Figure 8-2. Dam Locations within the Planning Area Dam Owner Flood Control Channels O Federal — - j Incorporated Cities O Local r Mm" Harris County O Not Listed O Private O State m 1r Lynchburg - +oe Reseryon, am � Bayport Reserv_oir _ �1�1r � _ —_Dam -----�.• Yin TETRATEGH N p' 0 2 4 8 Miles 8. Dam or Levee Failure Seaberg Reservoir No. 3 Dam Seaberg Reservoir No. 4 Dam Seaberg Levee No. 2 Seaberg Levee Not Hegar Brothers Lake Dam Dennison Lake Dam Adams Lake Dam Japhet Lake Dam EW Lynch Lake Dam Cedar Bayou Lake Dam Warren Lake Dam _Chudleigh Farms Dam No. 1 Chudlei h Farms Dam No. 2 House Lake Dam Fisher Lake Dam Table 8-2. Harris Countv Dam Inspection Dates 3/8/1971 Hegar Lake Dam 2/10/1982 Cypress Farms Lake No. 1 Dam 3/8/1971 Lynchburg Reservoir Dam 3/8/1971 Highlands Reservoir Dam Sheldon Reservoir Dam None Reported None Reported Lake Houston Dam Buckhorn Lake Dam None Reported Sludge Fill Pond Levee No. 1 None Reported None Reported Sludge Pond Levee No. 1 2/12/1982 Ramey Lake Dam 2/23/2011 Teal Lake Dam 10/20/1976 Cook Levee None Reported Logenbaugh Estate Dam None Reported Lower Greens Bayou Regional Detention Facility 3/8/1971 Bayport Reservoir Dam Source: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2019 None Reported None Reported 8/11/2011 9/17/2015 10/25/2016 9/10/2012 1/21/1987 None Reported None Reported 2/3/1983 2/3/1983 None Reported None Reported 2/18/2011 8/10/2011 HCOHSEM provided digital mapping of inundation areas for the Conroe Dam, which is in Montgomery County but would impact portions of Harris County should it fail. Table 8-3 provides hazard data for Conroe Dam. This was the only available dam failure inundation mapping in digital format suitable for risk analysis for this plan update. This mapping was the sole basis for the exposure and vulnerability analyses for this hazard assessment. The need for further inundation mapping has been identified as an issue by this assessment. The Planning Partnership has identified a county -wide action in this plan to address this need. Table 8-3. Conroe Dam Hazard Data National Year uam Crest Length I Height I Storage I bpiiil Name ID # Purposes Water Course Owner Built Typeb (feet) feet Capacity (mil) Typ ==I Jacinto River River Authoritv Source: Texas Commission on Environmental Quality and National Inventory of Dams a. 1= Irrigation, S= Water Supply, P=Fire Protection, R= Recreation, 0= Other, C= Flood Control b. RE= Earth, ER= Rockfill, PG=Gravity, CB=Buttress, VA=Arch, MV= Multi -Arch, CN= Concrete, MA = Masonry, St=Stone, TC=Timber Crib, OT=Other c. C=Controlled, U= Uncontrolled, N=None Levees The Corps of Engineers National Levee Database identifies three levee systems in the Harris County planning areas, with a total length of 3 miles and an average age of 15 years. These systems are described below. Cypress Creek System This system is located along Cypress Creek in the community of Spring, north of Houston. The length of embankment for this system is 0.92 miles. The system protects a population of 384 and 125 structures with an estimated value of $46.1 million. This system is accredited by FEMA and is mapped as such on the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) for its area. TETRA TECH 8-9 Harris County Multi -Hazard Mitigation Action Plan; Volume 1—Area-Wide Elements Lynchburg Pump Station The Lynchburg Pump Station system was federally constructed in 2002. The system is 4,012 feet long, consisting of 2,851 feet of earthen levee, and 1,161 feet of floodwalls. Both ends of the system tie into the existing reservoir levee on the north side of the project. A southern portion of the levee system was integrated into the Independence Parkway roadway. To facilitate crossing for the system, there is a single swing gate closure structure. A gravity drainage structure allows passage of rainwater from within the system. The Lynchburg Pump Station system reduces damage associated with hurricane storm surge to the pump station that provides drinking water for the City of Houston. No permanent residents are located inside the levee area. Total protected property value is estimated to be $1 million. The consequences associated with inundation to the protected area also include potentially leaving Houston without enough drinking water. The system is currently operated and maintained by Coastal Water Authority. Spring Creek System This system is located along Spring Creek in unincorporated Harris County. The length of embankment for this system is 0.98 miles. The system protects a population of 1,271 and 446 structures with an estimated value of $218 million. This system is accredited by FEMA and is mapped as such on the FIRM for its area. 8.2.3 Frequency All dams face a "residual risk" of failure, which represents the risk that conditions may exceed those for which the dam was designed. For example, dams may be designed to withstand a probable maximum precipitation, defined as "theoretically, the greatest depth of precipitation for a given duration that is physically possible over a given storm area at a particular geographical location at a certain time of the year" (American Meteorological Society, 1959). The chance of occurrence of a precipitation event of a greater magnitude than that represents residual risk for such dams. This in turn represents a theoretical probability of future occurrence for a dam failure event, though the probability of an event exceeding the assumed maximum is not generally calculated as part of dam design. Levee failure probabilities are considered to be higher than dam failure probabilities because levees are often exposed to more adverse conditions associated with high velocity flood flows, such as erosion and scour. Many levees are designed to overtop in high flow conditions; such overtopping is referred to as design failure. Since there are no historical occurrences of dam or levee failure within the Harris County planning area and participating jurisdictions, no probability of occurrence can be calculated for the planning area. For the risk assessment for this plan update, the probability of occurrence for both dam and levee failure is considered "low",. 8.2.4 Severity Dam failure can be catastrophic to all life and property downstream. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers developed the classification system shown in Table 8-4 for the hazard potential of dam failures. The severity of a dam failure is affected by the depth and velocity of flows resulting from a breach. That is why digital inundation mapping that can be used to create flood depth grids and thus support depth/damage correlations is critical to risk analysis for dam failure. For example, the flood depth grids for the Conroe Dam inundation mapping utilized in this assessment range from 0 to 32 feet. This type of data allows analysts to estimate damage (as presented in Section 8.5) using models like FEMA's Hazus risk assessment platform. Table 8-5 provides some severity statistics for the Conroe Dam inundation area based from geospatial analysis. 8-10 TETRA TECH 8. Dam or Levee Failure Table 8-4. Corps of Enqineers Hazard Potential Classification Low None (rural location, no permanent No disruption of services Private agricultural lands, Minimal incremental structures for human habitation) (cosmetic or rapidly repairable equipment, and isolated damage damage) buildings Significant Rural location, only transient or Disruption of essential facilities I Major public and private Major mitigation day -use facilities and access facilities required High Certain (one or more) extensive Disruption of essential facilities Extensive public and private Extensive mitigation residential, commercial, or and access facilities cost or impossible to industrial development mitigate a. Categories are assigned to overall projects, not individual structures at a project. b. Loss of life potential based on inundation mapping of area downstream of the project. Analyses of loss of life potential should take into account the population at risk, time of flood wave travel, and warning time. c. Indirect threats to life caused by the interruption of lifeline services due to project failure or operational disruption; for example, loss of critical medical facilities or access to them. d. Damage to project facilities and downstream property and indirect impact due to loss of project services, such as impact due to loss of a dam and navigation pool, or impact due to loss of water or power supply. e. Environmental impact downstream caused by the incremental flood wave produced by the project failure, beyond what would normally be expected for the magnitude flood event under which the failure occurs. Source: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2011 Table 8-5. Conroe Dam Severity Statistics Structures are in the inundation area Number of structures with flood depths of zero feet Number of structures with depths greater than zero and less than or equal to 1 foot of flooding Number of structures with flood depths greater than 1 foot and less than or equal to 5 feet of flooding Number of structures with flood depths greater than 5 feet and less than or equal to 10 foot of flooding Number of structures with flood depths greater than 10 feet and less than or equal to 15 foot of flooding Number of structures with flood depths greater than 15 feet and less than or equal to 20 foot of flooding of structures with flood de Number of structures with flood de reater than 20 feet and less than or equal to 25 foot of floodin than 25 feet 6,642 758 642 1,775 2,337 642 257 132 19 According to the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) there are seven dams in the planning area classified as High Hazard Potential. Three of these serve only as flood control structures on retention basins and suspend water only when the retention areas become saturated, not on a continuous basis. Therefore, these dams do not pose a substantial threat to the surrounding area most of the time. Information as to which of the dams listed in Table 8-1 are categorized as High Hazard Potential is not readily available via state or national sources (TCEQ or the National Inventory of Dams). This has been identified as a significant data gap for assessing the risk for dam failure hazards. In the event of a levee failure, floodwaters may ultimately inundate the protected area landward of the levee. The extent of inundation is dependent on the flooding intensity. Failure of a levee during a 1-percent annual chance flood will inundate the floodplain previously protected by the levee. Residential and commercial buildings nearest the levee overtopping or breach location will suffer the most damage from the initial embankment failure flood wave. Landward buildings will be damaged by inundation. TETRA TECH 8-11 Harris County Multi -Hazard Mitigation Action Plan; Volume 1—Area-Wide Elements 8.2.5 Warning Time Advance Warning of Failure Warning time for dam failure varies depending on the cause of the failure. Events of extreme precipitation or massive snowmelt can be predicted in advance, so evacuations can be planned with sufficient time. In the event of a structural failure due to earthquake or human caused activities, there may be no or limited warning time. Time for Failure to Occur The process of the dam failure affects warning time. Earthen dams do not tend to fail completely or instantaneously. Once a breach is initiated, discharging water erodes the breach until either the reservoir water is depleted, or the breach resists further erosion. Concrete gravity dams also tend to have a partial breach as one or more monolith sections are forced apart by escaping water. The time of breach formation ranges from a few minutes to a few hours. 8.3 SECONDARY HAZARDS Dam and levee failure can cause severe downstream flooding, depending on the magnitude of the failure. Other potential secondary hazards are landslides and bank erosion. Levee failures can also cause environmental incidents due to hazardous materials releases when floodwaters infiltrate facilities that store these types of materials. 8.4 EXPOSURE The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers do not currently have inundation studies or data to estimate potential losses and vulnerability due to dam/levee failures within the Harris County planning area. Exposure to dam failure hazard was assessed by use of spatial analysis. The inundation area for the Conroe Dam, for which inundation mapping was available, was the sole basis for this analysis. Using qualitative approaches, the following communities within the planning area are estimated to have some degree of dam failure exposure, due to their location downstream of one of the dams listed in Table 8-1: • Baytown • Bunker Hill Village • Deer Park • Houston • Humble • La Porte • Pasadena • Unincorporated Harris County The degree of this exposure is not known, due to the lack of digital inundation mapping for the listed dams. 8.4.1 Population All residents in a dam failure inundation zone would be exposed to the risk of a dam failure. Table 8-6 summarizes the at -risk population in the planning area. Planning partners with no exposure to this risk are omitted from the table. 8-12 TETRA TECH 8. Dam or Levee Failure Table 8-6. Population Living in the Conroe Dam Failure Inundation Area limcipl;n.. Baytown 172 0.22% Houston 14,544 0.64% Humble 1,794 11.18% Unincorporated County 7,616 0.40% 24,126 8.4.2 Property Based on assessor parcel data, the Hazus model estimated that there are 6,642 planning area structures within the Lake Conroe dam failure inundation area. The value of these exposed buildings was generated using Hazus, as summarized in Table 8-7. This methodology estimated $5 billion worth of building -and -contents exposure to dam failure inundation, representing 0.54 percent of the total replacement value of the planning area. Planning partners with no exposure to this risk are omitted from the table. Table 8-7. re and Value of Structures in Lake Conroe Dam Failure Inundation Areas Baytown 45 9,471,687 4,735,844 14,207,531 0.12% Houston 3,635 1,816,286,365 059,629,339 12,875,915,704 0.59% Humble 572 515,847,360 1 476,530,660 992,378,020 21.71% Vcoincorporated County 2,390 729,489,007 438,488,556 1,167,977,563 �_ 0.36% tal $3,071,094,419 $1,979,384,399 $5,050,478,818 0.54% GIS analysis was used to determine the occupancy types of parcels within the mapped inundation areas. Over 90 percent of the 6,642 exposed parcels are residential occupancy. Figure 8-3 shows the distribution of general planning area land use types in the dam inundation areas. Residential 92% 0% 0% Figure 8-3. Occupancy Types in Lake Conroe Dam Inundation Areas imercial 8% idustrial 0% srnment 0% icultural 0% TETRA TECH 8-13 Harris County Multi -Hazard Mitigation Action Plan; Volume 1—Area-Wide Elements 8.4.3 Critical Facilities Figure 8-4 shows critical facilities in the Lake Conroe Dam inundation area by facility type. The total count of critical facilities and infrastructure in the dam failure inundation zone (106) represents 1.8 percent of the planning area total of 5,849. 16 Utility Systems Transportation Systems Historical and Cultural Sites Health and Medical Facilities Hazardous Material Sites Government Facilities I 3 Emergency Services 31? 790 1,083 5 Education Facilities 1,181 2,904 1 IN Lake Conroe Dam Inundation Area Planning Area Total 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 Number of Facilities in Identified Area Figure 8-4. Critical Facilities and Infrastructure in Conroe Dam Failure Inundation Zones Countywide 8.4.4 Environment The environment would be exposed to a number of risks in the event of dam failure. The inundation could introduce many foreign elements into local waterways. This could result in destruction of downstream habitat and could have detrimental effects on many species of animals, especially endangered aquatic species such as: the Southern Flounder, Silverband Shiner, Sabine Shiner, Western Creek Chubsucker, saltmarsh topminnow, and the alligator gar. 8-14 TETRA TECH 8. Dam or Levee Failure 8.5 VULNERABILITY 8.5.1 Population Vulnerable populations are all populations downstream from dam failures that are incapable of escaping the area before floodwaters arrive. This population includes the elderly and young who may be unable to get themselves out of the inundation area. The vulnerable population also includes those who would not have adequate warning from a television, radio emergency warning system, siren, or cell phone alert. The potential for loss of life is affected by the capacity and number of evacuation routes available to those living in potential inundation areas. 8.5.2 Property Vulnerable properties are those closest to the dam inundation area. These properties would experience the largest, most destructive surge of water. Low-lying areas are also vulnerable since they are where the dam waters would collect. Transportation routes are vulnerable to dam inundation and have the potential to be wiped out, creating isolation issues. This includes all roads, railroads and bridges in the path of the dam inundation. Those that are most vulnerable are those that are already in poor condition and would not be able to withstand a large water surge. Utilities such as overhead power lines, cable and phone lines could also be vulnerable. Loss of these utilities could create additional isolation issues for the inundation areas. The estimated total loss due to property damage in the combined dam failure inundation area is $669.5 million. This represents 13 percent of the total structure exposure in the inundation area and 0.07 percent of planning -area - wide structure replacement value. Table 8-8 summarizes the loss estimates. Table 8-8. Loss Estimates for Lake Conroe Dam Failure Baytown $1,515,470 $426,226 1 $1,941,696 0.02% Houston $290,605,8181 JWJ $385,972,4591 0.08 Humble $82,535,578 $42,887,759 $125,423,337 2.74% Unincorporated County $116,718,241 $39,463,970 $156,182,211 0.05% Total i $491,375,107 $178,144,595 $669,519,703 0.07% The vulnerability of communities identified as having exposure due to their location downstream of dams (the cities of Baytown, Bunker Hill Village, Deer Park, Houston, Humble, La Porte, Pasadena and the unincorporated County) is not known due to the lack of digital inundation mapping. However, each of these jurisdictions has a mapped floodplain. Water released by a dam failure would flow toward a water course, so it is logical to assume that the extent and location of the floodplain would approximate to some degree the dam failure inundation. Appendix C to this volume provides a detailed breakdown of flood exposure and vulnerability for these jurisdictions, which is assumed to approximate the dam failure risk. 8.5.3 Critical Facilities Transportation routes are vulnerable to dam inundation and have the potential to be wiped out, creating isolation issues and significant disruption to travel, including all roads, railroads and bridges in the path of the dam inundation. Those that are most vulnerable are those that are already in poor condition and would not be able to withstand a large water surge. Utilities such as overhead power lines, cable and phone lines in the inundation zone could also be vulnerable. If phone lines were lost, significant communication issues may occur in the planning area due to limited cell phone reception in many areas. In addition, emergency response would be hindered due to TETRA TECH 8-15 Harris County Multi -Hazard Mitigation Action Plan; Volume 1—Area-Wide Elements the loss of transportation routes as well as some protective -function facilities located in the inundation zone. Recovery time to restore many critical functions after an event may be lengthy, as wastewater, potable water, and other community facilities are located in the dam inundation zone. 8.5.4 Environment The environment would be vulnerable to a number of risks in the event of dam failure. The inundation could introduce foreign elements into local waterways, resulting in destruction of downstream habitat and detrimental effects on many species of animals as identified under Section 8.4.4. 8.6 FUTURE TRENDS IN DEVELOPMENT The municipal planning partners have adopted basic and or comprehensive plans that govern land use decision - making and policy -making in their jurisdictions. This plan will work together with these programs to support wise land use in the future by providing vital information on the risk associated with natural hazards. Most of the areas vulnerable to the more severe impacts from dam failure intersect the mapped flood hazard areas. Flood -related policies in the comprehensive plans will help to reduce the risk associated with the dam failure hazard for all future development in the planning area. 8.7 SCENARIO A worst -case dam failure scenario for the planning area would be an accentuation of what occurred during Hurricane Harvey. A hurricane or tropical storm would stall over the planning area and fill reservoirs to capacity, with their ability to release water downstream hindered by high tides and storm surge. The storm then would move inland and dump large amounts of rainfall in the watershed upstream of the dams, further stressing the downstream dams that lack the capacity to absorb these inflows. This could stress the dams to overtopping or even failure. 8.8 ISSUES The most significant issue associated with dam failure involves the properties and populations in the inundation zone. Flooding as a result of a dam failure would significantly impact these areas. There is often limited warning time for dam failures, which are frequently associated with other natural hazard events such as earthquakes, landslides or severe weather. Important issues associated with the dam failure hazard include the following: • Digital dam failure inundation mapping suitable for risk analysis is needed for all 30 dams within the planning area to better understand the risk from this hazard. • There may be dams located in the planning area that do not meet regulatory thresholds for jurisdiction under State of Texas or federal programs. • Dam infrastructure may require repair and improvement to withstand climate change impacts, such as changing in the timing and intensity of rain events. • A significant number of the structures located in the dam inundation zone are located outside of special flood hazard areas, meaning that they are not constructed to withstand floodwaters and are less likely to be covered by flood insurance. Even structures that have been designed with flood hazards in mind may not be able to withstand the height and velocity of flow from a dam failure event. • In the event of a dam failure that interrupted land line phone service, significant issues with communication could occur. • Most dam failure mapping required at federal levels requires determination of the probable maximum flood. While the probable maximum flood represents a worst -case scenario, it is generally the event with the lowest probability of occurrence. For non -federal -regulated dams, mapping of dam failure scenarios 8-16 TETRA TECH 8. Dam or Levee Failure that are less extreme than the probable maximum flood but have a higher probability of occurrence can be valuable to emergency managers and community officials downstream of these facilities. This type of mapping can illustrate areas potentially impacted by more frequent events to support emergency response and preparedness. The concept of residual risk associated with structural flood control projects should be considered in the design of capital projects and the application of land use regulations. Addressing security concerns and the need to inform the public of the risk associated with dam failure is a challenge for public officials. Federally regulated dams have adequate oversight and sophistication in the development of emergency action plans for public notification in the unlikely event of failure. The protocol for notification of downstream citizens of imminent failure needs to be tied to local emergency response planning. TETRA TECH 8-17 9. DROUGHT 9.1 GENERAL BACKGROUND Drought is a significant decrease in water supply relative to what is typical in a given location. It is a normal phase in the climate cycle of most regions, originating from a deficiency of precipitation over an extended period of time, usually a season or more. This leads to a water shortage for some activity, group or environmental sector. Droughts are climatic patterns that occur over long periods of time as the result of many causes. Anomalies of precipitation and temperature may last from several months to several decades. How long they last depends on interactions between the atmosphere and the oceans, soil moisture and land surface processes, topography, internal dynamics, and the accumulated influence of global weather systems. 9.1.1 Monitoring and Categorizing Drought The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has developed several indices to measure drought impacts and severity and to map their extent and locations: • The Palmer Z Index measures short-term drought on a monthly scale. • The Palmer Drought Severity Index measures the duration and intensity of long-term weather patterns. The intensity of drought in a given month is dependent on current weather plus the cumulative patterns of previous months. Weather patterns can change quickly, and the Palmer Drought Severity Index can respond fairly rapidly. • The Palmer Hydrological Drought Index, quantifies hydrological effects (reservoir levels, groundwater levels, etc.), which take longer to develop and last longer. This index responds more slowly to changing conditions than the Palmer Drought Index. • The Standardized Precipitation Index considers only precipitation. In the Standardized Precipitation Index, an index of zero indicates the median precipitation amount; the index is negative for drought and positive for wet conditions. The Standardized Precipitation Index is computed for time scales ranging from one month to 24 months. • The Palmer Crop Moisture Index measures short-term drought on a weekly scale to quantify impacts on agriculture. Maps of these indices show drought conditions nationwide at a given point in time. They are not necessarily indicators of any given area's long-term susceptibility to drought. The most current versions of the maps at the time of this plan's preparation are shown on Figure 9-1 through Figure 9-5. The U.S. Drought Monitor categorizes droughts by impact type and intensity. Impact type indicates whether a drought in a given area is short-term or long-term. Short-term is generally less than six months and impacts are expected on agriculture and grasslands. Long-term drought is typically longer than 6 months and impacts are seen on hydrology and ecology in the area impacted. The intensity of a drought is categorized on a scale of 0 to 4, where 0 is abnormally dry and 4 is exceptional drought. TETRA TECH 9-1 Harris County Multi -Hazard Mitigation Action Plan; Volume 1—Area-Wide Elements Source: NOAANational Center for Environmental Information. 2019 r rroderet� era � � rerne draught aoot W%r range rmi i moist Illdi6! r -2.75 -200 -1.25 -1.24 +1_00 t2.50 t3.50 3rld t6 16 11 10 am . d Figure 9-1. Palmer Z Index Short -Term Drought Conditions (September 2019) Source: NOAA, NWS. 2019 estimaled lrnrrl normaN eWtreme s04ere moderate droughl drought drought M 4.00 -3_DO -2.06 and to to below -3.99 -2.99 Mf Centers fW vironrwrPtal ftnmWn mld- moderately MY extremely range mold r11piM moist to tb to Md +1.99 .2.99 +3.99 sbowe Figure 9-2. Palmer Drought Severity Index (October 2019) 9-2 TETRA TECH 9. Drought Source: NOAA. NWS. 2019 Old r i 5 dracgnt drWV md5i moist = -4_00 -aca -2.Gp -11o.99 +2_00 A.0 ADD afl� da 10 Da ba autl Figure 9-3. Palmer Hydrological Drought Index (September 2019) Source: National Center for Environmental Information, 2019a Figure 9-4. 24-Month Standardized Precipitation Index Ending October 14, 2019 TETRA TECH 9-3 Harris County Multi -Hazard Mitigation Action Plan; Volume 1—Area-Wide Elements Source: U.S. Drought Portal, 2018 Figure 9-5. Palmer Crop Moisture Index for Week Ending October 12, 2019 9.1.2 Local Water Supply In Harris County there are approximately 1,200 public drinking water systems, ranging from the City of Houston's, which is the largest in Texas, to many that are among the state's smallest. A public water system is defined as one that serves at least 25 people per day at least 60 days of the year, or has 15 connections. Water supply sources for the planning area are a combination of deep wells drilled into area aquifers and surface water reservoirs fed by local rivers and their tributaries. 9.2 HAZARD PROFILE The Harris County planning area is susceptible to all ranges of drought as defined by the indices described above; therefore, the entire planning area is at risk for drought. However, since the Harris County planning area is not primarily an agricultural region, its vulnerability to drought is relatively low. 9.2.1 Past Events The historical information on drought for the planning area utilizes multiple sources to develop a comprehensive record of historical occurrences across the planning area; i.e. the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) and the U.S. Drought Monitor. The compilation of these sources was necessary because the NCDC information only 9-4 TETRA TECH 9. Drought include the years between 1996 to 2000. Established in 1999, the U.S. Drought Monitor has maintained a weekly record of drought conditions across the United States; which was also utilized to develop a comprehensive record of past drought conditions within the planning area. National Climatic Data Center Drought Records According to the NCDC the following three drought events affected the Harris County planning area between 1996 and 2000: Summer 1996—Austin, Brazoria, Brazos, Burleson, Chambers, Colorado, Fort Bend, Galveston, Grimes, Harris, Houston, Jackson, Liberty, Madison, Matagorda, Montgomery, Polk, San Jacinto, Trinity, Walker, Waller, Washington and Wharton counties: From April through June 1996, rainfall totals in the Houston area ran more than 10 inches below normal. Other areas to the west and north reported rainfall totals 75 percent below the normal for the first six (6) months of the year. Damage from the extended drought began to reach record proportions as many crops were lost and livestock were sold due to the lack of available fodder. Property damages and agricultural losses reached $10 million and $100 million, respectively, in southeast Texas. May — August 1998—Austin, Brazoria, Brazos, Burleson, Chambers, Colorado, Fort Bend, Galveston, Grimes, Harris, Houston, Jackson, Liberty, Madison, Matagorda, Montgomery, Polk, San Jacinto, Trinity, Walker, Waller, Washington and Wharton counties: Over 20 people across the region lost their lives due to the extreme heat, and property and crop damage averaged $8.3 million per county. Summer 2000—Austin, Brazoria, Brazos, Burleson, Chambers, Colorado, Fort Bend, Galveston, Grimes, Harris, Houston, Jackson, Liberty, Madison, Matagorda, Montgomery, Polk, San Jacinto, Trinity, Walker, Waller, Washington and Wharton counties: The combination of excessive heat and dryness resulted in several wildfires during the first week of the month, including a 4,500 acre fire in neighboring Liberty County. By the end of September, damage estimates to cotton, wheat, and forage crops reached $102.3 million in southeast Texas. Figure 9-6 shows historical drought affecting the Texas Gulf Basin. Source: National Drought Mitigation Center 100 8 CI cc a¢ 4 u 0 LIE I 1895 1905 1915 1925 1985 1945 1955 1965 1975 1985 1995 Year Figure 9-6. Percent Area of the Texas Gulf Basin Experiencing Severe to Extreme Drought TETRA TECH 9-5 Harris County Multi -Hazard Mitigation Action Plan; Volume 1—Area-Wide Elements U.S. Drought Monitor Records Table 9-1 lists severe drought (D2) events in Harris County lasting two or more consecutive week since 2000 as reported by the U.S. Drought Monitor. Table 9-1. Harris County U.S. Drought Monitor Data 2000-2016 Year 2000 Start Date End Date # of Consecutive Weeks January 4 April 11 15 July 2� October 3 11 June 3 June 24 4 November December 13 2000 2003 2005 2006 March 14 March 28 3 2006 Aril 18 June 9 2008 June 3 August 19 12 2009 February 10 April 7 M 9 2009 June 30 August 29 14 2010-2012 November 30, 2010 March 13, 2012 68 7 14 2012-2013 November 27, 2012 January 8, 2013 2013 2013 February 5 May 7 M 21 J 4 ay 2013 _ June 18 2016 November 11 une September 24 November 29 Source: U.S. Drought Monitor.(https://droughtmonitor.unl.edu/Data/DataDownload/WeeksInDrought.aspx ) USDA Drought Records 15 The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Farm Service Agency provides assistance for agriculture -related losses resulting from drought, flood, fire, freeze, tornados, pest infestation, and other natural disasters. The U.S. Secretary of Agriculture is authorized to designate counties as disaster areas to make emergency loans to producers suffering losses in those counties and in counties that are contiguous to them. The USDA designated the Harris County planning area 11 times as either a primary or contiguous county for a drought disaster, as illustrated in Table 9-2. All of the USDA drought disaster designations listed indicates at least a 30% loss in major crops in the county due to drought, which resulted in emergency loans being made available for the county's farmers and ranchers. According to the USDA, the drought in 2011 was the worst on record. In addition, the USDA was authorized to administer livestock programs from 2008 to 2011 because the Harris County planning area was listed as D2 (severe drought) on the Drought Monitor for at least 8 consecutive weeks during the drought period. Texas Division of Emergency Management Drought Records According to the Texas Division of Emergency Management (TDEM), the State of Texas issued and renewed 23 state drought disaster proclamations between 2006 — 2018; which included the Harris County planning area as illustrated in Table 9-3. 9-6 TETRA TECH 9. Drought Table 9-2. USDA Farm Service Agency Drought Disaster Designations for Harris County M 10 F i W 10 MR I Disaster Description -- .- .. S3288 Drought 1/1/2012 - continuing S3122 Drought 1/1/2011-continuing S2863 Drought 1/1/2009-continuing 52772a Drought 1/l/2008-continuing S2845a Drought 1/1/2008-continuing 2500 Drought S2281 Severe drought, above normal temperatures, & extremel hi h number of wildfires 4/1/2005-continuing S2191 l/2005-continuing S1501 Drought & Excessive Heat 1/1/2000-continuing EM31 xcessive fire hazards 8/1/1999-continuing S1225 Drought 6/l/1997-7/8/1998 a. Contiguous designation — designated due to being located adjacent to a primary designation county. "S" in front of disaster designation number indicates a Secretarial Designation by the U.S. Secretary of Agriculture. Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Farm Service Agency — Harris, Montgomery, and Waller County. Table 9-3. State Drought Disaster Proclamations for Harris County (2006 — 2018 Year Declarations 2006 1 2009 1 2011 10 2012 1 2013 10 TAL Source: Texas Division of Emergency Management, 2019 9.2.2 Location Drought is a regional phenomenon. A drought affects all aspects of the environment and the community simultaneously and has the potential to directly or indirectly impact every person in the county as well as adversely affect the local economy. The 2013 State of Texas Hazard Mitigation Plan identifies all of Texas as vulnerable to droughts. However, the areas most vulnerable to drought are west Texas areas around the cities of Amarillo, Lubbock, Midland, Odessa, Fort Stockton, San Angelo, Laredo, and El Paso to be the most at risk in the state to drought. The Harris County planning area is not located within that region and is not identified as a high risk area. The Harris County planning area is located in the Texas Climate Division 8 — Upper Coast. According to the South Central Climate Science Center, this is an area with recurring drought conditions. 9.2.3 Frequency The historical information obtained from the NCDC and the U.S. Drought Monitor shows there have been only 25 occurrences of drought since 1996 to 2018. Based on this data, the probability of occurrence for drought TETRA TECH 9-7 Harris County Multi -Hazard Mitigation Action Plan; Volume 1—Area-Wide Elements conditions in the Harris County planning area and all participating jurisdictions is once every 0.88 years or every 321 days. This ranks as a high probability of occurrence as defined for risk ranking for this plan. 9.2.4 Severity Drought can have a widespread impact on the environment and the economy, although it typically does not result in loss of life or damage to structures, as do other natural disasters. The severity of a drought depends on the degree of moisture deficiency, the duration, and the size and location of the affected area. The longer the duration of the drought and the larger the area impacted, the more severe the potential impacts. Vulnerability of an activity to drought depends on its water demand and the water supplies available to meet the demand. Impacts on the planning area due to drought include but are not limited to the following: • Reduced soil moisture and water supplies • Damaged and broken pipe systems • Tree/vegetation stress and die -off • Temporary restrictions on water consumption • Water shortages for agricultural purposes • Depleted recreational water resources • Low water levels for water transportation • Low moisture and precipitation creating conditions for wildfire. Drought can also create stress on water systems and piping, causing damage and breaks. Prolonged drought seasons can have serious health, social, economic and political impacts with far-reaching consequences within the planning area. According to the Association of Electric Companies of Texas, drought can also impact electric generation capacity due to water shortages for cooling reservoirs and cause outages due to high levels of air -borne contaminants such as coastal sea salt deposits and dust, resulting in faulty electrical equipment. According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Prevention and Control, severe drought conditions can negatively impact air quality due to wildfire and dust storms, which suspend particulate matter in the air from these events. National Drought Mitigation Center Impact Categories The National Drought Mitigation Center uses three categories to describe likely drought impacts: Economic Impacts —These impacts of drought cost people (or businesses) money. Farmers' crops are destroyed; low water supply necessitates spending on irrigation or drilling of new wells; water -related businesses (such as sales of boats and fishing equipment) may experienced reduced revenue. Environmental Impacts —Plants and animals depend on water. When a drought occurs, their food supply can shrink and their habitat can be damaged. Social Impacts —Social impacts include public safety, health, conflicts between people when there is not enough water to go around, and changes in lifestyle. Drought Impact Reporter. The National Drought Mitigation Center developed the Drought Impact Reporter in response to the need for a national drought impact database for the United States. Information comes from a variety of sources: on-line, drought -related news stories and scientific publications, members of the public who visit the website and submit a drought -related impact for their region, members of the media, and staff of government agencies. The database is being populated beginning with the most recent impacts and working backward in time. The Drought Impact Reporter indicates 73 impacts from drought that specifically affected Harris County from 2009 through September 2019 (Drought Impact Reporter, 2019). Most (89 percent) are based on media reports. 9-8 TETRA TECH 9. Drought The following are the reported numbers of impacts by category (some incidents are assigned to more than one impact category): • 36 in Agriculture • 6 in Business & Industry • 1 in Energy • 14 in Fire • 32 in Plants & Wildlife • 19 in Relief, Response & Restrictions • 6 in Society & Public Health • 3 in Tourism & Recreation • 13 in Water Supply & Quality 9.2.5 Warning Time Predicting drought depends on the ability to forecast precipitation and temperature. Scientists at this time do not know how to predict drought more than a month in advance for most locations. Only generalized warning can take place due to the numerous variables that scientists have not pieced together well enough to make accurate and precise predictions. Determination of when drought begins is based on impacts on water users and assessments of available water supply, including water stored in reservoirs or groundwater basins. Different water agencies have different criteria for defining drought. Some issue drought watch or drought warning announcements. 9.3 SECONDARY HAZARDS The secondary hazard most commonly associated with drought is wildfire. A prolonged lack of precipitation dries out vegetation, which becomes increasingly susceptible to ignition as the duration of the drought extends. In addition, lack of sufficient water resources can stress trees and other vegetation, making them more vulnerable to infestation from pests, which in turn, can make them more vulnerable to ignition. Millions of board feet of timber have been lost, and in many cases erosion occurred, which caused serious damage to aquatic life, irrigation, and power production by heavy silting of streams, reservoirs, and rivers. 0KIR4=J All people, property and environments in the planning area would be exposed to some degree to the impacts of moderate to extreme drought conditions. 9.5 VULNERABILITY The historical data available for drought only identifies events down to the county level. Localized event data on a more focused level is not currently available. This limits our availability to perform a detailed vulnerability assessment for this hazard within the Harris County planning area. In addition, although the area is vulnerable to drought, estimated losses are difficult to calculate because drought causes little damage to the built environment, and as previously stated, much of the asset information used in this risk assessment is based on building information derived from the Harris County Appraisal District. The entire planning area's vulnerability to drought is equal and relatively low. However, the NCDC narrative information provided in the previous occurrence section above does provide some limited information on property damages and agricultural losses, which demonstrates the adverse impact and vulnerability from drought for the entire planning area and all participating jurisdictions. Vulnerable assets may include residential properties, commercial properties, critical facilities, crops, TETRA TECH 9-9 Harris County Multi -Hazard Mitigation Action Plan; Volume 1—Area-Wide Elements farms, boating and fishing industries, marine transportation systems. Throughout the entire planning area, common assets that are vulnerable to drought may include, but are not limited to, recreational resources, such as lakes, rivers and natural resources; drinking water, infrastructure and residential foundations due to dry soil conditions, and electrical transmission and distribution lines. 9.5.1 Population The entire population of Harris County is vulnerable to drought events. Drought can affect people's health and safety, including health problems related to low water flows, poor water quality, or dust. Droughts can also lead to loss of human life (National Drought Mitigation Center, 2017). Other possible impacts include recreational risks; effects on air quality; diminished living conditions related to energy, air quality, and hygiene; compromised food and nutrition; and increased incidence of illness and disease (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2012). 9.5.2 Property No structures will be directly affected by drought conditions, though some structures may become vulnerable to wildfires, which are more likely following years of drought. Droughts can have significant impacts on other types of property such as landscaped areas and economically important natural resources. Drought causes the most significant economic impacts on industries that use water or depend on water for their business, most notably agriculture and related sectors, power plants, and oil refineries. In addition to losses in yields in crop and livestock production, drought is associated with increased insect infestations, plant diseases, and wind erosion. Drought can lead to other losses because so many sectors are affected —losses that include reduced income for farmers and reduced business for retailers and others who provide goods and services to farmers. This leads to unemployment, increased credit risk for financial institutions, capital shortfalls, and loss of tax revenue. Prices for food, energy, and other products may also increase as supplies decrease. 9.5.3 Critical Facilities Critical facilities as defined for this plan will continue to be operational during a drought. Critical facility features such as landscaping may not be maintained due to limited water resources, but the risk to critical facility core functions is low. 9.5.4 Environment Groundwater and Streams Drought generally does not affect groundwater sources as quickly as surface water supplies, but groundwater supplies generally take longer to recover. Reduced precipitation during a drought means that groundwater supplies are not replenished at a normal rate. This can lead to a reduction in groundwater levels and problems such as reduced pumping capacity or wells going dry. Shallow wells are more susceptible than deep wells. Reduced replenishment of groundwater affects streams. Much of the flow in streams comes from groundwater, especially during the summer when there is less precipitation and after snowmelt ends. Reduced groundwater levels mean that even less water will enter streams when stream flows are lowest. Other Potential Losses Environmental losses from drought are associated with damage to plants, animals, wildlife habitat, and air and water quality; wildfires; degradation of landscape quality; loss of biodiversity; and soil erosion. Some of the effects are short-term and conditions quickly return to normal following the end of the drought. Other environmental effects linger for some time or may even become permanent. Although environmental losses are difficult to quantify, growing public awareness and concern for environmental quality has forced public officials to focus greater attention and resources on these effects. The following are potential impacts of drought: 9-10 TETRA TECH 9. Drought • Wildlife habitat may be degraded through the loss of wetlands, lakes and vegetation. The degradation of landscape quality, including increased soil erosion, may lead to a more permanent loss of biological productivity. • Drought conditions greatly increase the likelihood of wildfires, the major threat to timber resources. • Water shortages and severe drought conditions would have a significant impact on Native American tribes' way of life in fishing and farming subsistence. • Any shortage of water supply can have significant economic impacts. 9.6 FUTURE TRENDS IN DEVELOPMENT Each municipal planning partner in this effort has an established comprehensive plan that includes policies directing land use and dealing with issues of water supply and the protection of water resources. These plans provide the capability at the local municipal level to protect future development from the impacts of drought. All planning partners reviewed their comprehensive plans under the capability assessments performed for this effort. Deficiencies identified by these reviews can be identified as mitigation actions to increase the capability to deal with future trends in development. In addition, water providers in the planning area have plans and programs in place to balance competing needs for water resources within the planning area. 9.7 SCENARIO A multi -year drought that impacts the southeastern portion of Texas, like the 2008 to 2011 drought, is the worst - case scenario for the planning area. The 2008 drought caused damage to natural systems. If another severe drought occurs before these systems have a chance to recover, it could exacerbate the stress already placed on existing planning area water resources. 9.8 ISSUES The CPT has identified the following drought -related issues: • The probability of drought frequencies and durations may increase due to climate change. • The promotion of active water conservation even during non -drought periods should be encouraged. • The planning area should plan for frequent droughts or multi -year droughts that can limit the ability to successfully recover from one drought and prepare for the next. • Drought in the county could increase and expand fire -prone areas and adversely affect the timber economy. • Planning must address the degree of future development in drought -prone areas. • More studies need to be done regarding overall county water usage and how it relates to the economy to prepare for a worst -case scenario drought. • With the possibility of climate change, drought may become a larger issue due to warming trends and wider fluctuations in rainfall patterns. • Alternative water supplies should be identified and developed. • Groundwater recharge techniques can be used to stabilize the groundwater supply TETRA TECH 9-11 10. EARTHQUAKE 10.1 GENERAL BACKGROUND An earthquake is the vibration of the earth's surface following a release of energy in the earth's crust. This energy can be generated by a sudden dislocation of the crust or by a volcanic eruption. Most destructive quakes are caused by dislocations of the crust. The crust may first bend and then, when the stress exceeds the strength of the rocks, break and snap to a new position. In the process of breaking, vibrations called "seismic waves" are generated. These waves travel outward from the source of the earthquake at varying speeds. Geologists have found that earthquakes tend to reoccur along faults, which are zones of weakness in the earth's crust. Even if a fault zone has recently experienced an earthquake, there is no guarantee that all the stress has been relieved. Another earthquake could still occur. In fact, relieving stress along one part of a fault may increase it in another part. Faults are more likely to have future earthquakes on them if they have more rapid rates of movement, have had recent earthquakes along them, experience greater total displacements, and are aligned so that movement can relieve the accumulating tectonic stresses. Geologists classify faults by their relative hazards. "Active" faults, which represent the highest hazard, are those that have ruptured to the ground surface during the Holocene period (about the last 11,000 years). "Potentially active" faults are those that displaced layers of rock from the Quaternary period (the last 1,800,000 years). Determining if a fault is "active" or "potentially active" depends on geologic evidence, which may not be available for every fault. Nearly all the movement between the two plates, and therefore the majority of the seismic hazards, are on the well-known active faults. However, inactive faults, where no displacements have been recorded, also have the potential to reactivate or experience displacement along a branch sometime in the future. 10.1.1 Earthquake Classifications Earthquakes are typically classified in one of two ways: By the amount of energy released, measured as magnitude; or by the impact on people and structures, measured as intensity. Magnitude An earthquake's magnitude is a measure of the energy released at the source of the earthquake. Magnitude is commonly expressed by ratings on the moment magnitude scale (MW), the most common scale used today (USGS, 2017a). This scale is based on the total moment release of the earthquake (the product of the distance a fault moved and the force required to move it). The scale is as follows: • Great—Mw > 8 • MajorMw = 7.0 — 7.9 • StrongMw = 6.0 — 6.9 • Moderate—Mw = 5.0 — 5.9 TETRA TECH 10-1 Harris County Multi -Hazard Mitigation Action Plan; Volume 1—Area-Wide Elements • Light—Mw = 4.0 — 4.9 • Minor—Mw = 3.0 — 3.9 • Micro—Mw < 3 Intensity The most commonly used intensity scale is the modified Mercalli intensity scale. Ratings of the scale as well as the perceived shaking and damage potential for structures are shown in Table 10-1. The modified Mercalli intensity scale is generally represented visually using shake maps, which show the expected ground shaking at any given location produced by an earthquake with a specified magnitude and epicenter. An earthquake has only one magnitude and one epicenter, but it produces a range of ground shaking at sites throughout the region, depending on the distance from the earthquake, the rock and soil conditions at sites, and variations in the propagation of seismic waves from the earthquake due to complexities in the structure of the earth's crust. A shake map shows the variation of ground shaking in a region immediately following significant earthquakes (for technical information about shake maps see USGS, 2018). Table 10-1. Mercalli Scale and Peak Ground Acceleration Comparison Not Felt None None <0.17% 11-111 1 Weak None None 0.17% -1.4% IV Light None None 1.4% - 3.9% V Moderate Very Light Light 3.9% - 9.2% VI Strong Light Moderate 9.2% -18% OR_V_11 Very Strong Moderate Moderate/Heavy 18% - 34% Vill Severe Moderate/Hea Heavy34% - 65% IX Violent Heavy4 Very Heavy X — XII Extreme Very Heavy Very Heavy >124% a. PGA = peak ground acceleration. Measured in percent of g, where g is the acceleration of gravity Sources: USGS, 2008; USGS, 2010 10.1.2 Ground Shaking The ground experiences acceleration as it shakes during an earthquake. The peak ground acceleration (PGA) is the largest acceleration recorded by a monitoring station during an earthquake. PGA is a measure of how hard the earth shakes in a given geographic area. It is expressed as a percentage of the acceleration due to gravity (%g). Horizontal and vertical PGA varies with soil or rock type. Earthquake hazard assessment involves estimating the annual probability that certain ground accelerations will be exceeded, and then summing the annual probabilities over a time period of interest. National maps of earthquake shaking hazards provide information for creating and updating seismic design requirements for building codes, insurance rate structures, earthquake loss studies, retrofit priorities and land use planning. After thorough review of the studies, professional organizations of engineers update the seismic -risk maps and seismic design requirements contained in building codes (Brown et al., 2001). The USGS updated the National Seismic Hazard Maps in 2014. New seismic, geologic, and geodetic information on earthquake rates and associated ground shaking were incorporated into these revised maps. The 2014 map, shown in Figure 10-1, represents the best available data as determined by the USGS. 10-2 TETRA TECH 10. Earthquake Source: USGS, 2014 120° 110° 100° g0° A i3 _ I � I l r � �-1 40° - t --T 35° s 1 -- I I 30° EXPLANATION . 1 `,� ❑ __.__ �� I x Peakacceleration, expressed as a fraction of standard gravity lgl-- 1 0..E Araas where suspected nontectunic \t D II 25° 0.05 earth quakes have been deleted `1 0.03 I 0.01 0 500 1000 KILOMETERS 0 50C 1u00 MILES Figure 10-1. Peak Acceleration (%g) with 10% Probability of Exceedance in 50 Years Building codes that include seismic provisions specify the horizontal force due to lateral acceleration that a building should be able to withstand during an earthquake. The determination of how great a force a structure should be able to withstand is based on probabilistic seismic mapping of the area. Such mapping identifies the probability of a given magnitude of ground shaking occurring over a specified time period. A common probabilistic rating used for building design is the level of ground shaking that has a 10 percent probability of being equaled or exceeded in a 50-year period. Buildings, bridges, highways and utilities built to meet modern seismic design requirements are typically able to withstand earthquakes better, with less damage and disruption. PGA values are directly related to these lateral forces that could damage "short period structures" (e.g. single-family dwellings). Longer -period response components determine the lateral forces that damage larger structures with longer natural periods (apartment buildings, factories, high-rises, bridges). Table 10-1 lists damage potential and perceived shaking by PGA factors, compared to the Mercalli scale. 10.1.3 Liquefaction and Soil Types Soil liquefaction occurs when water -saturated sands, silts or gravelly soils are shaken so violently that the individual grains lose contact with one another and float freely in the water, turning the ground into a pudding - like liquid. Building and road foundations lose load -bearing strength and may sink into what was previously solid ground. Unless properly secured, hazardous materials can be released, causing significant damage to the TETRA TECH 10-3 Harris County Multi -Hazard Mitigation Action Plan; Volume 1—Area-Wide Elements environment and people. A program called the National Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program (NEHRP) creates maps based on soil characteristics to help identify locations subject to liquefaction. Table 10-2 summarizes NEHRP soil classifications. NEHRP Soils B and C typically can sustain ground shaking without much effect, dependent on the earthquake magnitude. The areas that are commonly most affected by ground shaking have NEHRP Soils D, E and F (see SCEC, 2018 for general information on NEHRP soils data). In general, these areas are also most susceptible to liquefaction. Table 10-2. NEHRP Soil Classification A Hard Rock 1,500 B Firm to Hard Rocker 760-1,500 C Dense Soil/Soft Rock 360-760 D Stiff Soil 180-360 E Soft Clays < 180 F Special Study Soils (liquefiable soils, sensitive clays, organic soils, soft clays >36 m thick) 10.2 HAZARD PROFILE 10.2.1 Past Events According to the National Geophysical Data Center, there are 585 records of seismic activity in Texas since 1882. However, as shown on Figure 10-2, only 12 seismic events statewide since 1923 have had a magnitude of 4.5 or greater. At least one notable earthquake has affected the Harris County area. The August 16, 1931 event, with an epicenter 854 miles from Houston, registered as a "III" on the Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale for earthquakes. This would indicate that the event would have registered between 4.2 and 4.8 on the Richter Scale, and that it likely caused little or no damage but would have been felt by people resting similar to if a large truck rumbled by causing minimal to no damage impact (National Geophysical Data Center). 10.2.2 Location The entire planning area is located in a low risk zone for earthquakes. The Harris County planning area is located in the Gulf Coast Region and is not identified as a hazard area in the State of Texas Hazard Mitigation Plan. According to the U.S. Geological Survey, the Harris County planning area is located within the lowest hazard risk area across the nation for earthquakes (see Figure 10-1). 10.2.3 Frequency Except for the Trans -Pecos, most of Texas has a relatively small probability of experiencing an earthquake (Figure 10-2). 10.2.4 Severity Figure 10-3 shows the earthquake -induced PGA with a 2-percent chance of being exceeded in 50 years in Texas. The map was compiled by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), which conducts global investigations of earthquake, geomagnetic, and landslide hazards. For Harris County, the PGA with that probability is no more than 0.04 g, representing the lowest rating on the Modified Mercalli scale (see Table 10-1). 10-4 TETRA TECH 10. Earthquake Source: Texas Almanac 1923 Earthquakes El Paso4_F Listed are quakes of magi it e 1925 a AfTla11114 —1; ar greafer since 192S. Panhsrrd6a 5A 1931 Valentane 6.G 16 o Lubbock f 5.0 1 48 Fort Worth,, 4 Dal6as 5.2 1 7 El Rao GI a" 4.7 1 Perryto 4.5 o Austin siDn S r 4.6 R San Antonio 1992 Andrews 4.6 1995 Seismic car u� Maea�on 5.7 Chrp:i Hazard f 2011 1 � Fashirg 4.8 •rikely Lass hk❑ 01 Tines 4.0 0Texas Alrrunac Figure 10-2. Probability of Experiencing an Earthquake in Texas 10.2.5 Warning Time There is no current reliable way to predict the day or month that an earthquake will occur at any given location. Research is being done with warning systems that use the low energy waves that precede major earthquakes. These potential warning systems give approximately 40 seconds notice that a major earthquake is about to occur. The warning time is very short, but it could allow for someone to get under a desk, step away from a hazardous material they are working with, or shut down a computer system. TETRA TECH 10-5 Harris County Multi -Hazard Mitigation Action Plan; Volume 1—Area-Wide Elements 2%1 D N r a,r* PGA Hazard {g} =0-_02 M.C2-.04 M.04-M 0M-in _10 _12 p,12 - _14 p_14 - _10 _it 20 o-20-.W o.M - A* oAID- M p"- pA*-" 0 _1.2 p1s - 1-6 Plates WO Figure 10-3. Peak Acceleration with 2% Percent Probability of Exceedance in 50 Years 10.3 SECONDARY HAZARDS Earthquakes can cause disastrous landslides. River valleys are vulnerable to slope failure, often as a result of loss of cohesion in clay -rich soils. Earthen dams and levees are highly susceptible to seismic events, and the impacts of their eventual failures can be considered secondary risk exposure to earthquakes. Depending on the location, earthquakes can also trigger tsunamis. Additionally, fires can result from gas lines or power lines that are broken or downed during the earthquake. It may be difficult to control a fire, particularly if the water lines feeding fire hydrants are also broken. 10.4 EXPOSURE 10.4.1 Population The entire population of the planning area is potentially exposed to direct and indirect impacts from earthquakes. Whether directly impacted or indirectly impact, the entire population will have to deal with the consequences of earthquakes to some degree. Business interruption could keep people from working, road closures could isolate populations, and loss of functions of utilities could impact populations that suffered no direct damage from an event itself. 10-6 TETRA TECH 10. Earthquake 10.4.2 Property According to Central Appraisal districts for Harris, Fort Bend and Galveston Counties, there are 1,355,132 buildings in the planning area, with a total appraised value of over $928 billion. Since all structures in the planning area are susceptible to earthquake impacts to varying degrees, this represents the property exposure to seismic events. Most of the buildings (97 percent) are residential. Table 4-2 shows the exposure value breakdown by municipality. 10.4.3 Critical Facilities and Infrastructure Since the entire planning area has exposure to the earthquake hazard, all identified 11,416 critical facilities and infrastructure components are considered to be exposed. The breakdown of the numbers and types of facilities is presented in Table 4-5. 10.4.4 Environment The entire planning area is exposed to the earthquake hazard, including all natural resources, habitat and wildlife. 10.5 VULNERABILITY Earthquake vulnerability data was generated using a Hazus analysis for the 500-year probabilistic event. Probabilistic maps are not based on a specific earthquake event magnitude or location; instead, they show the ground acceleration at each point that has a given chance of being exceeded in any given year, regardless of the earthquake source. The 500-year probabilistic earthquake map shows the acceleration with a 0.2-percent chance of being exceeded in a given year (see Figure 10-4). The analysis results are summarized in the sections below, and more detailed information, broken down by municipality, can be found in Appendix C. The results of this analysis are likely to significantly underestimate risk, due to limitations in the modeling parameters: There is no liquefaction data available for the planning area, so damage estimates do not consider potential structural issues pertaining to liquefiable soils All critical facilities are assumed to have been built to high code standards. This may not be the case, especially for older facilities. 10.5.1 Population Vulnerable Groups Three population groups are particularly vulnerable to earthquake hazards: Linguistically Isolated Populations Problems arise when there is an urgent need to inform non- English speaking residents of an earthquake event. They are vulnerable because of difficulties in understanding hazard -related information from predominantly English-speaking media and government agencies. According to the U.S. Census American Community Survey, the linguistically isolated population represented 11.9 percent of the total population in 2018. Population Below Poverty Level —These households may lack the financial resources to improve their homes to prevent or mitigate earthquake damage. Poorer residents are also less likely to have insurance to compensate for losses in earthquakes. According to the American Community Survey, the population below poverty represented 16.8 percent of the total population in 2018. TETRA TECH 10-7 Harris County HMP Project Area Figure 10-4. 500-Year Probabilistic Earthquake Scenario Instrumental Intensity (Potential Damage/Perceived Shaking) IV (None/Light) Incorporated Cities Harris County L---I t 0V War 146 TETRA TECH 96 N A p 0 2 4 8 Miles 10. Earthquake • Population Over 65 Years Old —This population group is vulnerable because they are more likely to need special medical attention, which may not be available due to isolation caused by earthquakes. Elderly residents also have more difficulty leaving their homes during earthquake events and could be stranded in dangerous situations. According to the American Community Survey, the population over 65 years old represented 9.6 percent of the total population in 2018. Estimated Impact on Households and People Based on Hazus modeling, the estimated impacts of the 500-year probabilistic earthquake event on persons and households in the planning area are as follows: Number of Displaced Households = 2 Number of Persons Requiring Short -Term Shelter = 10.5.2 Property Building Age Table 10-3 identifies significant milestones in building and seismic code requirements that directly affect the structural integrity of development. Using U.S. Census estimates of housing stock age, estimates were developed of the number of housing units constructed before each of these dates. Approximately 68.9 percent of the planning area's housing units were constructed after the Uniform Building Code was amended in 1994 to include seismic safety provisions. The number of housing units built before 1933 when there were no building permits, inspections, or seismic standards, account for 1.4 percent. Many of the housing units in the planning area are detached, single-family residences of wood construction, which generally perform well during earthquake events. Table 10-3. Aqe of Housinq Units in Planninq Area Pre-1933 18,971 1.4 Before 1933, there were no explicit earthquake requirements in building codes. State law did not require local governments to have building officials or issue building permits. 1941-1960 7 5.7 A In 1960, the Structural Engineers Association of California published guidelines on recommended earthquake provisions. 1961-1975 71,822 5.3 In 1975, significant improvements were made to lateral force requirements. 1976-1994 11MOU In 1994, the Uniform Building Code was amended to include provisions for seismic safety. 1994 —present 933,686 68.9 Seismic code is currently enforced. 1,355,132 100 Note: Number and percent estimates are approximation as housing unit age information does not correspond directly with the time periods indicated. In addition, there are significant margins of error associated with the Census estimates. Source: 2018 American Community Survey, Harris County, Texas Unreinforced Masonry Buildings Unreinforced masonry buildings are constructed from materials such as adobe, brick, hollow clay tiles, or other masonry materials and do not contain an internal reinforcing structure, such as rebar in concrete or steel bracing for brick. Unreinforced masonry poses a significant danger during an earthquake because the mortar holding masonry together is typically not strong enough to withstand significant earthquakes. The brittle composition of TETRA TECH 10-9 Harris County Multi -Hazard Mitigation Action Plan; Volume 1—Area-Wide Elements these buildings can break apart and fall away or buckle, potentially causing a complete collapse of the building. The number of unreinforced masonry structure in the planning area is unknown. Loss Potential Table 10-4 summarizes Hazus estimates of earthquake damage in the planning area for the 500-year probabilistic earthquake scenario. The debris estimate includes only structural debris; it does not include additional debris that may accumulate, such as from trees. In addition, these estimates do not include losses that would occur from any local tsunamis or fires stemming from an earthquake. 10.5.3 Critical Facilities and Infrastructure Level of Damage Hazus classifies the vulnerability of critical facilities to earthquake damage in five categories: no damage, slight damage, moderate damage, extensive damage, or complete damage. The model was used to assign a probability of each damage state to every critical facility in the planning area. The results found no critical facilities or infrastructure in the planning area likely to be damaged for the 500-year probabilistic scenario. 10.5.4 Environment Environmental problems as a result of an earthquake can be numerous. Secondary hazards will likely have some of the most damaging effects on the environment. Earthquake -induced landslides can significantly damage surrounding habitat. It is also possible for streams to be rerouted after an earthquake. Rerouting can change the water quality, possibly damaging habitat and feeding areas. Streams fed by groundwater wells can dry up because of changes in underlying geology. 10.6 FUTURE TRENDS IN DEVELOPMENT With the low degree of risk to the earthquake hazard within the planning area, any future development should be able to adequately manage that risk through the application of codes and standards such as the International Building Code, which have regionally relevant seismic standards contained in its base regulations. The core capability assessments by the municipal planning partners to this effort identified a strong commitment to adoption of uniform codes and standards, which will position the planning partnership well for the mange earthquake risk for future development. 10.7 SCENARIO There is no feasible scenario to project for an earthquake event for the planning area. At least one notable earthquake has affected the Harris County area. The August 16, 1931 event, which had an epicenter 854 miles from Houston, registered as a "III" on the Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale for earthquakes. This would indicate that the event would have registered between 4.2 and 4.8 on the Richter Scale, and that it likely caused little or no damage but would have been felt by people resting, similar to if a large truck rumbled by causing minimal to no damage impact. 10.8 ISSUES The CPT identified no significant issues pertaining to the earthquake hazard. 10-10 TETRA TECH 10. Earthquake Table 10-4. Estimated Impact of Earthquake Scenario Events in the Planning Area Structure Debris�. TruckloadsJurisdiction D. Total Baytownc Bellaire _mw_ Bunker Hill Village 1,050 42 $1,237,560 12 $490,208 4 $69,810 40 $922,783 $14,324 4 $227,523 0.11 0.009 0.005 0.016 290 100 Deer Park 1,012 El Lao 0 0.003 Friendswoodc 110 0.004 Galena Park Hedwig Village Hilshire Villa 370 15 $233,460 0.020 8 $71,354 100 4 $17,984 0.009 Houstona, b 0,870 3,235 $72,793,475 Humble 830 33 $656,093 0.014 unters Creek Village Jacinto Citya Jersey Village Katyc La Porte Woo $113,204 360 14 $262,508 0.021 47 19 $425,276 227,698 $1,541,964 $22,012 0.019 240 10 0.007 2,170 87 0.023 League Citya, b 200 8 0.008 Missouri Cityc 410 16 $637,129 0.005 Morgan's Point 120 5 $75,174 $138,554 $3,162,040 $93,607 $150,007 0.029 Nassau Bay 700 28 0.008 Pasadena 3,340 134 0.014 Pearlanda 4 0.013 Piney Point Village 900 36 0.008 Seabroo Shoreacres South Houstona Southside Placea 210 8 $188,214 0 0 $8,929 0.004 24 $456,862 $24,238 $106,027 $356,147 -43,328 100 4 0.005 1pring Valley Village 600 24 0.009 Staffordc 340 14 0.006 a for Lake 400 16 Tomball 390 16 $377,658 0.011 allera, b 400 16 $29,831 Webster 590 24 $823,692 est University Place 200 8 $168,442 Unincor orated 44,060 1,762 $38,758,843 142,152 5,686 $124,925,958.00 0.013 0.014 0.005 0.012 a. City at least partly in Harris County not participating as planning partner to his hazard mitigation plan b. City extends beyond Harris County. Values shown are for Harris County portion only. c. City extends beyond Harris County. Values shown are for entire city. TETRA TECH 10-11 11. FLOODING 11.1 GENERAL BACKGROUND 11.1.1 Types of Flooding Floods are generally the result of excessive precipitation. In Harris County, flooding generally takes one of the following forms: Riverine Flooding—Riverine flooding occurs when rivers overflow their banks in response to excessive precipitation levels and water runoff volumes within the watershed. Riverine floodplains may be broad, as when a river crosses an extensive flat landscape, or narrow, as when a river is confined in a canyon. Coastal Flooding —Coastal flooding is primarily caused by storm surge, a cascading effect of hurricanes and coastal storms that pushes water toward the shore. The result can be waves that extend further inland, causing damage to development that would not normally be subject to wave action. Storm surge heights, and associated waves, are dependent upon the local width of the continental shelf and the depth of the ocean bottom. A narrow shelf, or one that drops steeply from the shoreline and subsequently produces deep water close to the shoreline, tends to produce a lower surge but higher and more powerful storm waves. Due to the high risk and vulnerability to this flood specific hazard, it was analyzed independently in this chapter rather than as a cascading effect of hurricanes. Flash Flooding —Most flash flooding is caused by slow -moving thunderstorms in a local area or by heavy rains associated with hurricanes and tropical storms. However, flash flooding events can also occur from accelerated snow melt due to heavy rains, a dam or levee failure within minutes or hours of heavy amounts of rainfall, or from a sudden release of water held by an ice jam. Although flash flooding occurs often along mountain streams, it is also common in urbanized areas where much of the ground is covered by impervious surfaces. Flash flood waters move at very high speeds, uprooting trees, destroying buildings, and obliterating bridges and roads. Urban Flooding —Urban flooding occurs when development has obstructed the natural flow of water and decreased the ability of natural groundcover to absorb and retain surface water runoff. 11.1.2 Measuring Floods and Floodplains The frequency and severity of flooding are measured using a discharge probability for river systems and storm surge levels for coastal systems. The discharge probability is the probability that a certain river discharge (flow) level will be equaled or exceeded in a given year. Storm surge levels are determined by modeling water depth, wind speed, vegetative cover and other factors to determine the "wave runup" (how far inland waves will reach) and "wave setup" (the height, speed, and slope of waves relative to the still -water elevation). Flood studies use historical records to determine the probability of occurrence for different discharge levels and storm surge levels. These measurements reflect statistical averages only; it is possible for multiple floods with a low probability of occurrence (such as a 1-percent-annual-chance flood) to occur in a short time period. For riverine flooding, the same flood event can have flows at different points on a river that correspond to different probabilities of occurrence. TETRA TECH 11-1 Harris County Multi -Hazard Mitigation Action Plan; Volume 1—Area-Wide Elements The extent of coastal flooding (storm surge) is determined by a variety of factors such as the range of water depth, the width and slope of the gulf/bay, the path of a hurricane, wind speeds, shape of the coastline, and the forward speed. (NOAA). The forward motion of a storm complements the counterclockwise rotation of the wind field, which usually results in the highest coastal flooding and surges from hurricanes occurring on the right -front (northeast) quadrant of the storm's track. A combination of tools/methods can be used to measure coastal flooding/storm surge, such as tidal stations, high water marks, pressure sensors and the NOAA SLOSH model. The extent of flooding associated with a 1-percent annual probability of occurrence (also called the base flood) is used as the regulatory boundary by many agencies. Also referred to as the special flood hazard area (SFHA), this boundary is a convenient tool for assessing vulnerability and risk in flood -prone communities. Many communities have maps that show the extent and likely depth of flooding for the base flood. Corresponding water -surface elevations describe the elevation of water that will result from a given discharge level, which is one of the most important factors used in estimating flood damage. 11.1.3 FEMA Regulatory Flood Zones FEMA defines flood hazard areas as areas expected to be inundated by a flood of a given magnitude. These areas are determined via statistical analyses of records of river flow, storm tides, and rainfall; information obtained through consultation with the community; floodplain topographic surveys; and hydrologic and hydraulic analyses. Flood hazard areas are delineated on Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMS) or digital Flood Insurance Rate Maps (DFIRMs), which provide the following information: • Locations of specific properties in relation to the SFHA • Base flood elevations (1-percent-annual-chance) at specific sites • Magnitudes of flood in specific areas • Undeveloped coastal barriers where flood insurance is not available • Regulatory floodways and floodplain boundaries (1-percent and 0.2-percent-annual-chance floodplain boundaries). Land area covered by floodwaters of the base flood is the SFHA on a DFIRM—an area where NFIP floodplain management regulations must be enforced, and where mandatory purchase of flood insurance applies. This regulatory boundary is a convenient tool for assessing vulnerability and risk in flood -prone communities, because many communities have maps showing the extent of the base flood and likely depths that will occur. The base flood elevation (the water elevation of a flood that has a 1-percent chance of occurring in any given year) is one of the most important factors in estimating potential damage from flooding. A structure within a 1-percent-annual-chance floodplain has a 26-percent chance of undergoing flood damage during the term of a 30-year mortgage. The 1-percent-annual-chance flood is used by the NFIP as the basis for insurance requirements nationwide. DFIRMs also depict 0.2-percent-annual-chance flood designations. FIRMS and DFIRMs are the principle tool used to identify the extent and location of the flood hazard. FEMA and the floodplain management community acknowledge that these maps are not a total depiction of an area's flood risk. They represent the best data source available, but the level of risk they indicate may be understated or overstated compared to current conditions. The following limitations to the accuracy of these maps need to be recognized: FIRMs are based on hydrologic conditions at the time they are prepared. FIRMS are not set up to account for changes in hydrology that can occur over time. FIRMs can be up to 25 years old, and therefore fail to reflect the conditions of the watershed as they exist today. FIRMs do not account for the flood protection benefits of levees unless the levees are certified as providing 100-year flood protection (according to criteria specified in Section 65.10 of 44 CFR). The 11-2 TETRA TECH 11. Flooding national levee policy is in a state of flux. Some levees are recognized as 100-year levees on FIRMs, others are not. The age of the older maps can draw into question the level of protection provided by levees today. The potential for levees to be certifiable in their current condition requires costly, detailed risk - based analyses. 11.1.4 Floodplain Ecosystems and Beneficial Functions Connections between a river and its floodplain form a complex physical and biological system that not only supports a variety of natural resources but also provides natural flood and erosion control. When floodwaters recede after a river flood event, they leave behind layers of rock and mud. These gradually build up to create a new floor of the floodplain. Floodplains generally contain unconsolidated sediments (accumulations of sand, gravel, loam, silt, and/or clay), often extending below the bed of the stream. These sediments provide a natural filtering system, with water percolating back into the ground and replenishing groundwater. These are often important aquifers, the water drawn from them being filtered compared to the water in the stream. Fertile, flat reclaimed floodplain lands are commonly used for agriculture, commerce and residential development. When a river is separated from its floodplain with levees and other flood control facilities, natural, built-in benefits can be lost, altered, or significantly reduced. A floodplain can contain 100 or even 1,000 times as many species as a river. Wetting of the floodplain soil releases an immediate surge of nutrients: those left over from the last flood, and those that result from the rapid decomposition of organic matter that has accumulated since then. Microscopic organisms thrive, and larger species enter a rapid breeding cycle. Opportunistic feeders (particularly birds) move in to take advantage. The production of nutrients peaks and falls away quickly, but the surge of new growth endures for some time. This makes floodplains valuable for agriculture. Species growing in floodplains are markedly different from those that grow outside floodplains. For instance, riparian trees (trees that grow in floodplains) tend to be very tolerant of root disturbance and very quick -growing compared to non -riparian trees. Floodplains have many natural and beneficial functions, and disruption of natural systems can have long-term consequences for entire regions. Some well-known, water -related functions of floodplains (noted by FEMA) include: • Natural flood and erosion control • Provide flood storage and conveyance • Reduce flood velocities • Reduce flood peaks • Reduce sedimentation • Surface water quality maintenance • Filter nutrients and impurities from runoff • Process organic wastes • Moderate temperatures of water • Groundwater recharge • Promote infiltration and aquifer recharge • Reduce frequency and duration of low surface flows. Areas in the floodplain that typically provide these natural functions are wetlands, riparian areas, sensitive areas, and habitats for rare and endangered species. 11.1.5 Effects of Human Activities Because they border water bodies, floodplains have historically been popular sites to establish settlements. Human activities tend to concentrate in floodplains for a number of reasons: water is readily available; riverine floodplain land is fertile and suitable for farming; transportation by water is easily accessible; land is flatter and easier to develop; and there is value placed in ocean views. But human activity in floodplains frequently interferes with the natural function of floodplains. It can affect the distribution and timing of drainage, thereby increasing flood problems. Human development can create local flooding problems by altering or confining drainage TETRA TECH 11-3 Harris County Multi -Hazard Mitigation Action Plan; Volume 1—Area-Wide Elements channels or causing erosion of natural flood protection systems such as dunes. Flood potential can be increased in several ways: reducing a stream's capacity to contain flows; increasing flow rates or velocities downstream; and allowing waves to extend further inland. Human activities can interface effectively with a floodplain as long as steps are taken to mitigate the activities' adverse impacts on floodplain functions. 11.2 HAZARD PROFILE 11.2.1 Flooding Sources Harris County consists of portions of two primary watershed systems —the San Jacinto River and Buffalo Bayou —along with a number of smaller watershed systems. Each of these ultimately drains into Galveston Bay on the southeast side of the county. Most of the floodwaters in Harris County result from rainfall within the county. With the exception of the San Jacinto River system, minimal flows are conveyed into Harris County from upstream watersheds. These planning area is are drained by 22 major waterways, as described in the following sections. Waterways in the San Jacinto River System San Jacinto River The San Jacinto River drains a 3,600-square-mile watershed (including 487 square miles in Harris County) that originates well outside and upstream of Harris County. It drains all or part of Harris, Montgomery, Waller, Walker, Grimes, Liberty, and San Jacinto Counties. The river is formed by the junction of the West and East Forks, which each enter northern Harris County. Lake Houston is a water supply reservoir in northeast Harris County along the San Jacinto River, which includes the confluence of the East and West Forks. The San Jacinto River extends southward through the eastern portion of Harris County from the Lake Houston Dam to its confluence with the Houston Ship Channel continuing on to its mouth at Galveston Bay. The Port of Houston Authority operates the Houston Ship Channel, which originates at the Turning Basin, follows the original alignment of Buffalo Bayou to the San Jacinto River, and continues through the San Jacinto River and San Jacinto Bay to Galveston Bay. Although it is part of the original alignment of Buffalo Bayou, for organizational purposes the ship channel below the Turning Basin is considered a part of the San Jacinto Watershed. Notable tributaries include the East and West Forks. Spring Creek, Cypress Creek, Little Cypress Creek, Willow Creek, Luce Bayou, Goose Creek, and Jackson Bayou also part of the San Jacinto River system but are described separately. Most of the watershed is rural and undeveloped, although some more moderate levels of development have occurred within Harris County. Communities in the watershed include the Cities of Houston, Baytown, Deer Park, Galena Park, Humble, La Porte, Morgan's Point, Pasadena, and unincorporated Harris County. Spring Creek Spring Creek forms the northern boundary of Harris County, bordering Montgomery and Waller Counties. The watershed also includes a portion of Grimes County. The watershed drains 761 square miles in an easterly direction to its confluence with the West Fork of the San Jacinto River upstream of Lake Houston. Notable tributaries and sub -tributaries to Spring Creek from Harris County include Cypress Creek, Little Cypress Creek, and Willow Creek, all of which are described separately in this report. Consequently, this description of the Spring Creek watershed only considers the 59.5 square miles of the watershed that are not in these other watersheds. Notable tributaries from Montgomery County include Lake Creek and Panther Branch. Spring Creek is 68 miles in length. The watershed is lightly developed, with some residential development. Communities in the watershed include the Cities of Houston, Humble, Tomball, and unincorporated Harris County. 11-4 TETRA TECH 11. Flooding Cypress Creek Cypress Creek is a tributary of Spring Creek and is a part of the San Jacinto River Watershed system. It drains eastward over a length of 50 miles from its origin at the junction of Mound Creek and Snake Creek in Waller County to its confluence with Spring Creek near the West Fork of the San Jacinto River. The Cypress Creek Watershed is 320 square miles, but excluding the Little Cypress Creek Watershed (which is described separately), the watershed is 268 square miles in size. The middle and lower portions of the watershed have a moderate level of residential development, while the upstream portion of the watershed is predominately rural and agricultural. Notable tributaries include Mound Creek, Snake Creek, Rock Hollow, Dry Creek, Little Cypress Creek, Faulkey Gully, Theiss Gully, Seals Gully, and Turkey Creek. Communities within the watershed include the Cities of Houston and Waller and unincorporated Harris County. Little Cypress Creek Little Cypress Creek is a tributary of Cypress Creek. It drains southeastward for a length of 22 miles from its headwaters in far northwest Harris County to its confluence with Cypress Creek. The Little Cypress Creek Watershed consists of 52 square miles and has a light amount of predominately residential development. The remainder of the watershed is either open land or agricultural. Communities within the watershed include unincorporated Harris County. Willow Creek Willow Creek is a tributary of Spring Creek. It drains northeastward for a length of 20 miles from its headwaters near Tomball to its confluence with Spring Creek. The watershed drains an area of 56 square miles. The watershed has a light amount of residential development. The remainder of the watershed is either open or agricultural. Communities within the watershed include the City of Tomball and unincorporated Harris County. Luce Bayou Luce Bayou is a tributary of the East Fork of the San Jacinto River. It drains southward for 35 miles from its headwaters in the Sam Houston National Forest in San Jacinto County to its confluence with the East Fork of the San Jacinto River in the upper portion of Lake Houston. The watershed covers 227 square miles and includes portions of San Jacinto, Liberty, and Harris Counties. The Harris County portion includes only the lower 17 square miles of the watershed. There is minimal development in the watershed; most of the land is forest. Communities within the watershed include the City of Houston and unincorporated Harris County. Jackson Bayou Jackson Bayou is a tributary of the San Jacinto River. It drains southward over a length of 7 miles. from its headwaters in east Harris County to its confluence with the San Jacinto River. The Jackson Bayou watershed is 50 square miles in size. It is lightly developed, with some rural subdivisions in the lower portion of the watershed. Notable tributaries include Gum Gully. Communities within the watershed include the City of Houston and unincorporated Harris County. Goose Creek Goose Creek is a tributary of the San Jacinto River. It drains southward over a length of 15 miles from its headwaters in east Harris County to its confluence with the San Jacinto River just downstream of its confluence with the Houston Ship Channel. The Goose Creek Watershed is 33 square miles in size. It is moderately developed, but the lower half of the watershed has mostly dense residential along with some concentrations of commercial and industrial development. For descriptive purposes, the Goose Creek watershed includes Spring Gully, which drains directly into the San Jacinto River and does not have a common confluence with Goose Creek. Communities within the watershed include the City of Baytown and unincorporated Harris County. TETRA TECH 11-5 Harris County Multi -Hazard Mitigation Action Plan; Volume 1—Area-Wide Elements Waterways in the Buffalo Bayou System Buffalo Bayou The Buffalo Bayou Watershed is described as the area downstream of Addicks and Barker Reservoirs that drains to Buffalo Bayou and is not part of another designated watershed tributary to Buffalo Bayou. This area totals 102 square miles and drains into Buffalo Bayou as it extends eastward for 50 miles from Barker Reservoir to the Houston Ship Channel Turning Basin just east of downtown Houston. The Buffalo Bayou Watershed is highly urbanized, with a mix of residential and commercial land uses. Features within the watershed include Memorial Park and downtown Houston. Communities within the watershed include the Cities of Houston, Bunker Hill Village, Hedwig Village, Hilshire Village, Hunter's Creek Village, Piney Point Village, Spring Valley, and unincorporated Harris County. Sims Bayou Sims Bayou is a tributary to Buffalo Bayou. It drains eastward over a length of 25 miles from its headwaters in Fort Bend County to its confluence with the Houston Ship Channel. The Sims Bayou watershed is 93 square miles in size. It is moderately developed, consisting mostly of a relatively high -density (for Harris County) residential, with most of the development concentrated in the downstream and upstream portions of the watershed. The largest tributary to Sims Bayou is Berry Bayou. Communities within the watershed include the Cities of Houston, Missouri City, South Houston, Stafford, and Pasadena, and unincorporated Harris County. Brays Bayou Brays Bayou is a tributary of Buffalo Bayou. It drains eastward over a length of 32 miles from its headwaters in Fort Bend County and southwest Harris County to its confluence with the Houston Ship Channel. The Brays Bayou Watershed is 128 square miles in size. It is highly developed, with land use ranging from residential to dense commercial. The watershed includes the Texas Medical Center, Herman Park, and the Reliant Park Complex. Notable tributaries include Keegans Bayou and Willow Waterhole Bayou. Communities include the Cities of Houston, Bellaire, Southside Place, Stafford, and West University Place, and unincorporated Harris County. White Oak Bayou White Oak Bayou is a tributary of Buffalo Bayou. It drains southeastward over a length of 30 miles from its headwaters in northwest Harris County to its confluence with Buffalo Bayou near downtown Houston. The White Oak Bayou Watershed is 111 square miles in size. It is highly developed, with primarily residential land use. Notable tributaries include Little White Oak Bayou, Brickhouse Gully, Cole Creek, and Vogel Creek. Communities in the watershed include the Cities of Houston and Jersey Village, along with unincorporated Harris County. Hunting Bayou Hunting Bayou is a tributary of Buffalo Bayou. It drains eastward and then southward over a length of 15 miles from its headwaters in northeast Houston to its confluence with the Houston Ship Channel near the Washburn Tunnel. The Hunting Bayou Watershed is 30 square miles in size. It is moderately to highly developed, with mostly dense residential development in the upper portion of the watershed and industrial and commercial development in the middle and lower portions of the watershed. Communities within the Hunting Bayou Watershed include the Cities of Houston, Galena Park, and Jacinto City, along with unincorporated Harris County. 11-6 TETRA TECH 11. Flooding Vince Bayou Vince Bayou is a tributary of Buffalo Bayou. It drains northward for a length of 6 miles from its headwaters in Pasadena to its confluence with the Houston Ship Channel. The watershed is densely developed, with a mixture of residential, commercial, and industrial uses. Communities within the watershed include the Cities of Houston, South Houston, and Pasadena. Carpenters Bayou Carpenters Bayou is a tributary of Buffalo Bayou. It drains southward over a length of 13 miles from its headwaters in northeast Harris County to its confluence with the Houston Ship Channel. The Carpenters Bayou Watershed is 31 square miles in size. It has a low to moderate amount of development, consisting mostly of small lot residential and commercial. Sheldon Reservoir is located in the upper basin. This shallow lake and adjoining lands are owned by the State of Texas and were formally used by the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department for fish research and hatchery. Communities within the watershed include the City of Houston and unincorporated Harris County. Greens Bayou Greens Bayou is a tributary of Buffalo Bayou. It drains eastward and then southward for a distance of 42 miles from its headwaters in northwest Harris County to its confluence with the Houston Ship Channel. The Greens Bayou Watershed is 211 square miles in size. It is moderately developed; most of the land use is residential and light commercial. The watershed includes George Bush Intercontinental Airport. Notable tributaries include Halls Bayou and Garners Bayou. Communities within the watershed include the Cities of Houston and Humble and unincorporated Harris County. Barker Reservoir Barker Reservoir was constructed with Addicks Reservoir to protect downtown Houston and the Houston Ship Channel by impounding flood flows in the upper portion of Buffalo Bayou. The Barker Reservoir Watershed includes all those areas that contribute drainage into the reservoir. This watershed encompasses 129 square miles much of which is within Fort Bend County. A moderate amount of development has occurred in the watershed, consisting predominately of residential development. The primary streams that feed the reservoir are Upper Buffalo Bayou, Cane Island Branch, and Mason Creek. Communities within the watershed include the Cities of Houston and Katy, and unincorporated Harris County. Addicks Reservoir Addicks Reservoir was constructed with Barker Reservoir to protect downtown Houston and the Houston Ship Channel by impounding flood flows in the upper tributaries of Buffalo Bayou. The Addicks Reservoir Watershed includes all those areas that contribute drainage into the reservoir. This watershed encompasses 136 square miles of area, all of which is in northwest Harris County. A moderate amount of predominately residential development has occurred in the watershed. The primary streams that feed the reservoir are Langham Creek, South Mayde Creek, Bear Creek, Horsepen Creek, and Dinner Creek. Communities within the watershed include the Cities of Houston and Katy and unincorporated Harris County. Waterways Directly Tributary to Galveston Ba Clear Creek Clear Creek forms the southern boundary of Harris County, bordering Galveston and Brazoria Counties and then extending upstream to its headwaters in Fort Bend County. The watershed drains 198 square miles in an easterly direction into Clear Lake, a natural estuary lake, and then into Galveston Bay. A light to moderate level of TETRA TECH 11-7 Harris County Multi -Hazard Mitigation Action Plan; Volume 1—Area-Wide Elements development has occurred in the watershed, with most of it concentrated in the downstream and middle reaches. Although the development is mostly residential and commercial, National Aeronautics and Space Administration's Johnson Space Center and associated industries make up a considerable portion of the development in the areas near Clear Lake in the downstream portion of the watershed. Significant tributaries to Clear Creek include Mary's Creek, Cowart Creek, and Hickory Slough, all of which drain from adjacent counties to the south; and Armand Bayou, which is described separately. Communities in the watershed include the Cities of Houston, El Lago, Friendswood, La Porte, League City, Missouri City, Nassau Bay, Pasadena, Pearland, Seabrook, Shoreacres, Taylor Lake Village, Webster, and unincorporated Harris County. Armand Bayou Armand Bayou is a tributary of Clear Creek but is treated as a separate watershed. It drains an area of 59 square miles southward into Clear Lake near Galveston Bay. The watershed is moderately developed, with a mix of residential and dense industrial. This development is evenly distributed across the watershed. Communities in the watershed include the Cities of Houston, Deer Park, La Porte, Nassau Bay, Pasadena, Taylor Lake Village, Webster, and unincorporated Harris County. Cedar Bayou Cedar Bayou forms the eastern boundary of Harris County, bordering Chambers County. It drains southward for a distance of 51 miles from its headwaters in Liberty County to its confluence with Galveston Bay. The Cedar Bayou Watershed is 199 square miles in size and is lightly developed. Notable tributaries include Pine Gully. Communities within the watershed include the City of Baytown and unincorporated Harris County. Galveston Bay Tributaries The Galveston Bay Tributaries are small tributaries along Galveston Bay between Clear Lake and the Houston Ship Channel that drain directly into Galveston Bay and are not included in other watersheds. This area is moderately developed and includes both residential areas and dense commercial and industrial. Notable tributaries include Little Cedar Bayou and Pine Gully. Communities included in this watershed include the Cities of La Porte, Morgan's Point, Pasadena, Seabrook, Shoreacres, and unincorporated Harris County. 11.2.2 Principal Flood Problems Harris County is subject to intense local thunderstorms of short duration, general storms extending over periods of several days, and torrential rainfall associated with tropical events. The area features flat terrain, clay soils that do not absorb water well, and an average annual rainfall of 48 inches. The potential for extreme rainfall events, coupled with the flat topography and poorly draining soils, contribute to frequent flooding. Flooding also results from tidal surge along Galveston Bay caused by hurricanes and tropical storms. The Harris County planning area also is subject to chronic urban flooding. As land use within Harris County has transitioned from rural/agricultural, to more high density urban, the propensity for urban drainage flooding has increased. The two key factors that contribute to urban flooding are rainfall intensity and duration. Topography, soil conditions, urbanization and groundcover also play an important role. Urban flooding occurs when available conveyance systems lack the capacity to convey rainfall runoff to nearby creeks, streams, rivers and bayous. As drainage facilities are overwhelmed, roads and transportation corridors become conveyance facilities. Urban floods can be a great disturbance of daily life in urban areas. Roads can be blocked, and people may be unable to go to work or school. Economic damage can be high, but the number of casualties is usually limited, because of the nature of the flood. When the city is on flat terrain, the flow speed is low, and people can still drive through it. The water rises relatively slowly and usually does not reach life endangering depths. 11-8 TETRA TECH 11. Flooding 11.2.3 Flood Control in the Planning Area Following severe floods in 1929 and 1935, the State of Texas created the Harris County Flood Control District in 1937 for the purpose of "the control, storing, preservation, and distribution of the storm and flood waters, and the waters of the rivers and streams in Harris County and their tributaries, for domestic, municipal, flood control, irrigation, and other useful purposes, the reclamation and drainage of the overflow land of Harris County, the conservation of forests, and to aid in the protection of navigation on the navigable waters by regulating the flood and storm waters that flow into said navigable streams." Since that time, there have been many significant projects to reduce flood damage in Harris County. Many were the result of partnerships between the Flood Control District and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE), FEMA, and others. The District's drainage and flood control infrastructure is extensive, including more than 1,500 channels totaling about 2,500 miles in length. The District is responsible for devising and implementing flood damage reduction projects and maintaining the primary drainage infrastructure. Its current annual 5-year plan calls for flood damage reduction projects with a budget of nearly $975 million (Harris County Flood Control District). 11.2.4 Flood Insurance in the Planning Area National Flood Insurance Program All communities in the planning area participate in the NFIP, with 318,138 flood insurance policies providing $63.1 billion in insurance coverage. According to FEMA statistics, 161,483 flood insurance claims were paid between January 1, 1978 and July 31, 2019, for a total of $8.5 billion, an average of $52,374 per claim. Table 11-1 lists flood insurance statistics that help identify vulnerability in the planning area. Properties constructed after a FIRM has been adopted are eligible for reduced flood insurance rates. Such structures are less vulnerable to flooding since they were constructed after regulations and codes were adopted to decrease vulnerability. Properties built before a FIRM is adopted are more vulnerable to flooding because they do not meet code or are located in hazardous areas. The first FIRMs in Harris County were available in 1970. The Community Rating System The CRS is a voluntary program within the NFIP that encourages floodplain management activities that exceed the minimum NFIP requirements. Flood insurance premiums are discounted to reflect the reduced flood risk resulting from community actions meeting the following three goals of the CRS: • Reduce flood losses. Facilitate accurate insurance rating. Promote awareness of flood insurance. For participating communities, flood insurance premium rates are discounted in increments of 5 percent. For example, a Class 1 community would receive a 45 percent premium discount, and a Class 9 community would receive a 5 percent discount. (Class 10 communities are those that do not participate in the CRS; they receive no discount.) The discount partially depends on location of the property. Properties outside the SFHA receive smaller discounts: a 10-percent discount if the community is at Class 1 to 6 and a 5-percent discount if the community is at Class 7 to 9. The CRS classes for local communities are based on 18 creditable activities in the following categories: • Public information • Mapping and regulations • Flood damage reduction • Flood preparedness. TETRA TECH 11-9 Harris County Multi -Hazard Mitigation Action Plan; Volume 1-Area-Wide Elements Baytown Bellaire Bunker Hill Vil Deer Park El Lago Friendswood Galena Park_ Hedwig Village Hilshire Village Humble Hunters Creek Vi Jacinto Citya Jersev Villaqe Morgan's Point Nassau Ba Pasadena Pearland� Piney Point Villa Seabrook Shoreacres South Houstona Southside Placea Fpring Valley VIIL Stafford Tomball Wallera Webster West Un Unincor Total 02/26/1970 09/30/1981 04/17/1979 08/15/1980 07/02/1971 03/03/1972 11 /02/1982 09/28/1990 09/30/1992 12/11 /1972 09/16/1982 11 /05/1980 09/02/1981 03/15/1982 03/02/1981 02/17/1971 06/05/1970 01/06/1982 12/01 /1983 11/13/1970 12/31/1974 07/05/1984 12/02/1980 12/31/1974 11 /20/1970 03/18/1987 04/20/2000 06/04/1980 03/01 /1982 12/31/1974 12/18/1984 9/14/1979 12/31/1974 05/26/1970 Table 11-1. Flood Insurance Statistics 756 875 1,958 267 387 143 146,871 875 788 257 1,364 1,337 4,841 164 329 86 10,129 1,359 611 526 922 383 781 21 478 6 1,145 117,921 318,138 $1,208,945,700 $2,153,223 $1,567,537,900 $4,535,524 $258,702,600 $321,830 $1,366,788,800 $2,245,409 $243,877,000 $522,254 $590,773,700 $846,418 $65,512,300 $146,340 $132,062,100 $199,697 $48,532,200 t $59,209 $41,457,850,300 $87,331,237 $264,594,300 $590,111 $272,886,800 $345,798 $63,582,400 $118,598 $425,774,200 $1,204,426 $405,189,300 $672,915 $1,355,410,600 $2,963,276 $59,258,800 $80,845 $85,043,000 ; $152,004 $30,206,500 $57,119 $401,431,400 $1,081,206 $2,956,117,200 $4,997,515 $457,792,300 $551,735 $207,040,600 $347,337 $997,428,900 $3,199,871 $139,390,900 $711,869 $181,099,200 $763,369 $126,185,100 $312,815 $6,020,000 $7,502 $355,199,400 $628,181 $155,481,500 $261,117 $950,000 $2,421 $634,723 $261,600,300 $1,130,891,400 $1,684,69 5,566,925,600 163,112,947,300 3,073 3,200 274 1,814 590 1,113 201 120 32 82,200 _ 825 268 193 863 359 3,034 88 _89 28 1,531 6,989 [333_ 338 2,995 1,020 1,197 35 [122_ _ 23 _ 708 126 3 537 $54,373,817 i 46,733 $174,419,023 161 A& a. City at least partly in Harris County not participating as planning partner to his hazard mitigation plan Source: FEMA, 2019 019,662,011 M4,782,750 $8,105,483 $44,821,404 $15,431,307 �123,506,213 $1,205,958 $4,603,548,089 $55,352,654 $17,847,239 $7,623,298 $46,404,149 $29,572,897 $94,639,112 $4,860,113 $412,457 $576,996 $57,512,427 $189,938,148 $15,003,279 $20,537,774 $119,675,138 $57,079,468 $38,014,251 $887,851 $2.056.131 $16,944,479 $16,944,479 $80,380 ]0 $12,054,116 $13,084,872 $2,459,891,960 $8,457,520,504 CRS activities can help to save lives and reduce property damage. Communities participating in the CRS represent a significant portion of the nation's flood risk; over 66 percent of the NFIP's policy base is located in these communities. Communities receiving premium discounts through the CRS range from small to large and represent a broad mixture of flood risks, including both coastal and riverine flood risks. 11-10 TETRA TECH 11. Flooding Harris County and 15 cities currently participate in the CRS program, representing 96.3 percent of the planning area policy base. Their CRS status is summarized in Table 11-2. The total annual savings on flood insurance premiums within the planning area is $33.65 million. Many of the mitigation actions identified in this plan are creditable activities under the CRS program. Therefore, successful implementation of this plan offers the potential for these communities to enhance their CRS classifications and for currently non -participating communities to join the program. Figure 11-1 shows the nationwide number of CRS communities by class as of October 2016, when there were 1,391 communities receiving flood insurance premium discounts under the CRS program. Table 11-2. CRS Communitv Status in the Planning Area Baytown 485456 10/1/1991 6 1 20 15 $430,645 $680,329 Bellaire 480289 10/1/1993 7 7 Deer Park 480291 485468 480287 480296 485487 10/1/2000 10/1/1991 5/1/2004 5/1/2002 10/1/1999 15 $336,811 $126,963 $8,156,073 $21,832,809 Friendswood 7 15 Harris County 7 15 Houstona 5 25 LaPorte 7 15 $444,491 a ue Citya 485488 10/1/199W 20 $16,169 Missouri City 480304 485491 5/1/2010 7 15 $22,800 Nassau Bay 10/1/1992 7 8 15 10 $162,181 $499,752 Pasadena 480307 10/1/1991 480077 5/1/2005 _Pearlanda 6 20 $110,347 7 15 $479,980 Seabrook 4855077 10/1/2002 9 5 $35,593 Shore acres 485510 5/1/2014 Taylor Lake Village 485513 5/1/2014 8 10 $62,818 7 15 $252,704 West University Place 1 480318 10/1/2019 rotalW T I $33,650,465.00 a. City at least partly in Harris County not participating as planning partner to his hazard mitigation plan Source: FEMA, October 1, 2019 Source: FEMA, 2016 500 475 400 350 Cn a� E 300 D E 217 222 E U 200 0 116 a) 100 n 1 4 3 3 z 0 — — 1 2 3 4 CRS Cl5 ass 6 7 8 9 Figure 11-1. CRS Communities by Class Nationwide as of October 2016 TETRA TECH 11-11 Harris County Multi -Hazard Mitigation Action Plan; Volume 1—Area-Wide Elements 11.2.5 Past Events Following Tropical Storm Allison in 2001, FEMA and the Harris County Flood Control District published a report that included a 103-year flood history for Harris County. This dataset represents the most comprehensive historical occurrence record for the planning area. Table 11-3 summarizes the data, along with information on floods that have occurred since the flood history was published; Appendix D provides additional details on each event, provided by the National Climatic Data Center. Widespread Harris County, Houston Harris County Harris County, Houston Table 11-3. History of Flood Events 09/1900 6,000 $40,000,000 Brazoria, Fort Bend, 08/28/2001 to Galveston, Harris - 8,000 08/31/2001 1907 0 N/A Harris, Houston, Pasadena 04/08/2002 12/1913 0 N/A Brazoria, Galveston, Harris 08/15/2002 08/191 0 $56,000,000 Harris, Houston, Bellaire, ' 08/22/2002 Jersey Village 0 $1,463,000 _ $70,000 0 $325,000 0 $10,000 I Harris County, Houston, 04/1929 0 N/A Harris, Pasadena, Deer Park 09/08/2002 0 $15,000 Coun ide Harris, Houston 09/19/2002 0 $55,000 Harris County 0 N/A N/A Harris County 05/1930 0 Brazoria, Galveston, Harris, 10/24/2002 0 $250,000 40 Houston Fort Bend, Harris, Liberty, 10/28/2002 0 0 �I/A A Houston Harris County, Houston 12/1935 0 N/A Harris, Houston 12/04/2002 0 $10,000 Northeast Harris County 11/19 0 10,000 head Harris, Pasadena 08/31/2003 0 of cattle 0 $16,500,000 Harris County 07/1943 Harris and surrounding area 11/17/2003 1 $3,000,000 0 Harris County 10/1943 N/A Harris, Houston, Memorial 05/01/2004 0 $3,000 Village (The Villages), Pasadena Harris County 08/1945 N/A Harris, Houston 05/13/2004 0 $7,000 j 0 0 N/A Harris County 02/1950 Harris, Houston 6/13/2004 0 $50,000 0 N/A Northern County Harris 05/1955 Harris, Houston, Westfield 11/22/2004 0 $15,000 j 0 Harris County 06/1957 N/A Harris, Houston, Aldine 05/29/2005 0 $10,000 j 0 N/A Houston 10/1959 Harris, Houston 7/14/2005 0 $115,000 0 N/A Harris County 06/1960 Harris, Houston, Clear Lake 12/14/2005 0 $40,000 area 34 in Southern Harris County 09/1961 $300,000,000 Harris 6/19/2006 0 $3,300,000 Texas 0 $3,300,000 Harris County A02/1969 Harris6/22/2006 0 $200,000 0 Northern Harris 3/1972 N/A Harris, Houston, Seabrook 10/16/2006 4 $750,000 10 Harris CountyCount06/1973 $50,000,000 Harris, Tomball, Baytown 10/26/2006 0 $150,000 0 Harris County 07/1979 $700,000,000 Harris, Houston, Cypress, 5/10/2007 0 $650,000 Spring Valley Village, 0 $14,000,000 Aldine, Southside Place Harris, Houston, Hedwig 05/30/2007 0 $0 Harris County 05/1983 Village, Cypress 08/1983 0 Harris County and $1 billion Harris, Houston 07/06/2007 0 $50,000 surrounding area 11-12 TETRA TECH 11. Flooding Harris County Harris County Harris County Harris County Chambers, Colorado, Fort Bend, Galveston Harris, Liberty, Matagorda, Montgomery, Walker, Waller, Wharton Harris, Houston, Pasadena Harris, Houston 09/1983 0 $38,000,000 Harris, Deer Park, 8/16/2007 3 Pasadena, La Porte, Clear Lake. 05/1989 0 N/A Harris, Houston, Humble 10/15/2007 0 06/1989 0 N/A Harris, Houston, Clear Lake, 09/12- 25 Shoreacres, Taylor Lake 14/008 Village, Seabrook, County- wide 1 03/1992 0 N/A Harris, Houston, Aldine, 10/15/2008 0 Humble 10/16/1994 17 $900,000,000 Harris, Houston, Jersey 4/18/2009 5 - Village, Houston Heights, 10/18/1994 La Porte, Pasadena, M" Webster and Hobby Harris, Friendswood, 4/24/2009 0 Baytown 09/18/1996 0 $1,500,000 Harris, Bellaire, Missouri 4/28/2009 City, 09/27/1996 0 $0 Harris, Pasadena, Baytown, 10/22/2009 0 La Porte, Nassau Bay, Clear Lake, Friendswood Southeast Harris County 01/27/1997 0 Harris, Houston 03/12/1997 0 Harris, Houston 04/04/1997 0 Harris, Countywide 04/25/1997 0 Houston, Jamaica Beach, Nassau Bay, Seabrook, Galveston Harris, Houston 05/21/1997 1 Harris, Houston 05/24/1997 � 0 Harris, Houston 05/30/1997 1 0 Harris, Webster 11/28/1997 0 Harris, Countywide, 12/20/1997 0 Humble, Houston Harris, Pasadena 01/04/1998 0 Harris, Bellaire 01/06/1998 0 Harris, Pasadena 01/21/1998 0 1 Harris, County -Wide 09/11/1998 1 0 Harris County 09/1998 0 Harris, Baytown 09/14/1998 0 Harris 10/04/1998 0 $130,000 Harris, Houston $0 Harris, Houston $250,000 Harris, Houston $750,000 $5,000 $3,000,000,000 $20,000 $3,500,000 $1,000,000 $15,000,000 $4,000 10/29/2009 0 $16,000 05/14/2010 0 $5,000 07/02/2010 0 $1,750,000 01/09/2012 0 $20,000 $50,000 $250,000 $15,000 $3,000 $20,000 $3,000 Harris, Houston Harris, Houston Harris, Houston Harris County, Houston Harris, Houston Harris, Houston, Jersey Village Harris, Housto 01/25/2012 0 0 $25,000 $40,000 $512,000 $3,000,000 $750,000 $75,000 05/12/2012 07/12/2012 04/27/2013 0 05/10/2013 0 09/20/2013 0 $5,000 $5,000 10/31/2013 0 $0 Harris, Houston, Tomball 05/26 - 27/2014 0 $0 $0 Harris, Houston Harris Count 05/28/2014 07/03/2014 0 $0 N/A $5,000 $5,000 0 0 $5,000 $100,000 $0 Harris, Houston, Pasadena 08/01/2014 Harris, Houston 09/16/2014 0 TETRA TECH 11-13 Harris County Multi -Hazard Mitigation Action Plan; Volume 1—Area-Wide Elements Austin, Brazoria, Brazos, Chambers, Colorado, Fort Bend, Grimes, Harris, Jackson, Liberty, Madison, Matagorda, Montgomery, Waller, Wharton, Humble, County -Wide Austin, Brazoria, Brazos, 10/17/1998 8 - 10/18/1998 11/12/199dol $418,000 $239,000 Harris, Sugar Land, Houston, Cypress, Hillshire Village, The Village area, Stafford, Hunters Creek Village L..M E 09/18/2014 0 $25,000 Harris, Houston, Katy, 09/19/2014 0 $1,000 Colorado, Fort Bend, - Bellaire Harris, Jackson, Liberty, 11/14/1998 Madison, Matagorda, Montgomery, Polk, San Jacinto, Walker, Waller, Wharton Harris, Bellaire 03/19/1999 0 $300,000 Houston, Bellaire, 04/17/2015 0 $300,000 Pasadena, La Porte Harris 04/02/2000 0 $50,000 Webster 5/12/2015 1 $800,000 Harris, Liberty 05/19/2000 0 $10,400,000 Houston, Orr 10/31/2015 2 $1,000,000 Brazoria, Galveston, 09/13/2000 0 $350,000 Countywide 04/18/2016 7 $35,000,000 Harris Harris, Houston 03/28/2001 0 $35,000 Hurricane Harvey 08/26/2017 36 $10 billion_ Harris County, Houston 06/2001 22 $5,000,000 TOTAL dh 215a $16,211,752,000b a. This figure does not include fatalities from the Galveston Hurricane of 1900; it does include some fatalities that may have occurred in surrounding areas. b. This figure includes some damage estimates attributable to surrounding areas. Sources: "Off The Charts: Tropical Storm Allison Public Report" and the National Climatic Data Center, 2019 Hurricane Harvey Hurricane Harvey made landfall on August 25, 2017 in Rockport, Texas, as a Category 4 Hurricane. After devastating south central Texas, Harvey returned to the Gulf of Mexico, refueling along its way. Harvey then moved slowly north along the coast, eventually making landfall and centering over the Harris County region for five days, producing unprecedented rainfall amounts. On August 27, all 22 main channels and bayous in the county spilled over their banks,. Never before had every bayou in Harris County flooded at the same time. The rain that fell across Harris County over a 4-day period was enough to cover Harris County's 1,800 square miles with an average of 33 inches of water. More than two dozen rainfall gages registered seven-day readings topping 40 inches, with a maximum rainfall of 47.4 inches near Clear Creek at Interstate 45, nearly equal to the county's average rainfall for a year. It is estimated that more than 120,000 structures were flooded in Harris County. Figure 11-2 shows the flood extent and location during Hurricane Harvey. 11.2.6 Location Riverine Riverine and coastal floodplains may be broad or narrow, depending on local topography and natural flood defenses such as dune systems or tidal wetlands. There are numerous rivers and streams that wind through Harris County, setting the stage for potential flooding during heavy rain events. Harris County is most susceptible to riverine flooding in the flood zones identified in Figure 11-3. 11-14 TETRA TECH 1 7� -J 49 290 _J 7 90 146' J L 1 — 6146 90 Harris County HMP Project Area 88 Figure 11-2. Flooding During Hurricane Harvey — �I _ • Flooding Extent 35 w� r % \ \`. 1 S Incorporated CitiesL---- 6 !4 288 146 Harris County 1 v 1 TETRA TECH 6 f 96 6 N A 0 0 2 4 8 Miles Harris County HMP Project Area Figure 11-3. FEMA Flood Hazard Areas 1%Annual Chance Flood (100-yr) Incorporated Cities �— Harris County N �I 90 _ 4 _l.1 I i - 225 _- ' 146 r n r 35 l a a - 288 =A • 6 TETRATEGH N A 0 2 4 8 Miles 11. Flooding Coastal Figure 11-4 shows the location of coastal flood hazard areas within the planning area using 5-foot, 10-foot, 20-foot, and 30-foot surge inundation data. Coastal flooding and storm surge are most likely along Galveston Bay, varying with the depth of coastal flooding. The communities exposed to coastal flooding at the most severe range of a 30-foot depth include Baytown, Deer Park, El Lago, Galena Park, Jacinto City, La Porte, Morgan's Point, Nassau Bay, Pasadena, Seabrook, Taylor Lake Village, Harris County and Webster. Refer to the jurisdictional annexes in Volume 2 for high -resolution maps depicting all participating jurisdictions. 11.2.7 Frequency Drained by 22 watersheds, Harris County averages a severe flooding event every two years. (Harris County Flood Control District, 2019). Within the County, FEMA has identified numerous repetitive loss properties (NFIP, 2014). Harris County has been the subject of 32 presidential declarations of disaster for flooding since 1975 (FEMA, 2014). Based on historical data, the probability of the Harris County planning area and all participating jurisdictions being affected by a riverine flood event is once every 0.81 years. The probability of the Harris County planning area and all participating jurisdictions being affected by a coastal flood event is once every 4.21 years. For the risk assessment for this plan update, the probability of occurrence for flooding is considered "high." 11.2.8 Severity The severity of a flood event is determined by a combination of stream and river basin topography and physiography; precipitation and weather patterns; recent soil moisture conditions; and the degree of vegetative clearing. The principal factors affecting flood damage are flood depth and velocity. The deeper and faster flood flows become, the more damage they can cause. Shallow flooding with high velocities can cause as much damage as deep flooding with slow velocity. Wave action has significant velocity, and waves as small as 1.5 feet can cause substantial damage to structures and other development. Riverine Flooding The severity of riverine flooding is defined by the National Weather Service (NWS) as minor, moderate or major: Minor Flooding —Minimal or no property damage, but possibly some public threat or inconvenience Moderate Flooding —Some inundation of structures and roads near streams. Some evacuations of people and/or transfer of property to higher elevations are necessary. Major Flooding —Extensive inundation of structures and roads. Significant evacuations of people and/or transfer of property to higher elevations. Harris County and all participating jurisdictions considers a rainfall of 2 to 3 inches per hour or a creek rise that stays within the creek bank or drainage channel to be a minor flooding severity. In addition, street flooding is considered minor flooding. A major severity to the Harris County planning area is identified as a rainfall of 4 inches per hour and greater, or more than 6 inches in 3 hours on saturated ground, or a creek rise that overflows the banks of the creek or drainage channel. Flash flooding can develop quickly in the region, closing roads/bridges, and endangering life and property. The entire planning area can expect minor, moderate and major flooding in the future. Figure 11-5 and Figure 11-6 show the estimated depth of flooding across the planning area for the FEMA-mapped 1-percent-annual-chance riverine flood and for the Harvey flood event. TETRA TECH 11-17 Harris County HMP Project Area Figure 11-4. Coastal Flood Area Coastal Flood Area j Incorporated Cities Harris County .r ~ — 35 3 288 l > ,\ �/ 146 2 6 f 96 6 N a p4 0 2 4 8 Miles F.,irC�" '�+ �- Oyu ,_. �. .- ,� "a.• _ �4 `II . Z 90 14 6 J e' a JO JII 146 y1 J Harris County HMP Project Area Figure 11-5. Flood Depth for the 1 % Annual Chance Riverine Flood ' - '_ • 35 High : >25 ft �. �— �* 3 O c Low : 0 ft 6 288 1 > ~,{� 146 � TETRATEGH j Incorporated Cities 6 96 N Harris County A 0 2 4 8 Miles 8 a 1 Aa 0-44 a IP Asa �� ; — r` r c '► . �sr 146 225 146\ I , 3, 90 d Harris County HMP Project Area Figure 11-6. Flood Depth for the Harvey Flood Event \% �.?•, 35 High : >25 ft Qn C r " jv \/ 6 2884� Low : 1 fta� v 146 \/ ���•�� ` I ( \ /, 1 �S � TETRA TECH j Incorporated Cities 6 96 N Harris County A 0 0 2 4 s Miles 11. Flooding Water rescues are frequently required during flood events in the County. Impacts on the planning area due to riverine flooding include but are not limited to temporary and permanent displacement of residents and businesses, limited mobility for residents and responders, loss of life, utility and power outages, and temporary closure of critical infrastructure facilities. Impacts may also include soil erosion along rivers and streams due to flooding. Environmental impacts also occur due to chemicals and other hazardous materials contaminating water bodies. Flood severity for riverine flooding is often evaluated by examining peak discharges; Table 11-4 lists peak flows used by FEMA to map the floodplains of the planning area. Peak discharge is generally described using the measurement cubic feet per second. A discharge rate of 20,000 cubic feet per second would fill an Olympic size swimming pool in about 4 seconds. Table 11-4. Sum Area wear ureeK watersnea At the Mouth 21,618 At confluence of Taylor Bayou 22,481 At confluence of Armand Bayou 20,938 At confluence of Robinson Bayou 14,229 At confluence of Cow Bayou 14,051 38,098 46,341 38,995 47,042 35,377 42,013 71,847 72,745 64,427 21,633 24,879 33,496 32,750 21,217 24,557 At confluence of Landing Ditch At confluence of Magnolia Creek 13,563 20,518 23,660 31,516 13,407 20,253 23,340 31,269 At confluence of Chigger Creek 13,201 19,868 22,891 30,896 At confluence of Cowart Creek 11,700 17,710 20,329 28,726 At confluence of Mary's Creek 1 9,343 14,080 16,162 22,566 At confluence of Turkey Creek 6,876 10,632 12,282 17,205 At confluence of Halls Road Ditch 4,361 6,766 7,901 10,572 At confluence of Hickory Slough Downstream of SH 288 2,871 4,553 1,902 5,376 7,966 1,122 2,342 3,918 At McHard Road (FM 2234) `Armand Bayou Watershed At the Mouth At confluence of Horse en Bayou 414 821 1,077 1,925 15,433 24,076 29,102 40,693 14,895 23,173 28,030 39,139 At confluence of Big Island Slough 0,116 15,049 17,444 24,139 At confluence of Spring Gully 7,847 11,309 13,278 19,414 Ftconfluence of tributary 9.39 (B111-00-00) At confluence of Willow Springs Ba ou 6,360 5,897 8,643 10,176 14,369 At confluence of tributary 10.46 (B11-00-00) 2,574 4,156 4,770 6.4 At confluence of tributa 12.09 B114-00-00 1,138 1,670 1,946 2,759 At Dupont Street Sims Bayou Watershe At the Mouth 289 431 505 724 22,903 38,495 44.553 58,495 Downstream of Plum Creek 22,531 37,816 43,765 57,455 Upstream of Pine Gully 21,760 36.370 42.049 54,410 TETRA TECH 11-21 Harris County Multi -Hazard Mitigation Action Plan; Volume 1-Area-Wide Elements Upstream of Tributary 10.77 to Sims Bayou 13,785 1 22,280 26,317 2,54M Upstream of Tributary 13.83 to Sims Bayou 10,712 17,084 20,619 28,736 At Hiram -Clarke Road 11,400 Upstream of Tributary 20.25 to Sims Bayou 2,316 706 3,712 1,090 4,470 1,292 6,449 1,897 Upstream of Sam Houston Parkway Brays Bayou Watershed At the Mouth 44,124 47,258 55,389 Upstream of Scott Street 32,102 36,320 38,484 44,397 ownstream of Main Street 30,3331LI 31,831 36,226 Downstream of Chimney Rock Street 25,294 31,219 32,975 37,060 Upstream a 27,142 Downstream of D142-00-00 Confluence 12,970 17,208 18,226 21,615 Upstream 5,293 6,48 7,025 Upstream of Dairy Ashford Road 4,743 6,098 6,624 8,043 Downstream of SH 6 3,636 White Oak Bayou Watershed At the Moo 41,250 At Heights Blvd 22,617 31,324 34,455 42,293 At Lazybrook Drk 833 44 42,584 Downstream of El15-00-00 Confluence 22,105 30,781 34,124 43,028 ownstream of Ell -00-00 Confluence 16,43 1,691 24,185 33,857 12,447 16,891 19,820 28,253 Downstream of E121-00-00 Confluence Downstream of E122-00-00 Confluence 10,836 14,697 16,648 23,368 Downstream of El41-00-00 Confluence, At Beltway 8 9,065 11,769 13,154 17,887 Downstream of E127-00-00 Confluence 7,872 10,214 11,395 15,310 At West Road 5,810 7,500 8,350 10,300 At Jones Road 4,100 5,550 6,250 8,140 Downstream of E133-00-00 Confluence 1,130 1,710 1,990 2,820 Lyeston Bay_jVatershed Little Cedar Bayou, at the mouth 1,649 2,440 2,799 3,842 Little Cedar Bayou, at confluence w/tributary F216-01-00 1,609 2,378 2,724 3,744 Pine Gully at the Mouth 1,574 2,333 2,720 3,856 Pine Gully, at confluence w/tributary F220-01-00 1,577 2,335 2,722 3,858 Pine Gully, at confluence w/tributary F220-02-00 1,106 1,630 j 1,900 2,674 LO-JacintV River Wptersh Buffalo Bayou (Houston Ship Channel) at confluence of San Jacinto River 147,736 209,729 238,342 303,412 an Jacinto River, at Lake Houston Dau.A 0 West Fork of the San Jacinto River, at U.S. Highway 59 62,300 127,200 167,500 306,000 11-22 TETRA TECH 11. Flooding Source/Location Ben's Branch, at the Mouth Jordan Gully at the mouth Annual Annual Annual Chance Chance Chance 13,404 4,794 5,454 1 1,782 j 2,546 2,940 Annual Chance 7,175 4,118 XD 1,211 1,756 2,032 M 2,790 Black's Branch, at the mouth 1,891 2,659 3,061 4,301 East Fort of the San Jacinto River, At north end of Lake Houston 85,200 185,000 Cane Creek, at the mouth 22,200 52,000 72,400 133,000 White Oak Creek, at the mouth 1,900 3,480 4,230 6,080 Mill's Branch, at the mouth 421 622 725 1,067 aylor Gully, at the mouth ,89 2,739 3,078 4,010M Patrick Bayou, at the mouth 3,985 5,595 6,455 8,669 East 13th St. outfall channel, at the mouth Boggy Bayou, upstream of SH 225 542 773 894 1,22 1,615 2,121 2,396 3,375 Glenmore Ditch, ,020 4,289 Panther Creek, at the mouth Cotton Patch Bayou, at the mouth ;ak untington Bayou Watershed At the mouth 3 1,413 1,716 2,565 2,963 4,010 9,002 10,568 15,234 6,270 Wallisville Outfall, at the mouth 1,515 2,318 2,735 3,901 Tributary 12.70 to Huntington Bayou, at the mouth 349 535 635 930 Schramm Gully, at the mouth 288 447 534 804 Tributary 12.05 to Huntington Bayou, at the mouth rVince Bayou Watershed At the Mouth 964 1,493 1,765 2,554 8,778 12,199 13,987 18,778 Little Vince Bayou, at the mouth Ipring Creek Watershed Spring Creek, at the mouth Bender Lake, at the mouth 3,335 4,759 5,505 7,512 30,772 60,592 76,749 132,093 1,691 2,536 2,921 4,087 Tributary 21.08 to Spring Creek, at the mouth 1,050 1,613 1,875 2,672 Boggs Gulley, at the moutM 1860 2,915 3,441 5,024 Tributary 1.25 to Boggs Gully, at the mouth 400 620 790 1,250 Kickapoo Creek, at the mouth Lypress Creek Watershed tthe mouth _ Turkey Creek, at the mouth [Tributary to Turkey Creek, at the mouth Wild Cow Gulch, at the mouth INESElch. at the mouth Lemm Gully, at the mouth Senger Gully, at the mouth 2,565 4,358 5,314 8,132 15,050 23,186 27,258 38,505 4,179 2,119 1 580 1,205 6,749 6,749 3,184 2,319 1,895 8,065 3,676 2 652 2,254 11,807 5,160 3,311 1,402 2,175 2,567 3,710 TETRA TECH 11-23 Harris County Multi -Hazard Mitigation Action Plan; Volume 1-Area-Wide Elements Source/Location 10-Percent 2-Percent 1-Percent 0.2-Percent Annual Annual Annual Annual Chance Chance Chance Chance Wunsche Gully, at the mouth 630 1,000 1,250 1,750 meals Gully, at the mou M3,450 5,168 6,085 8,723 Kothman Gully, at the mouth 857 1,338 1,577 2,298 pring Gully, at the mouth EL 52 12,183 Theiss Gully, at the mouth 2,297 3,597 4,254 6,195 Dry Gully, at the mout 1 410 2,222 647 3,900 Pilot Gully, at the mouth 1,388 2,247 2,698 4,012 ulkey Gully, at the mouth 6,386 7 613 10,986 Dry Creek, at the mouth 1,406 2,281 2,753 4,143 Rock Hollow, at the mouth 401 1 012 12,853 16,179 Mound Creek, at the mouth 6,932 25,158 [East Fork Mound Creek, at the mouth 2 3 4,438 Little Mound Creek, at the mouth 3,192 4,960 5,839 8,373 I[Ittle Cypress Creek Watershed Little Cypress Creek, at the mouth 2,676 1 5,771 1 7,686 1 14,060 Flow Creek Watershed At the Mouth 4,979 8,769 10,929 17,974 ributa 0.26 illow Creek, at t 1,155 1,69 Tributary 2.44 to Willow Creek, at the mouth 630 1,045 1,255 1,872 ughes Gully, at the 597 1,147 1,693 Cannon Gully, at the mouth 1,343 2,143 2,524 3,690 Irtzler Creek, at the 671 1,240 Roan Gully, at the mouth 1,393 2,191 2,608 3,826 arpenters Bayou Watershed At the mouth 6,472 9,815 11,458 16,094 Tributary 3.33 to Carpenters Bayou, at the mouth 1,080 1 1,915 2,763 Tributary 11.715 to Carpenters Bayou, at the mouth 551 861 1,025 1,511 Goose Creek Watershed Goose Creek, at the mouth 9,597 13,636 15,951 21,578 East Fork Goose Creek, at the mouth 2,125 3,139 3,660 5,169 Spring Cully at the mouth 1,517 2,042 2,324 3,064 Spring Gully Diversion Channel, at the mouth 440 758 951 1,559 breens Bayou Watershed Greens Bayou at the mouth 34,189 43,160 8 62,823 Big Gulch, at the mouth 2,012 2,960 3,271 4,142 Sulphur Gulch, at the mouth 744 1,083 1,256 1 743 Spring Gully, at the mouth 1,256 1,811 2,093 2,877 Hall's Bayou, at the mouth Garner's Bayou, at the mouth 8,984 12,962 14,877 20,487 11-24 TETRA TECH 11. Flooding Williams Gully, at the mouth 2,067 3,165 33,7 5,389 3,163 4,363 Reinhardt Bayou, at the mouth 1,941 2,722 North Fork, Green's Bayou, at the mouth 10,554 ,Cedar Bayou Watershed [Cedar Bayou, at the mouth 20,442 Pine Gully, at the mouth 933 1,383 1,616 2,297 mouth ,397 3,53 4,126 5,886 Horspen bayou, at the mouth 485 915 1,176 2,015 cGee Bayou, at the mouth 1,519 1 3,720 Cedar Bayou Diversion Channel. At the mouth 8,640 11,710 13,302 18,633 ckson Ba Jackson Bayou, at the mouth 8,177 12,543 14,755 21,303 Gum Gully, at the mouth 5.833 8.702 10.187 14.770 Luce Bayou Watershed Luce Bayou at the mouth 14,650 33,850 45,700 84,540 Shook Gully, at the mouth 1,050 1,588 1,860 27454 Mexican Gully, at the mouth rBaker Reservoir Watershed Cane Island Branch, at the mouth Mason Creek, at the mouth 362 535 623 872 1,230 2,458 3,383 6,420 4,774 7,666 9,234 13,655 Tributary 2.17 to Tributary 52.9 to Upper Buffalo Bayou/Cane, at the mouth Lddick's Reservoir Watershed Langham Creek at Clay Rd 605 953 1,138 1,682 6,973 12,166 15,203 24,506 South Mayde Creek, at the mouth boar Creek, at the mouth Horspen Creek, at the mouth Dinner Creek, At confluence of Langham Creek Addick's Reservoir Diversion Channel, downstream of confluence with Horspen Creek uffalo Bayou Watershe At 69th St. 6,901 11,322 13,294 18,312 4,548 829 13,106 6,244 6,973 39,606 9,937 1,993 12,166 53,872 11,749 15,203 61,636 16,989 24,506 83,981 Spring Branch, at the mouth 3,853 5,996 7,104 10,379 Briar Branch, at the mouth 1,158 1,795 2,142 3,200 Soldiers Creek, at the mouth 496 778 931 1,406 Rummel Creek, at the mouth 27144 37392 4,048 57697 Turkey Creek, at the mouth 1,227 1,915 2,269 3,232 Clodine Ditch, at the mouth 1,215 2,138 2,696 4,419 Source: FEMA Flood Insurance Study Number 48201CV000C, Harris County, Texas and Incorporated Areas, May 2, 2019 TETRA TECH 11-25 Harris County Multi -Hazard Mitigation Action Plan; Volume 1-Area-Wide Elements Coastal Flooding A storm surge is a large dome of water, often 50 to 100 miles wide and rising from 4 to 30 feet depending on the magnitude of the storm. The storm surge arrives ahead of the storm's actual landfall and the more intense the hurricane is, the sooner the surge arrives. Water rise can be very rapid, posing a serious threat to those who have not yet evacuated flood- prone areas. A storm surge is a wave that has outrun its power -generating source and becomes a long period swell. The surge is always highest in the right -front quadrant of the hurricane. As the storm approaches shore, the greatest storm surge forms to the north of the hurricane eye. The surge of high water topped by waves driven by hurricane force winds can be devastating to coastal regions, causing severe beach erosion and property damage. Impacts on the planning area due to coastal flooding include but are not limited to temporary and permanent displacement of residents and businesses, loss of life, widespread power outages, long-term limited mobility for residents and responders, and long-term closure or limited functionality of critical infrastructure facilities including hospitals and industrial facilities. Table 11-5 summarizes representative still -water elevations along the Galveston Bay coastline, representing the steady state water depth not accounting for breaking waves. These are the projected elevations of floodwaters in the absence of waves resulting from wind or seismic effects. In coastal areas, still -water elevations are determined when modeling coastal storm surge; the results of overland wave modeling are used in conjunction with the Still- water elevations to develop the coastal base flood elevations. �AVLII L.anG auu %.IGGn M cvnuuUncU vA Mnnauu oayvu y.LU 9.16 I L.UU 12.40 12.10 11.80 14.ou 15.30 14.90 15.10 14.50 1 U.I U 19.80 19.80 Taylor Lake and Taylor Bayou at SR 141 Cow Bayou at the confluence with Clear Creek Armand Bayou at Bay A Galveston Bay, at the mouth of Clear Lake 9.10 8.90 little Cedar Bayou, 0.2 miles upstream of Old State Route 146 5.6 12.50 16.30 San Jacinto River, Houston Ship Channel, at Baytown Nature Center 9.40 12.20 16.00 22.60 ffalo Bayou (Houston Ship Channel) at, upstream of 110 13.60 18.70 23.50 San Jacinto River at confluence of Bear Bayou Goose Creek at State Highwa Cedar Bayou at State Highway 146 9.90 9.20 13.00 16.40 15.00 21.10 19.50 8.80 11.10 1 14.10 18.60 a. Elevation in 1988 North American Vertical Datum 11.2.9 Warning Time Due to the sequential pattern of meteorological conditions needed to cause serious flooding, it is unusual for a flood to occur without warning. Warning times for floods can be between 24 and 48 hours. Flash flooding can be less predictable, but potential hazard areas can be warned in advanced of potential flash flooding danger. The Harris County Flood Control District's Flood Warning System measures rainfall amounts and monitors water levels in bayous and major streams on a real-time basis to inform of dangerous weather conditions. The system relies on 177 gage stations throughout Harris County with contain sensors that transmit data during times of heavy 11-26 TETRA TECH 11. Flooding rainfall and during tropical storms and hurricanes. Some gages also measure wind speed and direction, barometric pressure, air temperature, road temperature and humidity. This information is used by the Flood Control District and by Harris County's Office of Homeland Security and Emergency Management to inform residents of imminent and current flooding conditions along bayous. It also is used by the National Weather Service to assist in the issuing of flood watches and warnings. Accurate rainfall and bayou/stream level data help residents and emergency management officials make critical decisions that ultimately can reduce the risk of property damage, injuries and loss of life. 11.3 SECONDARY HAZARDS The most problematic secondary hazard for flooding is bank erosion. In many cases the threat and effects of bank erosion are worse than actual flooding. This is especially true on the upper courses of the rivers in the county where there are steep gradients, where the floodwaters may pass quickly and without much damage, but scour the banks, edging properties closer to the floodplain or causing them to fall in. Flooding is also responsible for hazards such as landslides when high flows over -saturate soils on steep slopes, causing them to fail. Hazardous materials spills are also a secondary hazard of flooding if storage tanks rupture and spill into streams, rivers or drainage sewers. 11.4 EXPOSURE A quantitative assessment of exposure to the flood hazard was conducted using the asset inventory developed for this plan and three mapped flood hazard areas: The area that was flooded during Hurricane Harvey (see Figure 11-2). The 1-percent-annual-chance riverine flood hazard area (see Figure 11-3) The 1-percent-annual-chance coastal flood hazard area (see Figure 11-4) Detailed results are provided in Appendix C and summarized below. 11.4.1 Population Population was estimated using the residential building count in the flood hazard areas and multiplying by the 2018 estimated average population per household. Using this approach, exposure results are as follows: The estimated population residing in the 1-percent-annual-chance riverine flood hazard area is 8.9 percent of the planning area population (429,036 people). The estimated population residing in the 1-percent-annual-chance coastal flood hazard area is 0.2 percent of the planning area population (10,479 people) The estimated population residing in the Hurricane Harvey inundation area 36.8 percent of the planning area population (1,804,422 people). 11.4.2 Property Structures in the Floodplain Table 11-6 summarizes the number of structures in each of the flood hazard areas evaluated. A significant majority of the exposed structures-92 to 97 percent among the three hazard areas —are residential. Table 11-7 summarizes the estimated value of exposed buildings in each of the flood hazard areas evaluated. Appendix C provides breakdowns by jurisdiction. TETRA TECH 11-27 Harris County Multi -Hazard Mitigation Action Plan; Volume 1-Area-Wide Elements Table 11-6. Area and Structures in the Flood Hazard Areas of the Planninq Area 1-Percent-Annual- 284,560 110,590 8,309 516 61 246 14 67 119,803 Chance Riverine 1-Percent-Annual- 5,720 3,254 84 1 2 3 0 1 3,345 Chance Coastal Hurricane Harvey 713,352 467,995 35,309 2,009 196 1,031 91 369 507,000 Table 11-7. Aggregate Values of Structures Within the Scenario Floodplains FloodEstimated Value within the Floodplain % of Total Scenario Replacement 1-Percent-Annual-Chance Riverine $49.01 billion $33.85 billion $82.85 billion 8.9 1-Percent-Annual-Chance Coastal $823.6 million $469.3 million $1.29 billion 0.1 Hurricane Harvey $196.3 billion $138.7 billion $334.9 billion 35.6 Land Use in the Floodplain Some land uses are more vulnerable to flooding, such as single-family homes, while others are less vulnerable, such as agricultural land or parks. Table 11-8 shows the existing land use of all parcels in the 1-percent-annual- chance flood hazard areas and the Hurricane Harvey inundation area. Listed land uses that are most suitable for floodplains are parks/open spaces, undevelopable, and vacant developable/farming. In the riverine floodplain, these uses make up 52 percent of the total area. They make up only 26 percent of the coastal floodplain and 36 percent of the Harvey inundation area. Table 11-8. Existi lains Commercial 22,148 9.9% 976 23.3% 63,393 12.6% Government/Medical/Educational 2,351 1.1% 156 3.7% 10,756 1 2.1% Industrial 14,487 6.5% 235 5.6% 35,491 7.0% Multiple 12,746 5.7% 86 2.1% 38,328 7.6% Other 874 0.4% 92 2.2% 3,040 0.6% arkslO es 410 63,534 12.6% 32.1% Residential 48,328 21.7% 1,468 35.1% 161,989 [ndevelopab� 281 39,104 7.8% Unknown 6,278 2.8% 76 1.8% 10,177 2.0% �Vacant Developable (includes Farming) 44,026 19.8% 403 9.6% 78,496 15.6% a i 222,816 100.00 4,182 100.0% 504,308 100.0% a. Totals listed here differ from those in Table 11-6 because they exclude the area of public rights -of -way and open water bodies. 11.4.3 Critical Facilities and Infrastructure Critical facilities and infrastructure exposed to the flood hazard represent 32 percent (1,880 facilities) of the total critical infrastructure and facilities in the planning area for the 1-percent-annual-chance flood hazard and 56 percent (3,275 facilities) for the Harvey inundation area. The breakdown of exposure by facility type is shown in Figure 11-7. 11-28 TETRA TECH 11. Flooding 399 Utility Systems 188 790 1513 Transportation Systems 1194 2,035 1478 Historic and Cultural Sites 351 2,904 0 0) 174 U 0 Health and Medical Facilities 52 421 m 1337 Hazardous Material Sites 391 LL 2,690 U 537 Government Facilities 289 � I 1,083 124 Harvey Emergency Services 40 1 % Annual Chance Flood (Riverine and Coastal Combined) 312 Planning Area Total 525 Education Facilities 116 1,181 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 Number of Facilities in Identified Area Figure 11-7. Critical Facilities and Infrastructure in Mapped Flood Hazard Areas and Countywide TETRA TECH 11-29 Harris County Multi -Hazard Mitigation Action Plan; Volume 1—Area-Wide Elements 11.4.4 Environment Flooding is a natural event, and floodplains provide many natural and beneficial functions. Nonetheless, flooding can impact the environment in negative ways. Migrating fish can wash into roads or over dikes into flooded fields, with no possibility of escape. Pollution from roads, such as oil, and hazardous materials can wash into rivers and streams. During floods, these can settle onto normally dry soils, polluting them for agricultural uses. Human development such as bridge abutments and levees, and logjams from timber harvesting can increase stream bank erosion, causing rivers and streams to migrate into non -natural courses. 11.5 VULNERABILITY The results of the vulnerability assessment indicate estimated damage for the 1-percent-annual-chance riverine and coastal flood hazard areas and the Hurricane Harvey inundation area. 11.5.1 Population Vulnerable Populations Those who have trouble evacuating, especially if waters rise suddenly without much warning, are most vulnerable. This includes those with access and functional needs, the elderly, and the very young. In addition, economically disadvantaged populations whose houses are impacted by flood events may not have the means to make repairs, especially if they do not have flood insurance. A geographic analysis of demographics using the Hazus model identified populations vulnerable to the flood hazard as follows: • Economically Disadvantaged Populations —The estimated percent of households within the evaluated flood hazard areas that are economically disadvantaged (having household incomes of $20,000 or less) is as follows: ➢ 17 percent for the 1-percent-annual-chance riverine flood hazard area and Harvey inundation area ➢ 12 percent for the 1-percent-annual-chance coastal flood hazard area Population over 65 Years Old —The estimated percent of the population within the evaluated flood hazard areas that is over 65 years old is as follows: ➢ 8 percent for the 1-percent-annual-chance riverine flood hazard area and Harvey inundation area ➢ 14 percent for the 1-percent-annual-chance coastal flood hazard area Population under 16 Years Old— The estimated percent of the population within the evaluated flood hazard areas that is under 16 years old is as follows: ➢ 28 percent for the 1-percent-annual-chance riverine flood hazard area and Harvey inundation area ➢ 22 percent for the 1-percent-annual-chance coastal flood hazard area Estimated Impacts on Persons and Households Impacts on persons and households in the planning area were estimated for the 1-percent riverine, 1-percent coastal and the Harvey inundation area through the Hazus analysis. Table 11-9 summarizes the results. 11-30 TETRA TECH 11. Flooding Table 11-9. Estimated Flood Impact on Persons and Households Jurisdiction Baytownc Bellair Bunker Hill Villa e Deer Park El Lao DisplacedPopulation Coastal1% Annual 1% Annual Hurricane 1% Annual 1% Annual Hurricane Chance Riverine Chance Coastal Harvey Chance Riverine Chance 652 31 16,652 36 1 961 12,989 0 6,005 565 0 236 0 0 2 0 0 0 87 0 6,186 4 0 355 1,261 0 698 94 0 44 riendswoodc 837 0 7,240 Ak38 0 390 Galena Park 37 0 2,012 1 0 85 Hedwig Village 0 0 0 0 2 Hilshire Village 0 0 504 0 0 30 Houstona, b 114,281 0 494,973 11,038 0 43,606 Humble 80 0 3,421 3 0 241 Hunters Creek Village 15 0 337 1 0 15 Jacinto Cit a 0 0 2,126 0 0 99 Jersey Village 1,112 0 1,269 60 2,365 18 8,965 6 175 0 0 79 Kat c 344 0 0 120 La Porte 243 3,370 212 430 League Cit a, b Missouri Cityc 14 0 0 0 13 519 22 0 8,965 1 Mor an's Point 0 27 103 0 1 2 Nassau Bay 2,665 0 707 206 0 Pasadena 2,357 224 44,617 162 5 3,415 Pearlanda 61 0 2,65 3 0 Piney Point Village 32 0 581 1 0 34 LSeabrook]M 3,680 3,752 3,738 291 214 Shoreacres 485 932 639 19 29 20 South Houstona 1,906 0 10,260 94 0 631 Southside Placea 888 0 331 51 0 15 Spring Valley Village 1 0 662 0 0 33 Staffordc 0 0 5,610 0 0 395 Taylor Lake Village 944 0 598 48 0 27 Tomball 2 0 669 0 0 50 Wallera, b 13 0 0 0 0 0 Webster 1,358 0 West University Place 782 0 2,028 146 0 248 2,418 20 0 50 Unincorporated 25,330 11 327,218 1,722 0 21,777 Total �01" 172,478 8,379 983,003 14,627 75,452 a. City at least partly in Harris County not participating as planning partner to his hazard mitigation plan b. City extends beyond Harris County. Values shown are for Harris County portion only. c. City extends beyond Harris County. Values shown are for entire city. TETRA TECH 1 1-31 Harris County Multi -Hazard Mitigation Action Plan; Volume 1—Area-Wide Elements Public Health and Safety Floods and their aftermath present numerous threats to public health and safety: • Unsafe food —Floodwaters contain disease -causing bacteria, dirt, oil, human and animal waste, and farm and industrial chemicals. Their contact with food items, including food crops in agricultural lands, can make that food unsafe to eat. Refrigerated and frozen foods are affected during power outages caused by flooding. Foods in cardboard, plastic bags, jars, bottles, and paper packaging may be unhygienic with mold contamination. • Contaminated drinking and washing water and poor sanitation —Flooding impairs clean water sources with pollutants. The pollutants also saturate into the groundwater. Flooded wastewater treatment plants can be overloaded, resulting in backflows of raw sewage. Private wells can be contaminated by floodwaters. Private sewage disposal systems can become a cause of infection if they or overflow. • Mosquitoes and animals —Floods provide new breeding grounds for mosquitoes in wet areas and stagnant pools. The public should dispose of dead animals that can carry viruses and diseases only in accordance with guidelines issued by local animal control authorities. Leptospirosisa bacterial disease associated predominantly with rats —often accompanies floods in developing countries, although the risk is low in industrialized regions unless cuts or wounds have direct contact with disease -contaminated floodwaters or animals. • Mold and mildew —Excessive exposure to mold and mildew can cause flood victims —especially those with allergies and asthma —to contract upper respiratory diseases, triggering cold -like symptoms. Molds grow in as short a period as 24 to 48 hours in wet and damp areas of buildings and homes that have not been cleaned after flooding, such as water -infiltrated walls, floors, carpets, toilets and bathrooms. Very small mold spores can be easily inhaled by human bodies and, in large enough quantities, cause allergic reactions, asthma episodes, and other respiratory problems. Infants, children, elderly people and pregnant women are considered most vulnerable to mold -induced health problems. • Carbon monoxide poisoning —In the event of power outages following floods, some people use alternative fuels for heating or cooking in enclosed or partly enclosed spaces, such as small gasoline engines, stoves, generators, lanterns, gas ranges, charcoal or wood. Built-up carbon monoxide from these sources can poison people and animals. • Hazards when reentering and cleaning flooded homes and buildings —Flooded buildings can pose significant health hazards to people entering them. Electrical power systems can become hazardous. Gas leaks can trigger fire and explosion. Flood debris —such as broken bottles, wood, stones and walls —may cause injuries to those cleaning damaged buildings. Containers of hazardous chemicals may be buried under flood debris. Hazardous dust and mold can circulate through a building and be inhaled by those engaged in cleanup and restoration. • Mental stress and fatigue —People who live through a devastating flood can experience long-term psychological impact. The expense and effort required to repair flood -damaged homes places severe financial and psychological burdens on the people affected. Post -flood recovery can cause, anxiety, anger, depression, lethargy, hyperactivity, and sleeplessness. There is also a long-term concern among the affected that their homes can be flooded again in the future. Current loss estimation models such as Hazus are not equipped to measure public health impacts such as these. The best preparation for these effects includes awareness that they can occur, education of the public on prevention, and planning to deal with them during responses to flood events. 11-32 TETRA TECH 11. Flooding 11.5.2 Property Structures and Contents Hazus calculates flood losses to structures based on depth of flooding and type of structure. Impacted structures are those with finished floor elevations below the flood water surface elevation. Using historical flood insurance claim data, Hazus estimates the percentage of damage to structures and their contents by applying established damage functions to an inventory. For this analysis, local data on facilities was used instead of the default inventory data provided with Hazus. The planning -area results by flood scenario are summarized in Table 11-10. Appendix C provides a detailed breakdown by jurisdiction. Table 11-10. Loss Estimates for Scenario Flood Events 1-Percent-Annual-Chance Riverine 89,179 1-Percent-Annual-Chance Coastal 2,937 Hurricane $4.05 billion $3.14 billion ;237.7 million 1 $135.6 million $32.2 billion $32.9 billion Note: Values shown are accurate for comparison of results in this plan. Flood -Caused Debris $7.19 billion 0.8 $373.3 million 0.04 $65.1 billion 6.9 The Hazus analysis estimated the amount of flood -caused debris within the planning area generated by flooding, as summarized in Table 11-11. Appendix C provides a detailed breakdown by jurisdiction. Table 11-11. Estimated Flood -Caused Debris 1-Percent-Annual-Chance Riverine 1,418,026 57,000 1-Percent-Annr al -Chance Coastal 59,582 2,400 Hurricane Harvey 5,367,793 215,000 a. Debris generation estimates were based on updated general building stock dataset at a Census Block analysis level. b. Hazus assumes 25 tons/trucks. Note: Values shown are accurate for comparison of results in this plan. Repetitive Loss A repetitive loss property is defined by FEMA as an NFIP-insured property that has experienced any of the following since 1978, regardless of any changes in ownership: • Four or more paid losses in excess of $1,000 • Two paid losses in excess of $1,000 within any rolling 10-year period • Three or more paid losses that equal or exceed the current value of the insured property. A severe repetitive loss property is further defined as follows: Four or more paid losses in excess of $5,000 each, with the cumulative amount of such claim payments exceeding $20,000 At least two separate claim payments made, with the cumulative amount of the building portion of such claims exceeding the market value of the building At least two of the above referenced claims occurring within any rolling 10-year period and more than 10 days apart. TETRA TECH 11-33 Harris County Multi -Hazard Mitigation Action Plan; Volume 1—Area-Wide Elements Repetitive loss properties make up only 1 to 2 percent of flood insurance policies in force nationally, yet they account for 40 percent of the nation's flood insurance claim payments. The government has instituted programs encouraging communities to identify and mitigate the causes of repetitive losses. A recent report on repetitive losses by the National Wildlife Federation found that 20 percent of these properties are outside any mapped 1-percent-annual-chance floodplain. The key identifiers for repetitive loss properties are the existence of flood insurance policies and claims paid by the policies. Flood insurance for severe repetitive loss properties is provided through a special program of the NFIP called the Special Direct Facility. FEMA-sponsored programs, such as the CRS, require participating communities to identify repetitive loss areas. A repetitive loss area is the portion of a floodplain holding structures that FEMA has identified as meeting the definition of repetitive loss. Identifying such areas helps to identify structures that are at risk but are not on FEMA's list of repetitive loss structures because no flood insurance policy was in force at the time of loss. Under the CRS repetitive loss list correction protocol, losses associated with events considered to be "statistically improbable" (i.e., greater than a 1-percent-annual-chance event) can be removed from the count toward being a repetitive loss property. The Harris County Flood Control District identifies 17,945 repetitive -loss properties in the planning area as of February 28, 2018. The location of these properties in the planning area relative to the mapped FEMA floodplain is shown on Figure 11-8. Table 11-12 summarizes characteristics of the identified properties; a breakdown by jurisdiction is provided in Appendix C. Table 11-12. Repetitive Loss Properties Total Number of Repetitive Loss Properties Land Use 17,945 Residential 16,996 94.7% 5.3% Non -Residential 949 Mitigation St Mitigated 2,625 14.6% Non -Mitigated 15,320 85.4% Insurance Status Insured 9,670 53.9% Insured as a Severe Repetitive Loss Property 1,152 6.4% Not Insured 7,123 39.7% Location Relative MWJNLd Zone In FEMA 100- ear Zone 10,236 57.0% In Hurricane Harvey Flood Zone 12,973 72.3% Reported Losses Number of Losses Filed 57,240 n/a Total Paid $3,104,545,841 n/a Key observations are as follows: • 95 percent of the properties are residential • 57 percent of the properties lie within the FEMA-mapped SFHA. • 72 percent of the properties lie within the Hurricane Harvey inundation area • 15 percent of the properties have been mitigated • 60 percent of the properties are currently insured • The number of properties increased by 39.3 percent since the 2015 planning effort, and the associated loss increased by 62 percent. 11-34 TETRA TECH Harris County Multi -Hazard Mitigation Action Plan; Volume 1—Area-Wide Elements With well over 70 percent of the repetitive -loss properties within the FEMA-mapped flood zone or Hurricane Harvey inundation areas, the apparent cause of repetitive flooding for those areas can be correlated to the risk that is reflected in the mapping. It is reasonable to assume that the 39 percent increase in repetitive -loss properties since the 2015 planning effort is associated with the impacts of Hurricane Harvey. The recurrence interval estimated for Hurricane Harvey in the planning area ranges from 200 to 750 years. Flooding for repetitive -loss properties outside the SFHA or Harvey inundation area can be attributed to urban drainage flooding, which is a chronic issue in the planning area and is a focus of this hazard mitigation plan. Flood Insurance Claim History The following information from flood insurance statistics is relevant to reducing flood risk (see Table 11-1): • The average cost for a flood insurance policy for the planning area as June 30, 2019 was $548.25, which is 6 percent less than the Texas average and 27.5 percent less than the national average. The policy amounts for the planning area do include credits for communities that participate in the CRS program. • The average amount of flood insurance coverage in force for the planning area as of June 30, 2019 was $198,382 which represents 30 percent of the average replacement value for the planning are. The average replacement value for the planning area exceeds NFIP coverage limits by 174 percent. • The average claim paid in the planning area as of July 31, 2019 was $52,374, which is 82.6 percent greater than the national average ($28,683), and 19.9 percent greater that the State of Texas average ($43,673). • The average claim paid in the planning area represents about 8 percent of the 2018 average replacement value of structures in the floodplain. • Based on the 2018 U.S. Census American Community Survey median home value of $154,100 and the average claim value of $54,374, the estimated average depth of flooding using the Corps of Engineers' generic flood -depth damage correlations is 4.3 feet above the finished floor. • The percentage of policies and claims outside a mapped floodplain suggests that not all of the flood risk in the planning area is reflected in current mapping. Based on information from the NFIP, 59.6 percent of policies in the planning area are on structures in an identified SFHA, and 40.4 percent are for structures outside such areas. Of total claims paid, 21.2 percent were for properties outside an identified 1-percent- annual-chance floodplain. 11.5.3 Critical Facilities and Infrastructure It is important to determine the potential risks if critical facilities and infrastructure are damaged by flooding. Roads or railroads that are blocked or damaged can isolate residents and can prevent access throughout the planning area, including for emergency service providers needing to get to vulnerable populations or to make repairs. Bridges washed out or blocked by floods or debris also can cause isolation. Water and sewer systems can be flooded or backed up, causing health problems. Underground utilities can be damaged. Dikes/levees can fail or be overtopped, inundating the land that they protect. Table 11-13 and Table 11-14 summarize the Hazus estimates of damage to critical facilities and infrastructure in the planning area. 11-36 TETRA TECH 11. Flooding Table 11-13. Da to the 1-Percent-Annual-Chance Flood Government Facilities 202 1 10.96 50.57 Education Facilities 94 6.75 37.65 Health and Medical Facilities 14 10.33 49.46 Trans ortation S stems 4 146 29 274 10.73 14.23 Utility Systems 13.53 24.17 mer enc Services 9.9 32.74 Historical and Cultural Sites 5.56 38.59 Hazardous Material Sites 309 19.67 total/Average 1,072 l 33.34 Table 11-14. Da Flood Scenario Government Facilities 531 11.14 49.18 Education Facilities 521 7.97 44.52 Health and Medical Facilities 100 7.63 32.74 Transportation Systems 52 14.92 22.48 Utility Systems 399 13.38 22.53 kEmergency Services 126 13.03 35.74 Historical and Cultural Sites 1,470 7.96 49.51 Hazardous Material Sites 13.86 21.81 Total/Average 11.24 11.5.4 Environment The environment vulnerable to flood hazard is the same as the environment exposed to the hazard. Loss estimation platforms such as Hazus are not currently equipped to measure environmental impacts of flood hazards. The best gauge of vulnerability of the environment would be a review of damage from past flood events. Loss data that segregates damage to the environment was not available at the time of this plan. Capturing this data from future events could be beneficial in measuring the vulnerability of the environment for future updates. 11.6 FUTURE TRENDS IN DEVELOPMENT The County and its planning partners are equipped to handle future growth within flood hazard areas. All partners who are participating in good standing in the NFIP have agreed to regulate new development in the mapped floodplain according to standards that equal or exceed those specified under 44 CFR Section 60.3. In addition, 16 of the municipal planning partners participate in the CRS program and receive credit for the enforcement of higher regulatory standards within the planning area. This will ensure that any development allowed in the floodplain will be constructed such that the flood risk exposure is eliminated or significantly reduced. TETRA TECH 11-37 Harris County Multi -Hazard Mitigation Action Plan; Volume 1—Area-Wide Elements 11.7 SCENARIO The Harris County planning area experienced its worst -case flood scenario in 2017 during Hurricane Harvey. The storm dumped more than 27 trillion gallons of rain over Texas, making Harvey the wettest Atlantic hurricane ever measured. Some parts of Houston received about 50 inches of rainfall. All 22 of the County's main surface water channels overtopped, causing severe flooding that had never been seen before within the planning area. The lessons learned from the response and recovery from Hurricane Harvey in the planning area will play a significant role in the preparedness for storms of equal or greater impacts. 11.8 ISSUES The CPT has identified the following flood -related issues relevant to the planning area: • The value of property exposed to the flood risk in the planning area is significant, representing 9 to 36 percent of the total replacement value for the planning area. • There is a significant difference between the extent and location of the 1-percent-annual chance floodplain (regulatory floodplain under the NFIP) and the Hurricane Harvey inundation area. Emergency planners need to determine which area is the true reflection of flood risk for the planning area, and which should be used to inform land uses within the flood hazard area. • How climate change will affect flood conditions in the planning area is uncertain. • Ongoing flood hazard mitigation will require funding from multiple sources. • With the amount of flood insurance in force within the planning area, the rising costs of flood insurance as the NFIP moves to full actuarial rates could have economic impacts on the planning area. • Over 96 percent of the NFIP policy base within the planning area is within communities that participate in the CRS program. Non -participating communities within the planning area should consider participation in the CRS program. • As the planning area continues to recover from the impacts of Hurricane Harvey, financial resources to mitigate the impacts of flooding will become available to increase the flood resilience of the planning area. • Existing floodplain-compatible land uses such as agricultural and open space need to be maintained. There is constant pressure to convert these existing uses to more intense uses within the planning area during times of moderate to high growth. 11-38 TETRA TECH 12. HURRICANE AND COASTAL STORM 12.1 GENERAL BACKGROUND Hurricanes, tropical storms, nor'easters and typhoons, also classified as cyclones, include any closed circulation developing around a low-pressure center in which the winds rotate counter -clockwise in the northern hemisphere (or clockwise in the Southern Hemisphere) and whose diameter averages 10 to 30 miles across. A tropical cyclone refers to any such circulation that develops over tropical waters. Tropical cyclones act as a safety valve, limiting the continued build-up of heat and energy in tropical regions by maintaining the atmospheric heat and moisture balance between the tropics and the pole -ward latitudes. The primary damaging forces associated with these storms are high-level sustained winds, heavy precipitation, and tornados. Coastal areas are also vulnerable to the additional forces of storm surge, wind -driven waves, and tidal flooding. The key energy source for these storms is the release of latent heat from the condensation of warm water. Their formation requires a low-pressure disturbance, warm sea surface temperature, rotational force from the spinning of the earth, and the absence of wind shear in the lowest 50,000 feet of the atmosphere. The majority of hurricanes and tropical storms form in the Atlantic Ocean, Caribbean Sea, and Gulf of Mexico during the Atlantic hurricane season, from June through November. The peak of the Atlantic hurricane season is in early to mid -September. On average, six storms reach hurricane intensity per year (Gray, 2009). As a hurricane develops, barometric pressure (measured in millibars or inches) at its center falls and winds increase. If the atmospheric and oceanic conditions are favorable, it can intensify into a tropical depression. When maximum sustained winds reach or exceed 39 miles per hour, the system is designated a tropical storm, is given a name, and is closely monitored by the National Hurricane Center in Miami, Florida. When sustained winds reach or exceed 74 miles per hour, the storm is deemed a hurricane. Hurricane intensity is classified using the Saffir- Simpson Hurricane Wind Scale, which rates hurricane intensity on a scale of 1 to 5, with 5 being the most intense. 12.2 HAZARD PROFILE 12.2.1 Past Events Southeast Texas and the entire planning area have experienced numerous hurricane and tropical storm landfalls. Figure 12-1 shows the major hurricanes that have affected the region as identified by NOAA. Figure 12-2 shows the tracks of all tropical systems cyclones that have affected the region since 1900. Details of specific storms are provided in the sections below. TETRA TECH 12-1 Harris County Multi -Hazard Mitigation Action Plan; Volume 1—Area-Wide Elements Source: National Climatic Data Center Hun icaues Affecting Hanis Cotun VNE L��b i651 - 2009 w, ue mco-1 �r Montgomery lI�M1fE '' U. YvWfer Narri s am bers 1 Bay Braro a Figure 12-1. Major Hurricanes Since 1851 Source: Hurricane 2000-2009 Edition, Historic with track Jack{ - I J J x1 ~ ffJr .{12 j I Me 4•� r { I f SHP89 191 DID 5 h LOJ CCKBP1 I k � � I Figure 12-2. All Tropical Cyclones Since 1900 12-2 TETRA TECH 12. Hurricane and Coastal Storm Galveston Hurricane 1900 This weather system was first detected over the tropical Atlantic on August 27, 1900. While the history of the track and intensity is not fully known, the system reached Cuba as a tropical storm on September 3 and moved into the southeastern Gulf of Mexico on September 5. A general west -northwestward motion occurred over the Gulf accompanied by rapid intensification. By the time the storm reached the Texas coast south of Galveston late on September 8, it was a Category 4 hurricane. After landfall, the cyclone turned northward through the Great Plains. The system became extra tropical and turned east -northeastward on September 11, passing across the Great Lakes, New England, and southeastern Canada. It was last witnessed over the north Atlantic on September 15. This hurricane was the deadliest weather disaster in United States history. Storm tides of 8 to 15 feet inundated Galveston Island, as well as other portions of the nearby Texas coast. High tides were largely responsible for the 8,000 deaths (estimates range from 6,000 to 12,000) attributed to the storm. The damage to property was estimated at $30 million (see Figure 12-3). NOAA Photo Library, NOAA Central Library; National Severe Storms Laboratory � F : •1pill, w rya . . JW 3P�'� Figure 12-3. Ruined Homes from the Galveston Hurricane Unnamed Hurricane 1915 Another Galveston -area hurricane caused major damage throughout Harris County in August 1915. Buffalo Bayou and widespread areas of Houston experienced heavy flooding. Damage from this event is estimated at $56 million. TETRA TECH 12-3 Harris County Multi -Hazard Mitigation Action Plan; Volume 1—Area-Wide Elements Unnamed Hurricane 1932 A hurricane is reported to have severely impacted Freeport, where 40 Freeport residents were reported to have been killed. Widespread flooding occurred on all bayous throughout Harris County as a result of the storm. Unnamed Hurricanes 1943 A hurricane near Galveston caused extensive flooding in Harris County in July 1943, resulting in $16.5 million in damages. Another hurricane in October 1943, this time nearer to Freeport, flooded more than 11,000 residences in Harris County. Unnamed Hurricane 1945 An August 1945 hurricane affecting the Harris County area produced the heaviest rainfall previously recorded in the county: over 15 inches in 24 hours. Flooding was reported on all bayous and streams. Hurricane Audrey 1957 Hurricane Audrey crossed the Louisiana/ Texas coast in June 1957, causing flooding in Harris County. Hurricane Carla 1961 Hurricane Carla made landfall near Port Lavaca on September 14, 1961. Carla was among the largest hurricanes of historical record (number two (2) behind the Great New England Hurricane of 1938). The storm produced numerous tornados, wind gusts reaching 175mph, torrential rains, and a 22-foot storm surge at Port O'Connor. Hurricane force wind gusts were seen along almost the entire Texas Coast. The path of devastation extended from Victoria to Dallas. A death toll of only 34 people in Texas can be attributed in part to what was the largest peacetime evacuation of population in U.S. history. A quarter of a million people fled the middle and upper Texas coasts, moving inland to safety. Twenty-six tornados were spawned by Hurricane Carla, one of which damaged 120 buildings and killed six (6) people in Galveston. Structures located outside of the protective seawall were severely damaged by the storm surge. Texas City saw 90 percent of its homes flooded. Surfside, near Freeport, received extensive damage. The trail of destruction extended south to Port Isabel, where 4- to 5-foot storm surges were observed. Seventy-five percent of Port O'Connor was destroyed. Heavy flooding was reported in southern Harris County. Hurricane Beulah 1967 At the time, Hurricane Beulah was the third largest hurricane on record, following Carla in 1961 and the Great New England Hurricane of 1938. Beulah, which struck the coast near Brownsville on September 20, 1967, turned to the southwest, paralleling the coastline. Hurricane -force winds extended up the coast to Corpus Christi, which had gusts up to 86 mph. Winds gusted to 110 mph at the local Army Corp of Engineers office. The storm surge reached 20 feet along lower sections of Padre Island. Storm surge and wind -driven waves cut 31 new inlets through the island. Citrus fruit and tree damage totaled $15 million in the Lower Rio Grande Valley. One hundred and fifteen tornados were spawned by the system, the most ever known to be generated by a tropical storm (5 times the previous record set by Isbell in 1964). Most of the tornados were confined to the coast of Texas and were rather weak. One tornado touched down in Palacios on the morning of the September 20, killing four people and injuring six others. Fifteen people died in Texas during Beulah. Five were killed by a tornado and 10 died due to drowning. A total of 110 boats were damaged or destroyed by the storm. Damage was estimated conservatively at $100 million (see Figure 12-4). 12-4 TETRA TECH 12. Hurricane and Coastal Storm r NOAA Photo Library, NOAA Central Library; National Severe Storms Laboratory 0 •-m-m1 11r - [Tii —Qs Figure 12-4. Significant Business District Damage Along the Texas Coast Following Hurricane Beulah Hurricanes Fern and Edith 1971 Hurricane Fern paralleled the Texas coast and made landfall as a tropical storm. Major flooding occurred along portions of the Frio, Lavaca, Nueces, San Antonio, Guadalupe, Mission, and Aransas Rivers. Wind gusts over 100 mph blew away the anemometer at Port O'Connor. Gusts exceeding 60 mph were seen from Galveston down the coast to south of Corpus Christi. Five tornados were generated by Fern. The highest recorded storm surge reached 6 feet at Freeport. Damage totaled $30 million, $5 million of which occurred in Sinton. Two people died during the storm. Edith made landfall as a Category 2 hurricane five days later. A 6-foot storm surge overran Highway 87 between Sabine Pass and High Island. Galveston and Port Arthur reported wind gusts of 53 and 47 mph respectively. Tropical Storm Claudette 1979 Tropical Storm Claudette made landfall near Galveston and made a loop just after landfall, stalling over southeast Texas from July 24 to July 27, 1979. Winds gusted to 60 mph. Tides in Chocolate Bayou reached 5 feet above normal. Rainfall amounts greater than 10 inches fell within 40 miles of the coast from Matagorda Bay to Sabine Pass. Twenty-four hour rainfall totals reached 45 inches in Alvin in Harris County, establishing a new U.S. rainfall record. This caused widespread and unprecedented flooding across the area. Most streams did not return to their banks until July 30. Fifteen thousand homes and hundreds of businesses were flooded. The rice crop was beaten into the soil by the heavy rain. Six counties in southeast Texas were declared major disaster areas. Claudette produced $700 million in damage, putting it on the National Hurricane Center's list of history's most damaging tropical cyclones in the United States. TETRA TECH 12-5 Harris County Multi -Hazard Mitigation Action Plan; Volume 1—Area-Wide Elements Hurricane Alicia 1983 Alicia formed over the north central Gulf of Mexico on August 15, 1983. It drifted slowly westward and northwestward while strengthening on August 16 and 17. Alicia arrived over the west end of Galveston Island as a Category 3 hurricane on August 18. Alicia moved northwestward into Oklahoma as a tropical depression on August 19, and then turned northward before dissipating over Nebraska on August 21 (see Figure 12-5). Figure 12-5. Path of Hurricane Alicia, 1983 The U.S. Coast Guard Cutter Buttonwood moored at Galveston due to reported sustained winds of 96 mph with gusts reaching 125 mph. Hobby Airport at Houston, Texas reported 94 mph sustained winds with gusts to 107 mph. Wind gusts of hurricane force in downtown Houston littered the streets with broken glass as windows broke in numerous high-rise buildings. Additionally, 23 tornados were reported from Alicia. Storm surge values of 10 to 12 feet occurred within Galveston Bay and 8 to 10 feet along the Gulf of Mexico beaches. Seabrook recorded a 12.0-foot water level rise and Baytown 10.7 feet. Water levels rose to the tops of roofs in the Brownwood subdivision in Baytown. The Brownwood subdivision was completely bought out after Alicia due to frequent flooding issues. On the west end of Galveston Island, the beach eroded upwards of 150 feet landward. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers estimated that the Galveston seawall prevented upwards of 100 million dollars in damage. Alicia was responsible for 21 deaths, 3,094 injuries, and $2 billion in damage. A total of 2,297 dwellings were destroyed with another 3,008 suffering major damage. Hurricane Bonnie 1986 Bonnie became a tropical depression on the June 23 350 miles southeast of New Orleans, and made landfall between High Island and Sabine Pass on June 26 as a Category 1 hurricane. Sustained winds of 97 mph were recorded at Sea Rim State Park along with 75 mph at Jefferson County Airport. Storm surge flooding of 4 to 6 feet was recorded along the eastern Bolivar Peninsula with a maximum tide level of 5.4 feet at Sabine Pass. The majority of the wind damage and flooding rainfall occurred east of Harris County from Sabine Pass to Lake 12-6 TETRA TECH 12. Hurricane and Coastal Storm Livingston. An estimated 1,300 residents were forced from their homes due to rainfall flooding. An estimated 25,000 residents evacuated the upper Texas coast in advance of Bonnie. There were no deaths directly attributed to the hurricane with 4 indirect deaths. Tropical Storm Allison 1989 Tropical Storm Allison made landfall along the eastern part of Matagorda Bay with sustained winds of 45 mph and minimum central pressure of 1001 mb on June 26, 1989. Excessive rainfall of 10 to 15 inches occurred across the northern and eastern parts of Harris County leading to widespread flooding. Storm surge values of 3 to 5 feet occurred along the upper Texas coast with values upwards of 6 to 7 feet near Baytown and the head of Trinity Bay. Eleven deaths were recorded, all attributed to drowning, and damage totaled around a half -billion dollars, mainly due to flooding. Hurricane Chantal 1989 Chantal became a tropical storm on July 30 and continued to intensify up until landfall at High Island, TX on August 1, 1989. At the time of landfall maximum sustained winds were 80 mph with storm surge flooding of 5 to 7 feet along portions of the Bolivar Peninsula and areas eastward. Chantal's worst aspect was excessive rainfall. A band of 12 to 18 inches occurred from Rosenberg to Texas City resulting in significant flooding of hundreds of homes across the area. An estimated 3,000 homes in Texas City reported either flood or wind damage. Thirteen deaths occurred from flooding with damage near $100 million. Hurricane Jerry 1989 Jerry developed into a tropical depression on October 12 in the Bay of Campeche and became a hurricane on October 15 while moving due northward over the western Gulf of Mexico. Jerry made landfall in the early evening of October 15 near Jamaica Beach as a category 1 hurricane. Sustained surface winds of 75 mph with gust to 100 mph were reported on Galveston Island. Jerry was a very small hurricane and weakened rapidly after landfall with neither Hobby nor Intercontinental Airports reporting sustained tropical storm force winds. A storm surge of 5 to 7 feet occurred in the northern and eastern parts of Galveston Bay including 7.0 feet at Baytown and near 8.0 feet near the mouth of the Houston Ship Channel. Rainfall was generally light due to the fast movement and small size with totals averaging less than 3 inches across Harris County. Three deaths occurred in Galveston with damage estimates near 70 million dollars. Jerry is the latest hurricane to ever make landfall on the Texas coast. Tropical Storm Charley 1998 Charley developed into a tropical depression about 275 off the south Texas coast on August 21 and made landfall on August 22 near Port Aransas, TX with 70 mph sustained winds. Along the upper Texas coast, tides were 2 to 3 feet above normal with rainfall amounts averaging 2 to 4 inches. A report of 9 inches of rainfall occurred at the mouth of the San Bernard River in Brazoria County. Impacts across Harris County were minimal. Tropical Storm Frances 1998 On September 10, 1998, Tropical Storm Frances formed in the western Gulf of Mexico approximately 250 miles south of Galveston. On September 12, Frances moved inland just southwest of Victoria and remained nearly stationary throughout the day, moving to the north, northeast that evening. At 7 p.m. ET, Frances was downgraded to a Tropical Depression as it moved to the northeast of Victoria. Most of the damage along the coast was attributed to the high tides that persisted for nearly two days. The high tides in Galveston Bay increased flooding problems experienced further inland by the heavy rains. Over 4 inches of rain fell over the Houston/ Galveston County Warning area. More than 10 inches of rain fell along the coastal counties of Matagorda, Brazoria, Galveston and Chambers. Inland counties, including Harris, Polk, San Jacinto TETRA TECH 12-7 Harris County Multi -Hazard Mitigation Action Plan; Volume 1—Area-Wide Elements and Washington received similar rainfall totals. With tides already running 4 to 6 feet above normal, rainfall runoff that normally drained into area bays backed up, resulting in more widespread flooding of inland creeks and bayous. Galveston, Harris, Brazoria, and Matagorda Counties were declared disaster areas. Total damage exceeded $286 million dollars. Most of this damage was along the coast and around Galveston Bay where high tides and winds destroyed dunes and personal property. Nearly 100 single-family homes were destroyed along the upper Texas coast by the high tides and battering waves. Three deaths can be attributed to Tropical Storm Frances. Tropical Storm Allison 2001 Allison, which began as an area of disturbed weather over the northwestern Gulf of Mexico on June 5, 2001, rapidly developed into a tropical storm. The tropical storm made landfall near Freeport, Texas later that day. Allison hovered over Harris County initially for 4 hours, dumping as much as 12 inches of rain. Allison weakened to a depression on June 6, while drifting northward. The storm then made a slow loop over southeastern Texas from June 7 — 9. The cyclone moved into the Gulf of Mexico on June 10 and acquired subtropical characteristics. It then moved east -northeastward over southeastern Louisiana on June 11, where it re -intensified into a subtropical storm. Allison then weakened to a subtropical depression on June 12 while continuing east - northeastward. This track carried it to southeastern North Carolina by June 14 where it stalled. The cyclone then drifted northeastward on June 15 and 16. This was followed by a faster northeastward motion on June 17 as the center emerged in the Atlantic. Allison regained subtropical storm strength later that day before becoming extra tropical on June 18 southeast of Cape Cod. The system dissipated southeast of Nova Scotia the next day (see Figure 12-6). Figure 12-6. Path of Tropical Storm Allison, 2001 12-8 TETRA TECH 12. Hurricane and Coastal Storm By the end of Allison's onslaught, as much as 28 inches of rain had fallen on parts of Harris County. Allison brought tropical -storm -force winds and above normal tides to portions of the Texas and Louisiana coasts. However, the greatest damage sustained was due to the widespread heavy rains and resulting floods along the entire path of the cyclone. Houston, Texas, was the worst affected area, as the Port of Houston reported 37 inches of rain. Several other locations reported more than 30 inches. The storm also spawned 23 tornados. More than 73,000 residences in Harris County were flooded, in addition to hundreds of businesses in the greater Houston area. Allison was responsible for 22 deaths in Harris County and a total of at least $5 billion in damage in the United States, making it the deadliest and costliest U.S. tropical storm on record. Tropical Storm Fay 2002 Tropical storm Fay formed 125 miles southeast of Galveston on September 5. Fay made landfall near Palacios as a 60 mph tropical storm early on September 7, producing very heavy rainfall and flooding. Rainfall amounts of 10 to 20 inches occurred just southwest of Harris County in Brazoria, Fort Bend, and Wharton counties producing extensive flood damage. Storm surge flooding averaged 3 to 5 feet along the upper Texas coast resulting in beach erosion and an estimated 3.5 million dollars in damage to public roads and beaches in Galveston County alone. There were no deaths related to the storm, however three persons were injured in Fort Bend County when their mobile home was struck by one of the five tornados the storm produced. Hurricane Claudette 2003 Claudette developed from a tropical wave over the central Caribbean Sea and entered the Gulf of Mexico on July 12. The storm moved steadily across the Gulf and intensified just prior to landfall to a category 1 hurricane with sustained winds of 90 mph. In fact, radar observations and aircraft hurricane hunter missions suggest Claudette continued to intensify while crossing over Matagorda Bay due to very favorable upper air outflow conditions. Extensive storm surge and beach erosion occurred along the upper Texas coast with storm surge levels averaging 5 to 8 feet. Minor flooding occurred on the west side of Galveston bay around Seabrook with more extensive flooding from the west end of the seawall down the coast to Matagorda County where storm surge levels of 8.0 feet were reported at the mouth of the Colorado River. An estimated 10.9 million dollars in damaged occurred in the coastal counties of Galveston, Brazoria, Matagorda, and Jackson with no deaths reported. Tropical Storm Grace 2003 The ill-defined Grace formed in the Gulf of Mexico about 330 miles southeast of Galveston on August 30. The poorly defined storm crossed the Texas coast near Port O Connor on August 31 with 40 to 50 mph winds. The main impacts were heavy rainfall along and to the east of the track of the center across much of southeast Texas. Rainfall amounts of 6 to 15 inches fell from eastern Galveston County northward into Liberty County. Flooding occurred where these heavy rains fell, although damage was relatively minor. Hurricane Rita 2005 Hurricane Rita formed east of the Bahamas and moved into the eastern Gulf of Mexico on September 20. Rita rapidly intensified from a category 2 to category 5 hurricane in less than 24 hours with maximum sustained winds reaching 165 mph on the afternoon of September 21. Hurricane Rita made landfall as a 120 mph category 3 hurricane in extreme southwest Louisiana 10 miles east of the Texas state line on September 24. While most of the area fell west and on the weaker side of the hurricane, impacts were still felt along the upper Texas coast. Beach erosion occurred along the entire upper Texas coast along with minor storm surge flooding on the eastern and southern sides of Galveston Bay. Sustained tropical storm force winds occurred mainly along and east of I-45 resulting in power outages. Rita provoked one of the largest evacuations in U.S. history with upwards of 2 million coastal Texans leaving the coast resulting in long traffic delays. Rita caused upwards of 10 billion dollars in damage including 90 million in Harris County alone. Rita also resulted in 7 direct deaths and 149 indirect deaths mainly related to the large evacuation of the elderly and excessive heat prior to landfall. TETRA TECH 12-9 Harris County Multi -Hazard Mitigation Action Plan; Volume 1—Area-Wide Elements Tropical Storm Erin 2007 Tropical Storm Erin along the middle Texas coast, just north of Corpus Christi, as a minimal tropical storm early on August 16 with widespread heavy rains developed in strong feeder bands across Harris County. A southeast to northwest feeder band developed around 10:00 a.m. from Katy to the western end of Galveston Island and moved slowly eastward to a line from Clear Lake to Humble by 5:00 p.m. Training of the cells along this southeast to northwest line combined with rainfall rates upwards of 4.0 to 5.0 inches per hour resulted in major street flooding and flooding of several channels. Overbank conditions occurred along several bayous in the south and southeast part of Harris County resulting in widespread flooding of streets and structures. Widespread major street flooding occurred throughout the afternoon across the eastern half of the county with SH 288 impassable near the 610 south loop, I-10 east closed at Wayside, and numerous secondary roads closed along 1-45 S, SH 225, and I-10 E. Additionally, Erin caused eight fatalities across the state of Texas including three in Harris County. Two of the fatalities occurred as a result of a supermarket roof which collapsed under the weight of the heavy rainfall and the third was from a vehicle that drove into a flooded detention pond. Tides were only slightly elevated in Galveston Bay (roughly %2 foot above normal). Hurricane Humberto 2007 Humberto rapidly developed off the upper Texas coast during the early morning hours of September 12. Humberto deepened from a tropical depression (30 mph) to a category 1 hurricane (90 mph) within 24 hours and is one of the faster rates of intensification ever noted for a developing tropical cyclone. The hurricane crossed the coast near High Island early on September 13 with sustained winds of 90 mph creating wind damage across Chambers, Jefferson, and Orange Counties. Rainfall averaged 10 to 15 inches along and east of a line from Freeport to Winnie cutting off several homes in eastern Chambers County. An estimated 50 million dollars in damage occurred with one death in Bridge City, Texas. A total of 133,000 residents in Texas and Louisiana lost power from Humberto. Hurricane Ike 2008 Hurricane Ike, which moved into the Gulf of Mexico on September 9, 2008 as a category 1 hurricane. As it crossed the Gulf of Mexico it intensified to a category 2 hurricane, finally making landfall along the north end of Galveston Island, Texas in the early morning hours of September 13, 2008 with maximum winds of 95 kt. Ike weakened to a tropical storm by late September 13 just east of Palestine, Texas, and then became extra tropical when it interacted with a front on September 14 while moving northeastward through northern Arkansas and southern Missouri. The vigorous extra tropical low moved quickly northeastward, producing hurricane force wind gusts across the Ohio Valley on the afternoon of the September 14. Thereafter, the low weakened and moved across southern Ontario and southern Qu6bec and was absorbed by another area of low pressure near the St. Lawrence River September 15. The storm surge averaged 15 to 18 feet on Bolivar Peninsula and within the eastern portions of Galveston Bay. On the west side of Galveston Bay values averaged 10 to 15 feet including 12.8 feet at Seabrook. Extensive surge and wave related damage occurred along the upper Texas coast from Matagorda County to the Texas/Louisiana state line (see Figure 12-7). The storm surge along the upper Texas coast was one of the highest recorded in recent history surpassing both Hurricane Alicia and Hurricane Carla and had not been experienced since the storm surge of the Great Galveston Hurricane of 1900 and the 1915 Galveston Hurricane. 12-10 TETRA TECH 12. Hurricane and Coastal Storm Source: AP Photo/Frank Franklin II ■ `tr L# •If �1 i I3L6 I _ 4 • ' = y - 6. � - 1 i _ r1 Ari ,'ram - _ • 1M Figure 12-7. Debris Over Highway 146 in Seabrook, Texas in the aftermath of Hurricane Ike Excessive rainfall of 8 to 12 inches occurred along the path of the hurricane producing widespread inland flooding across Harris County with upwards of 150 homes flooded from rainfall alone. Wind gusts of hurricane force in downtown Houston littered the streets with broken glass as windows broke in numerous high-rise buildings. Wind damage was mainly limited to roofs, power systems, and vegetation and was well supported within strong tropical storm to minimal category 1 conditions in most areas. Power outages affected more than 2.0 million persons with outages in the hardest hit locations in Harris, Montgomery, Chambers, and Liberty counties lasting upwards of 21 to 25 days. Ike was responsible for 12 deaths and an estimated $19.3 billion in damage. (NOAA National Hurricane Center) Hurricane Harvev. 2017 While not considered to be a wind impact event, Harvey made landfall as a Category 4 hurricane near Rockport, Texas during the evening of August 25. The storm then weakened to a tropical storm and slowed, looping back and tracking over southeast Texas then back over the Gulf of Mexico, making a second landfall along the Louisiana coast during the morning of August 30. Over that 5-day period over southeast Texas, Harvey produced catastrophic flooding with a large area of 30 to 60 inches of rain, 23 tornados, tropical storm force winds and a moderate storm surge near Matagorda Bay. Communities along the coastline were hit with a range of wind speeds. Port Aransas recorded Category 4 strength maximum wind speeds of 132 mph, while Rockport, 12 miles north and on the inland side of Aransas Bay, saw winds up to 140 mph. Corpus Christi, approximately 30 miles southwest of where Hurricane Harvey made landfall, sustained Category 1 wind speeds between 75 and 95 mph. Houston experienced tropical storm -strength winds between 35 and 75 mph. TETRA TECH 12-11 Harris County Multi -Hazard Mitigation Action Plan; Volume 1—Area-Wide Elements 12.2.2 Location Hurricane risk in the United States is located along the entire Gulf of Mexico. Thus the entire Texas coast is located within a hurricane susceptible region; including the Harris County planning area. The Harris County planning area coastline is located on the Galveston Bay and Houston Ship Channel, which is directly exposed to the Gulf of Mexico. Thus, hurricane, high -wind and tropical storms are likely to make landfall located within and affect the entire planning area. Due to Harris County's geographic location, this area of the state, and the entire planning area is vulnerable to damage from hurricane winds and to the inland impacts associated with coastal storms. In evaluating the potential for hazard events of a given magnitude, a mean return period (MRP) is often used. The MRP provides an estimate of the magnitude of an event that may occur within any given year based on past recorded events. MRP is the average period of time, in years, between occurrences of a particular hazard event, equal to the inverse of the annual frequency of exceedance. Figure 12-8, Figure 12-9, and Figure 12-10 show the estimated maximum 3-second gust wind speeds that can be anticipated in the study area associated with the 20- and 100-year MRP events as well as a deterministic scenario event looking at observed conditions from Hurricane Alicia. These peak wind speed projections were generated using Hazus. The maximum 3-second hurricane -speed gust wind speeds for Harris County range from 85 mph to 92 mph hurricane speeds for the 20-year MRP event. and 118 mph to 12 mph for the 100-year MRP event. The maximum 3-second gust wind speeds during Hurricane Alicia ranged from 105 mph to 110 mph. The associated impacts and losses from these 20/100-year and Hurricane Alicia model runs are reported in the exposure and vulnerability assessments later in this section. 12.2.3 Frequency Figure 12-11 shows the likelihood of a tropical storm or hurricane affecting the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico during the Atlantic hurricane season. The figure was created by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Hurricane Research Division using data from 1944 to 1999 and counting hits when a storm or hurricane was within approximately 100 miles (165 km) of each location. Based on historical data provided by the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC), the average frequency of the Harris County planning area and all participating jurisdictions being affected by a hurricane wind event is once every 4.21 years. For the risk assessment for this plan update, the probability of occurrence for this hazard is considered "high." 12.2.4 Severity The severity of a hurricane is commonly categorized in accordance with the Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Scale. The Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Wind Scale is a 1-to-5 rating based on a hurricane's sustained wind speed. This scale estimates potential property damage. Hurricanes reaching Category 3 and higher are considered major hurricanes because of their potential for significant loss of life and damage. Category 1 and 2 storms are still dangerous and require preventative measures (NOAA 2013b). Table 12-1 presents this scale, which is used to estimate the potential property damage and flooding expected when a hurricane makes landfall. 12-12 TETRA TECH r rl I Harris County HMP Project Area Figure 12-8. 20-Year Probabilistic Hurricane Peak Wind Gust (mph) r Incorporated Cities - 63-71 ED Harris County - 72-76 77-80 81 - 84 = 85-92 1' A I Harris County HMP Project Area 88 Figure 12-9. 100-Year Probabilistic Hurricane35 -- [�• Peak Wind Gust (mph) r Incorporated Cities ,� ' �� ?v 3 - 89 - 101 a Harris County 6 288 _ 146 102 - 106 a TETRA TECH 107 - 111 — 96 6 112 - 117 N 118 - 128 A p 0 2 4 8 Miles 2 Harris County HMP Project Area Figure 12-10. Hurricane Alicia (1983) Peak Wind Gust (mph) r Incorporated Cities - 87 - 94 Harris County - 95 - 98 99 - 101 - 102 - 104 - 105 - 110 Storm Track Harris County Multi -Hazard Mitigation Action Plan; Volume 1—Area-Wide Elements Source: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Hurricane Research Division �+ 'I , } f { 3M R' 1 �1 rA }f {� ',i • 4 J '� -. ._..._. �.. ... ._ ._... . .._... ode OR R 11 1:q ' Figure 12-11. Empirical Probability of a Named Storm Table 12-1. The Saffir-Simpson Scale F 1 74-95 mph Very dangerous winds will produce some damage: Homes with well -constructed frames could have damage to roof, shingles, vinyl siding, and gutters. Large branches of trees will snap, and shallowly rooted trees may be toppled. Extensive damage to power lines and poles likely will result in power outages that could last a few to several days. 2 96-110 mph Extremely dangerous winds will cause extensive damage: Homes with well -constructed frames could sustain major roof and siding damage. Many shallowly rooted trees will be snapped or uprooted and block numerous roads. Near -total power loss is expected with outages that could last from several days to weeks. 3 111-129 mph Devastating damage will occur: Homes with well-built frames could incur major damage or removal of roof (major) decking and gable ends. Many trees will be snapped or uprooted, blocking numerous roads. Electricity and water will be unavailable for several days to weeks after the storm passes. 4 130-156 mph Catastrophic damage will occur: Homes with well-built frames can sustain severe damage with loss of most of (major) the roof structure and/or some exterior walls. Most trees will be snapped or uprooted and power poles downed. Fallen trees and power poles will isolate residential areas. Power outages will last weeks to possibly months. Most of the area will be uninhabitable for weeks or months. 5 >157 mph Catastrophic damage will occur: A high percentage of framed homes will be destroyed, with total roof failure (major) and wall collapse. Fallen trees and power poles will isolate residential areas. Power outages will last for weeks to possibly months. Most of the area will be uninhabitable for weeks or months. Source: NOAA 2013b 12-16 TETRA TECH 12. Hurricane and Coastal Storm Damage during hurricanes may also result from spawned tornados and inland flooding associated with heavy rainfall that usually accompanies these storms. The entire planning area can expect to experience the full range of hurricanes and tropical storms, which may vary in duration, intensity and severity in the future. Harris County is primarily impacted by coastal storm events with wind speeds in the range of 39 to 73 mph corresponding to tropical storm force events on the Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Wind scale. The National Coastal Services Center shows the average wind speed from coastal storm events that have impacted Harris County at 53.2 mph, with a maximum wind speed of 125 mph (Category 3 Storm on the Saffir-Simpson scale) based on past events. Impacts on the planning area due to hurricane winds include but are not limited to temporary and permanent displacement of residents and businesses, loss of life, widespread power outages, sewer/sanitation system damage, long-term limited mobility for residents and responders, long-term closure or limited functionality of critical infrastructure facilities including hospitals and industrial facilities, lack of economic and industrial activity due to closures. Major damage to residential property, equipment, and vehicles. 12.2.5 Warning Time The National Weather Service (NWS) issues hurricane and tropical storm watches and warnings. These watches and warnings are issued or will remain in effect after a tropical cyclone becomes post -tropical, when such a storm poses a significant threat to life and property. The NWS allows the National Hurricane Center to issue advisories during the post -tropical stage. The following are the definitions of the watches and warnings: • Hurricane/Typhoon Warning is issued when sustained winds of 74 mph or higher are expected somewhere within the specified area in association with a tropical, subtropical, or post -tropical cyclone. Because hurricane preparedness activities become difficult once winds reach tropical storm force, the warning is issued 36 hours in advance of the anticipated onset of tropical storm force winds. The warning can remain in effect when dangerously high water or combination of dangerously high water and waves continue, even though winds may be less than hurricane force. • Hurricane Watch is issued when sustained winds of 74 mph or higher are possible within the specified area in association with a tropical, subtropical, or post -tropical cyclone. Because hurricane preparedness activities become difficult once winds reach tropical storm force, the hurricane watch is issued 48 hours prior to the anticipated onset of tropical storm force winds. • Tropical Storm Warning is issued when sustained winds of 39 to 73 mph are expected somewhere within the specified area within 36 hours in association with a tropical, subtropical, or post -tropical storm. • Tropical Storm Watch is issued when sustained winds of 39 to 73 mph are possible within the specified area within 48 hours in association with a tropical, sub -tropical, or post -tropical storm (NWS 2013 a). 12.3 SECONDARY HAZARDS The strong winds of a tropical cyclone can cause dangerous waves that pose a significant hazard to mariners and coastal residents and visitors. The secondary hazards associated with hurricanes are: • Storm surge and storm tide • Heavy rainfall and inland flooding • High winds • Rip currents • Tornados. All these hazards are profiled as primary hazards within this assessment with the exception of rip currents. TETRA TECH 12-17 Harris County Multi -Hazard Mitigation Action Plan; Volume 1—Area-Wide Elements Rip currents are channeled currents of water flowing away from shore, usually extending past the line of breaking waves, that can pull even the strongest swimmers away from shore. When waves break along the coast, they can produce rip currents, even at large distances from the storm. As an example, in 2008, despite the fact that Hurricane Bertha was more than 1,000 miles offshore, the storm resulted in rip currents that killed three people along the New Jersey coast and required 1,500 lifeguard rescues in Ocean City, Maryland, over a 1-week period. In 2009, all six deaths in the United States directly attributable to tropical cyclones occurred as the result of drowning from large waves or strong rip current. 12.4 EXPOSURE A quantitative assessment of exposure to the hurricane hazard was conducted using the mapping shown in Figure 12-8, Figure 12-9, and Figure 12-10 and the asset inventory developed for this plan. Detailed results are provided in Appendix C and summarized below. 12.4.1 Population The entire population of the planning area is potentially exposed to direct and indirect impacts from hurricanes. Whether directly impacted or indirectly impact, the entire population will have to deal with the consequences of hurricanes to some degree. Business interruption could keep people from working, road closures could isolate populations, and loss of functions of utilities could impact populations that suffered no direct damage from an event itself. 12.4.2 Property According to Central Appraisal districts for Harris, Fort Bend and Galveston Counties, there are 1,355,132 buildings in the planning area, with a total appraised value of over $928 billion. Since all structures in the planning area are susceptible to hurricane impacts to varying degrees, this represents the property exposure to hurricane events. Most of the buildings (97 percent) are residential. 12.4.3 Critical Facilities and Infrastructure Since the entire planning area has exposure to the hurricane hazard, all identified critical facilities and infrastructure components are considered to be exposed. 12.4.4 Environment Since the entire planning area has exposure to the hurricane hazard, all environmental assets within the planning area are considered to be exposed to the impacts of the hurricane hazard. 12.5 VULNERABILITY Hurricane vulnerability data was generated using a Hazus analysis for the 20-year and 100-year probabilistic events as well as a deterministic scenario event for Hurricane Alicia. 12.5.1 Population Vulnerable Groups Three population groups are particularly vulnerable to hurricane hazards: • Linguistically Isolated Populations —Problems arise when there is an urgent need to inform non- English speaking residents of an earthquake event. They are vulnerable because of difficulties in 12-18 TETRA TECH 12. Hurricane and Coastal Storm understanding hazard -related information from predominantly English-speaking media and government agencies. According to the U.S. Census, American Community Survey, the linguistically isolated population represented 11.9 percent of the total population in 2018. Population Below Poverty Level —These households may lack the financial resources to improve their homes to prevent or mitigate earthquake damage. Poorer residents are also less likely to have insurance to compensate for losses in earthquakes. According to the American Community Survey, the population below poverty represented 16.8 percent of the total population in 2018. Population Over 65 Years Old —This population group is vulnerable because they are more likely to need special medical attention, which may not be available due to isolation caused by earthquakes. Elderly residents also have more difficulty leaving their homes during earthquake events and could be stranded in dangerous situations. According to the American Community Survey, the population over 65 years old represented 9.6 percent of the total population in 2018. Estimated Impact on Households and People Table 12-2 summarizes the estimated impacts of modeled hurricane events on persons and households in the planning area. Table 12-2. Estimated Hurricane Impact on Persons and Households 20-Year Probabilistic 1,083 767 100-Year Probabilistic 28,793 20,567 Alicia Scenario 9,867 6,925 12.5.2 Property Structures and Contents Hazus calculates losses to structures from hurricane by estimating wind induced loads, building response, damage, and then loss. For this analysis, local data on facilities was used instead of the default inventory data provided with Hazus. The results by hurricane scenario (20-year, 100-year and Hurricane Alicia) are summarized in Table 12-3. Table 12-3. Loss Estimates for Scenario Hurricane Events 20-Year Probabilistic $1,622,489,443 1 $269,977,524 S1,892,466,967 0.2% 100-Year Probabilistic $15,279,1741125 $4,287,343,716 I $19,566,517,841 2.1% Hurricane Alicia Scenario $7,714,959,513 $1,286,695,827 $9,001,655,339 1.0% Note: Values shown are accurate for comparison of results in this plan. Hurricane -Caused Debris The Hazus analysis estimated the amount of debris within the planning area generated by the modeled hurricane, as summarized in Table 12-4. TETRA TECH 12-19 Harris County Multi -Hazard Mitigation Action Plan; Volume 1-Area-Wide Elements Table 12-4. Estimated Hurricane -Caused Debris 20-Yr Probabilistic 243,307 9,732 100-Yr Probabilistic 2,325,648 93,026 Hurricane Alicia Scenario 1,275,875 51,035 a. Debris generation estimates were based on updated general building stock dataset at a Census Block analysis level. b. Hazus assumes 25 tons/trucks. Note: Values shown are accurate for comparison of results in this plan. 12.5.3 Critical Facilities and Infrastructure The Hazus estimates of hurricane damage to critical facilities and infrastructure in the planning area are summarized in Table 12-5, Table 12-6, and Table 12-7. Table 12-5. Damage Level to Critical Facilities Exposed to the 20-Year Hurricane MKIMUL111Mt Facility Type Medical & Health Days. 0 2.33% 0.58% 0.02% 0.00% Education 0.14 2.79% 1.77% 0.04% 0.00% Emergency Services 0 2.33% 0.52% 0.04% 0.00% Government 0 4.56% 0.70% 0.07% 0.00% Transportation Not reported 1.91 % 0.12% 0.01 % 0.00% Utility Systems Not Reported _ 4.01% 0.83% 0.08% 0.00% Historic/Cultural Not Reported 9.84% 0.98% 0.04% 0.00% Total/Average -- 3.97% 5.50% 0.43% 0.00% a. Minor = 0-14% damage to structure; Moderate = 15-29% damage to structure; Severe = 30-50% damage to structure; Complete = 50- 100% damage to structure Table 12-6. Dam to the 100-Year Hurricane Medical & Health 0.31 16.56% 13.43% 1.52% 0.01 % Education 3 10.74% 21.66% 1.69% 0.00% Emergency Services 0 13.45% 10.12% 2.59% 0.03% Government 0 23.34% 10.00% 2.11% 0.00% Transportation Not reported 34.11 % 6.60% 0.31 % 0.00% Utility Systems Not Reported 16.97% 7.90% 1.71 % 0.00% Historic/Cultural Not Reported 34.46% 7.29% 0.38% 0.00% Total/Average -- 21.38% 7% 1.47% 0.006% a. Minor = 0-14% damage to structure; Moderate=15-29% damage to structure; Severe = 30-50% damage to structure; Complete = 50- 100% damage to structure 12-20 TETRA TECH 12. Hurricane and Coastal Storm to the Hurricane Alicia Scenario Medical & Health Education Emergency Services Government Transportation Utilltv S ste Historic/Cultural TotallAverag 0.0 10.99% 9.52% 8.46% 17.28% 17.36% 4.00% 8.20% 2.74% 1.32% 1.45% 0.11 % 0.10% 0.20% 0.05% j 0.06% 0.00% 0.00% 0.4 0 0.00% Not reported 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Not Re o NotRe orted .57% 2.78% 0.17% 17.28% 1.32% 0.05% 13.21% 3.12% 0.11% a. Minor = 0-14% damage to structure; Moderate = 15-29% damage to structure; Severe = 30-50% damage to structure; Complete = 50- 100% damage to structure 12.5.4 Environment In addition to impacting individuals, homes, and communities, hurricanes have a profound effect on the environment, especially estuarine and coastal habitats. Hurricanes generate strong winds that can completely defoliate forest canopies and cause dramatic structural changes in wooded ecosystems. Animals can be killed by hurricanes or impacted indirectly through changes in habitat and food availability caused by high winds, storm surge, and intense rainfall. Endangered species can be dramatically impacted, such as the Puerto Rican Parrot (Amazona vittata), whose population was reduced to half its original size after the passage of Hurricane Hugo in 1989. Hurricane Gilbert pushed the Cozumel Thrasher (Toxostoma guttatum), found only on Mexico's Isla Cozumel, to the edge of extinction in 1988. In addition to impacting animals, storm surge and dangerous waves can move large amounts of sand and ultimately reshape the coastal landscape. Hurricanes such as Ivan (2004), Katrina and Rita (2005), and Gustav and Ike (2008) have led to shoreline position changes of about 328 feet in some regions. The loss of land from Hurricanes Katrina and Rita alone was estimated to be about 73 square miles. By changing environmental conditions in coastal habitats, hurricanes cause a cascade of direct and indirect ecological responses that range from immediate to long-term. In terms of environmental effects, no two hurricanes are alike. Individual characteristics, such as the storm's forward speed, size, intensity, and amount of precipitation, play a large role in the type and temporal extent of a hurricane's impact. Depending on many of these factors, even tropical storms can cause severe damage to property and natural resources. 12.6 FUTURE TRENDS IN DEVELOPMENT As the Harris County planning continues to grow as projected, the key to mitigating the future impacts from hurricanes will be the continued adoption and enforcement of strong codes and standards within the planning area. The core capability assessments by the municipal planning partners to this effort identified a strong commitment to adoption of uniform codes and standards, which will position the planning partnership well to manage the hurricane risk for future development. 12.7 SCENARIO The frequency of hurricanes impacting the planning area is well documented, and the scenarios are frequent. While no two storms are exactly alike, lessons learned from storm to storm will enable the planning area to prepare, respond and recover from future storms that are inevitable. This risk assessment has made an attempt to look at a significant past storm event (Hurricane Alicia) and estimate its potential impacts if it were to happen TETRA TECH 12-21 Harris County Multi -Hazard Mitigation Action Plan; Volume 1—Area-Wide Elements today. As the climate continues to change, it is likely the frequency and severity of hurricane activity in the Atlantic Ocean and Gulf of Mexico will increase, testing the experience and preparedness of the planning area. 12.8 ISSUES The CPT has identified the following hurricane -related issues relevant to the planning area: • The hurricane vulnerability within the planning area is significant, representing 0.2 to 2.1 percent of the total replacement value for the planning area. This does not include the potential flood impacts. • As the planning area is still recovering from the impacts of past events (Harvey), there is still critical infrastructure that is in need of repair. This creates vulnerability should another storm hit. • Emergency power sources/supply will always be mission critical to the response and recovery from hurricane events. • How climate change will affect hurricane conditions in the planning area is uncertain. • Strong codes and the enforcement of those codes is mission critical to increasing the resilience of the planning area. • As the Harris County planning area continues to grow, it will be important to inform this new incoming population about hurricane risk. • The vulnerability of critical facilities and infrastructure varies, but is significant. • 16.8 percent of the county population is considered to be below the poverty status for the county. This population may lack the core capabilities to withstand impacts from hurricanes. • Approximate 10 percent of the county population is over 65 years of age, which is considered a vulnerable population to the impacts from hurricanes. • Detailed spatial analysis is needed to locate the most vulnerable populations, followed by focused public education and outreach mitigation activities for these populations. 12-22 TETRA TECH 13. MASS MOVEMENTS 13.1 GENERAL BACKGROUND Mass wasting, or mass movement is the transport of large volumes of earth material primarily by gravity. Mass movements can be divided into four main classes: falls, slides, creeps and flows. The classes are based on how quickly the rock and sediment moves and how much water there is. Steep and unstable slopes are more likely to have a mass movement than gentle and stable slopes. For this assessment, three types of mass movements have been assessed: • Landslides • Sinkholes • Subsidence. 13.1.1 Landslide Landslides are commonly categorized by the type of initial ground failure. Common types of slides are shown on Figure 13-1 through Figure 13-4. The most common is the shallow colluvial slide, occurring particularly in response to intense, short -duration storms. The largest and most destructive are deep-seated slides, which are less common than other types. Other landslide types include the following: • Block slides —Blocks of rock that slide along a slip plane as a unit down a slope. • Creep —A slow -moving landslide often only noticed through crooked trees and disturbed structures. • Debris avalanche —A debris flow that travels faster than about 10 miles per hour (mph). Speeds in excess of 20 mph are not uncommon, and speeds in excess of 100 mph, although rare, can occur. The slurry can travel miles from its source, growing as it descends, picking up trees, boulders, cars, and anything else in its path (Figure 13-5). • Earth flows —Fine-grained sediments that flow downhill and typically form a fan structure. • Mudslides or Debris Flows —Rivers of rock, earth, organic matter and other soil materials saturated with water. They develop in the soil overlying bedrock on sloping surfaces when water rapidly accumulates in the ground, such as during heavy rainfall or rapid snowmelt. • Rock falls —Blocks of rock that fall away from a bedrock unit without a rotational component. • Rock topples —Blocks of rock that fall away from a bedrock unit with a rotational component. • Rotational slumps —Blocks of fine-grained sediment that rotate and move down slope. • Transitional slides —Sediments that move along a flat surface without a rotational component. TETRA TECH 13-1 Harris County Multi -Hazard Mitigation Action Plan; Volume 1—Area-Wide Elements Source: Washington Department of Ecology, 2014 Athin layer of sail and debris moves rapidly down a steep slope. t;f ff 1 f . f - Figure 13-1. Deep Seated Slide „ Figure 13-2. Shallow Colluvial Slide Mid -slope benches typically indicate slide prone areas. Figure 13-3. Bench Slide A large slide cuts deep into the slope, depositing tans of soil and debris at the base. Figure 13-4. Large Slide Source: California Department of Conservation. 2017c Scar (area of initial failure) Track (may or may not be eroded) Zone of Deposition (Fan) (May be 1000s of feet or even miles from the point of origin) J Soil or Colluvium Figure 13-5. Typical Debris Avalanche Scar and Trac 13-2 TETRA TECH 13. Mass Movements Landslides are caused by a combination of geological and climate conditions, as well as encroaching urbanization. Vulnerable areas are affected by residential, agricultural, commercial, and industrial development and the infrastructure that supports it. The following human activities have particular influence on the landslide hazard: • Construction Earthwork —Excavation, grading and fill during construction of buildings or roads on sloping terrain can steepen the terrain and increase weight loads on slopes, potentially increasing the landslide hazard. • Drainage and Groundwater Alterations —Activities that increase the amount of water flowing into landslide -prone slopes can increase the landslide hazard. This can include broken or leaking water or sewer lines, water retention facilities that direct water onto slopes, lawn irrigation, minor alterations to small streams, and ineffective stormwater management measures. Development that increases impervious surface may redirect surface water to other areas. Road and driveway drains, gutters, downspouts, and other constructed drainage facilities can concentrate and accelerate flow. • Changes in Vegetation —Removal of vegetation from very steep slopes, by wildfire or land clearing, can increase landslide hazards. In addition, woody debris in stream channels (both natural and man-made) may cause the impacts from debris flows to be more severe. Other factors that can contribute to landslide include the following: • Change in slope of the terrain • Increased load on the land, shocks and vibrations • Change in water content • Groundwater movement • Frost action • Weathering of rocks • Removing or changing the type of vegetation covering slopes. 13.1.2 Sinkholes Sinkholes are a natural and common geologic feature in areas with underlying limestone and other rock types that are soluble in water. Most limestone is porous, allowing the acidic water of rain to percolate through their strata, dissolving the limestone and carrying it away in solution. Over time, this persistent erosion process can create extensive underground voids and drainage systems in the carbonate -based rocks. The collapse of overlying sediments into the underground cavities produces sinkholes. The three general types of sinkholes are subsidence, solution, and collapse. Collapse sinkholes are most common in areas where the overburden (the sediments and water contained in the unsaturated zone above an aquifer) is thick, but the confining layer is breached or absent. Collapse sinkholes can form with little warning and leave behind a deep, steep -sided hole. Subsidence sinkholes form gradually where the overburden is thin and only a veneer of sediments is overlying the limestone. Solution sinkholes form where no overburden is present and the limestone is exposed at the surface. Sinkholes occur in many shapes, from steep -walled holes to bowl or cone shaped depressions. If there is not enough support for the land above the underground spaces, then a sudden collapse of the land surface can occur. Under natural conditions, sinkholes form slowly and expand gradually. However, human activities such as dredging, constructing reservoirs, diverting surface water, and pumping groundwater can accelerate the rate of sinkhole expansions, resulting in the abrupt formation of collapse sinkholes. Development increases water usage, alters drainage pathways, overloads the ground surface, and redistributes soil. According to FEMA, the number of human -induced sinkholes has doubled since 1930, and insurance claims for sinkhole -related damages increased 1,200 percent between 1987 and 1991. TETRA TECH 13-3 Harris County Multi -Hazard Mitigation Action Plan; Volume 1—Area-Wide Elements Although a sinkhole can form without warning, specific signs can signal potential development: • Slumping or falling fence posts, trees, or foundations • Sudden formation of small ponds • Wilting vegetation • Discolored well water • Structural cracks in walls and floors. 13.1.3 Subsidence Subsidence is the sinking of the land surface in an area. The elevation of the land surface is lowered by compressing the many layers of clay below. Some natural land subsidence occurs over long periods of time, due to the natural settling of sediments left over from millions of years ago; however, the main causes of subsidence are human -induced. Mining, removal of groundwater, and organic materials are some of the most common causes of subsidence. In the Houston -Galveston region, land subsidence is caused by compaction of fine-grained aquifer sediments (silts and clays) below the land surface due to groundwater withdrawals. Removing water from fine-grained aquifer sediments compresses the aquifer, leaving less pore space available to store water resulting in the lowering (sinking or settling) of the land -surface. Most compaction that occurs as a result of groundwater withdrawals is irreversible; even if groundwater levels rise, compacted sediments and the associated land -surface lowering would remain. 13.2 HAZARD PROFILE 13.2.1 Past Events Landslide There is no historical evidence of landslide events in the Harris County planning area. The State of Texas Hazard Mitigation Plan does not identify landslides as a hazard risk for any location in the State of Texas. During the risk analysis preformed for this plan, landslides were identified as the lowest risk hazard of all profiled. For these reasons, a detailed hazard vulnerability assessment was not performed for this hazard. The risk from landslides is considered negligible and does not require mitigation actions. Sinkholes East Texas has few, if any, sinkholes. There has been no recorded property damage or loss of life due to sinkholes in the Harris County planning area. The nearest sinkhole to Harris County was in Daisetta, Texas, 60 miles northeast of Houston, which had a sinkhole measuring 900 feet across and 260 feet deep in May 2008 (U.S. Geological Survey). The State of Texas Hazard Mitigation Plan does not identify the Harris County planning area as a high -risk area for sinkholes. For these reasons, a detailed hazard vulnerability assessment was not performed for this hazard. It can be assumed the risk for sinkholes in the Harris County planning area, as well as potential losses due to sinkhole impact are negligible. Subsidence Historically, the Harris County planning area was at risk for subsidence due to its dependence on groundwater. Figure 13-6 shows the level of subsidence from 1906 to 2000 in the Harris County and Galveston County areas. The planning area was extremely vulnerable and impacted by the effects of subsidence. Removal of large amounts of groundwater resulted in up to 10 feet in loss of elevation in some part of the county. 13-4 TETRA TECH 13. Mass Movements SUBSIDENCE 1906-2000 :: NATIONAL GEODETIC SURVEY INTERPRETATIONS: HGCSD Map contoured in 7 Foot Intervals Figure 13-6. Subsidence in Harris County from 1906-2000 The Brownwood Subdivision in Baytown, Texas is an example of the effect of subsidence in Harris County. The loss of elevation in Brownwood resulted in higher -frequency, more -damaging flood events. Brownwood is now mostly underwater. As a result, most of the subdivision was purchased by the government and turned into a nature preserve. Further inland, the impacts of subsidence are not as drastic as they are in coastal areas where the elevation is already close to sea level, but because flooding is a great concern in the County, any loss of elevation, no matter what the initial elevation was, will have an adverse impact on future flooding in the area. Although Harris County has been vulnerable in the past, research of historical data shows no recorded property damage or loss of life due to subsidence in the Harris County planning area. 13.2.2 Location No location mapping has been provided for the landslide and sinkhole hazards due to the lack of exposure within the planning area. Future subsidence is not likely to be located in or occur within any of the planning area due to existing groundwater reduction measures. Subsidence is being abated by regional limits on groundwater pumping. Many of the cities in Harris and Galveston counties, industries, and others in the coastal region converted to surface water years ago at a considerable cost. The Harris -Galveston Coastal Subsidence District's 1999 Regulatory Plan requires Areas 1 and 2 as shown in Figure 13-7 to continue with groundwater reduction requirements (HGCSD, 1999). The 1999 Regulatory Plan focused mostly on the north and west part of Harris County in Area 3. Groundwater reduction plans are required to show how permittees in this area will reduce dependence on groundwater pumping by 30 percent in 2010, 70 percent in 2020 and 80 percent in 2030. TETRA TECH 13-5 Harris County Multi -Hazard Mitigation Action Plan; Volume 1—Area-Wide Elements Area 3 J A rea 2 Harris -Galveston Coastal Subsidence District Area 1 Figure 13-7. Harris -Galveston Coastal Subsidence District Regulatory Area Map Until the enforcement of regulations in HGCSD Areas 1 and 2 sunsets in 2030, the following communities, which lie within those areas, are considered to have some degree of subsidence risk, though the risk is likely to be low: • Area 1 ➢ Baytown ➢ La Porte ➢ Taylor Lake Village ➢ Deer Park ➢ League City ➢ Seabrook ➢ El Lago ➢ Morgan's Point ➢ Shore Acres ➢ Galena Park ➢ Nassau Bay ➢ Webster • Area 2 ➢ Bellaire ➢ Hunters Creek Village ➢ Piney Point Village ➢ Hedwig Village ➢ Jacinto City ➢ Spring Valley Village ➢ Houston ➢ Pasadena ➢ South Houston ➢ West University Place Current data and regulatory limits indicate the enforcement of the groundwater reduction plans have lowered the past risk of subsidence in Area 3 to a negligible risk. 13.2.3 Frequency The planning area can expect to experience no significant mass movements due to currently low to negligible risk within the planning area. For the risk assessment for this plan update, the probability of occurrence for mass movement is considered "low." 13-6 TETRA TECH 13. Mass Movements 13.2.4 Severity Mass movements can destroy property and infrastructure and can take the lives of people. They have the potential of destabilizing the foundation of structures, which may result in monetary loss for residents. Slope failures in the United States result in an average of 25 to 50 lives lost per year and an annual cost to society of about $1.5 billion (FEMA, 1997). Landslides can pose a serious hazard to properties on or below hillsides. They can block access to roads, which can isolate residents and businesses and delay commercial, public and private transportation. This can result in economic losses for businesses. Vegetation or poles on slopes can be knocked over, resulting in possible losses to power and communication lines. Landslides also can damage rivers or streams, potentially harming water quality, fisheries and spawning habitat. The severity of the risk for mass movements in the planning area is considered to be low due to the lack of exposure. Unless the frequency of occurrence increases in the future, a worst -case -scenario would be any occurrence of a mass movement, or something comparable the May 2008 Daisetta, Texas, sinkhole event, which measured 900 feet across and 260 feet deep. 13.2.5 Warning Time The velocity of landslides and other mass movements range from a slow creep of inches per year to many feet per second, depending on slope angle, material and water content. Some methods used to monitor mass movements can provide an idea of the type of movement and the amount of time prior to failure. It is also possible to determine what areas are at risk during general time periods. Assessing the geology, vegetation and amount of predicted precipitation for an area can help in these predictions. However, there is no practical warning system for individual mass movements. The current standard operating procedure is to monitor situations on a case -by -case basis, and respond after the event has occurred. Generally accepted warning signs for mass movement activity include the following: • Springs, seeps, or saturated ground in areas that have not typically been wet before • New cracks or unusual bulges in the ground, street pavements or sidewalks • Soil moving away from foundations • Ancillary structures such as decks and patios tilting and/or moving relative to the main house • Tilting or cracking of concrete floors and foundations • Broken water lines and other underground utilities • Leaning telephone poles, trees, retaining walls or fences • Offset fence lines • Sunken or down -dropped road beds • Rapid increase in creek water levels, possibly accompanied by increased turbidity (soil content) • Sudden decrease in creek water levels though rain is still falling or just recently stopped • Sticking doors and windows, and visible open spaces indicating jambs and frames out of plumb • A faint rumbling sound that increases in volume as the landslide nears • Unusual sounds, such as trees cracking or boulders knocking together. 13.3 SECONDARY HAZARDS Mass movements are not generally known to result in secondary hazards. However, they themselves are often secondary hazards of other event types, such as earthquakes, severe weather or wildfires. Subsidence can have secondary effects by worsening flooding conditions in an area because of the lowering of the local elevation. TETRA TECH 13-7 Harris County Multi -Hazard Mitigation Action Plan; Volume 1—Area-Wide Elements 13.4 EXPOSURE AND VULNERABILITY The exposure and vulnerability for the people, property, critical facilities/infrastructure, and environment are low to none for the planning area. This is based on the lack of historical occurrence of the types of hazards and the planning area's proactive approach to mitigating subsidence issues starting in 1999. This does not mean that these types events could not happen in the future, it just means that there is currently no empirical data to assess impacts as of this planning effort. 13.5 FUTURE TRENDS IN DEVELOPMENT Due the lack of exposure and impacts from these hazards, future development in the planning area is not likely to be impacted by these hazards in the short term. However, as a changing climate continues to influence the frequency, severity and magnitude of hazard events, there could be impacts on future development. Future updates to this plan will have to measure those possibilities as it assesses the mass movement hazards of concern. 13.6 SCENARIO For the performance period of this plan update (5 years), there is no likely mass movement scenario projected to impact the planning area. 13.7 ISSUES The CPT has identified no issues pertaining to the mass movement hazard. Harris County and its planning partners will continue to monitor conditions as they pertain to this hazard to inform future updates to this plan. 13-8 TETRA TECH 14. SEVERE WEATHER 14.1 GENERAL BACKGROUND Severe weather refers to any dangerous meteorological phenomena with the potential to cause damage, serious social disruption, or loss of human life. Types of severe weather phenomena vary, depending on the latitude, altitude, topography, and atmospheric conditions. This assessment profiles five types of severe weather events: thunderstorms; hail; extreme heat; tornados and damaging wind; and winter storms and freezes 14.1.1 Thunderstorms NOAA classifies a thunderstorm as a storm with lightning and thunder produced by cumulonimbus clouds, usually producing gusty winds, heavy rain, and sometimes hail or tornados. Thunderstorms are usually short in duration (seldom more than two hours), but they may deliver enough rainfall to cause urban or flash flooding. Measuring and Categorizing Thunderstorm Hazards As shown in Table 14-1, thunderstorm risk categories are based on three-day convective outlooks prepared by NOAA's Storm Prediction Center. These outlooks depict non -severe thunderstorm areas and severe thunderstorm threats across the contiguous United States. The risk categories specify the level of the overall severe weather threat via numbers (1— 5), descriptive labeling (marginal — high), and colors (green — magenta). Measuring and Categorizing Lightning Lightning is an electrical discharge that results from the buildup of positive and negative charges within a thunderstorm. When the buildup becomes strong enough, lightning appears as a "bolt." This flash of light usually occurs within the clouds or between the clouds and the ground. A bolt of lightning instantaneously reaches temperatures approaching 50,000°F. The rapid heating and cooling of air near the lightning causes thunder. NOAA's Lightening Activity Level (LAL) scale indicates the amount of lightning associated with thunderstorms, as well as whether or not wetting rains accompany the storms. • LAL 1-No thunderstorms. • LAL 2Isolated thunderstorms. Light rain will occasionally reach the ground. Lightening is very infrequent, 1 to 5 cloud to ground strikes in a 5-minute period. • LAL 3—Widely scattered thunderstorms. Light to moderate rain will reach the ground. Lightning is infrequent, 6 to 10 cloud to ground strikes in a 5-minute period. • LAL 4—Scattered thunderstorms. Moderate rain is commonly produced. Lightning is frequent, 11 to 15 cloud to ground strikes in a 5-minute period. • LAL 5—Numerous thunderstorms. Rainfall is moderate to heavy. Lightning is frequent and • intense, greater than 15 cloud to ground strikes in a 5-minute period. • LAL 6—Dry lightning (same as LAL 3 but without rain). This type of lightning has the potential for extreme fire activity and is normally highlighted in fire weather forecasts with a Red Flag Warning. TETRA TECH 14-1 Harris County Multi -Hazard Mitigation Action Plan; Volume 1—Area-Wide Elements Table 14-1. Convective Outlooks — Thunderstorm Risk Categories Thunderstorm Thunderstorm Risk Label Risk Category Thunderstorm Risk Descriptiona TSTM (light General or • Delineates, to the right of a line, where a 10% or greater probability of thunderstorms is forecast green) Non- Severe during the valid period. Thunderstorms • No severe thunderstorms expected. Lightning/flooding threats exist with all thunderstorms. Winds to 40 MPH and small hail. 1-MRGL (dark • An area of severe storms of either limited organization and longevity, or very low coverage and green) marginal intensity. • Isolated severe thunderstorms possible. Limited in duration and/or coverage and/or intensity. Winds 40-60 MPH, hail up to 1 inches and low tornado risk. 2-SLGT Slight Risk • An area of organized severe storms, which is not widespread in coverage with varying levels of (yellow) intensity. • Scattered severe thunderstorms possible. Short-lived and/or not widespread, isolated intense storms possible. One or two tornados, reports of strong winds/wind damage, and hail approximately 1 inches and isolated 2 inches. 3-ENH Enhanced Risk • An area of greater (relative to Slight risk) severe storm coverage with varying levels of intensity. (orange) • Numerous severe storms possible. More persistent and/or widespread, a few intense. A few tornados, several reports of wind damage and damaging hail, 1- 2 inches. 4-MDT (red) • An area where widespread severe weather with several tornados and/or numerous severe thunderstorms is likely, some of which should be intense. This risk is usually reserved for days with several supercells producing intense tornados and/or very large hail, or an intense squall line with widespread damaging winds. • Widespread severe storms likely. Long-lived, widespread and intense. Strong tornados, widespread wind damage and destructive hail 2 inches (+). 5-HIGH An area where a severe weather outbreak is expected from either numerous intense and long - (magenta) tracked tornados or a long-lived derecho-producing thunderstorm complex that produces hurricane - force wind gusts and widespread damage. This risk is reserved for when high confidence exists in widespread coverage of severe weather with embedded instances of extreme severe (i.e., violent tornados or very damaging convective wind events). • Widespread severe storms expected. Long-lived, very widespread and particularly intense. Tornado outbreak and derecho. a. All thunderstorm categories imply lightning and the potential for flooding. Categories are also tied to the probability of a severe weather event within 25 miles. Source: NOAA, NWS, Storm Prediction Center Nationwide Distribution of Thunderstorms The National Weather Service collected data for thunder days, the number and duration of thunder events, and lightning strike density for the 30-year period from 1948 to 1977. Figure 14-1 illustrates thunderstorm hazard severity based on the annual average number of thunder events during that period. 14.1.2 Hail Hailstorms are an outgrowth of severe thunderstorms. Early in the developmental stages of a hailstorm, ice crystals form within a low-pressure front due to the rapid rising of warm air into the upper atmosphere and the subsequent cooling of the air mass. Frozen droplets gradually accumulate on the ice crystals until, having developed sufficient weight; they fall as precipitation as balls or irregularly shaped masses of ice greater than 0.75 inches in diameter (see Figure 14-2). The size of hailstones is a direct function of the size and severity of the storm. High velocity updraft winds are required to keep hail in suspension in thunderclouds. The strength of the updraft is a function of the intensity of heating at the Earth's surface. Higher temperature gradients relative to elevation above the surface result in increased suspension time and hailstone size. 14-2 TETRA TECH 14. Severe Weather Source: National Weather Service e number 6f r events 30, 20-130 10 -120 00 - 110 l0-100 6 - 90 v - 80 l0 - 70 0- 60 A - 50 U 0- 40 Albers Equal Area Projection 0 250 500 Al 0 250 SOc KM Figure 14-1. Annual Average Number of Thunder Events NOAA Photo Library, NOAA Central Library; National Severe Storms Laboratory Figure 14-2. Large Hail on Streets and Grass During a Severe Thunderstorm, with Stones up to 3 Inches TETRA TECH 14-3 Harris County Multi -Hazard Mitigation Action Plan; Volume 1—Area-Wide Elements Figure 14-3 shows the annual frequency of hailstorms in the United States as recorded from 2003 to 2012. Hailstorms have been observed in almost every location where thunderstorms occur throughout the United States. They are most frequent in the southern and central plain states, where the climate produces violent thunderstorms. Source: NOAA Storm Prediction Center Severe Hail Days Per Year From 2003-2012 Reports Days with at least 2 report oFinch + haA within —15 mires. 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 11 1 1 111 1 11 1 1 34:4 2 3 3 412 3 3 4 3 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 3 2 3 4 5 5 5 `.4 . 2 1 1 1 1 4 554 65 56 3 3 3 1 2 213 42 4 1i 11 1 1 11 546 655 3 2 34 4D43 1 1 1 2 1 1 E6 7 8 7. 4 - 5 5 3 6 1_ 4. 1 2 2 7 7 7 7 7 5 5 ? 1 1 1 1 2 9 9 B 10 7 B S S 6 7 5 6 5 5 1 {'5 6 5 4 6 5 17 6 5 5 991010100 5.6505 2 36 1 1 9 9 9 6 5 5 6 r 1 13121112 9 ]� 4 - - 7 Lys $ —4 1 5 l 1 1 1 1 15 1 3 11 1010 9' 7 `�1 0" • ti 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 14B 7 7 71 7 9`y 7 7 $ $ 6 1 1 1 1 2 -_ 7 4 fti7 6 6 5 5 4 2 1 2 B 6 7 7 4.5 5 5 7 3 3 3 3 5 1 4 6 5 4 3 5 2 6 5 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 1 3 2 2 2J 4 4 Nab onal%Veather Service 1 2 �` Storm PrediEdDri Center • Figure 14-3. Annual Frequency of Hailstorms in the United States NOAA utilizes the Modified NOAA/TORRO Hailstorm Intensity Scale to assist in measuring hailstorm intensity (see Table 14-2). The scale extends from HO to H10, with increments of intensity or damage potential related to hail size (distribution and maximum), texture, numbers, fall speed, speed of storm translation, and strength of the accompanying wind. 14.1.3 Extreme Heat Extreme heat can be defined as temperatures that hover 10 °F or more above the average high temperature for the region, last for prolonged periods of time, and are often accompanied by high humidity. The "urban heat island effect" can produce significantly higher nighttime temperatures where asphalt and concrete (which store heat longer) gradually release heat at night. The Extreme Heat Index in Figure 14-4 and the criteria for heat advisories measure the severity and intensity of extreme heat. Extreme heat can pose a significant risk to humans. Under normal conditions, the human body produces perspiration that evaporates and cools the body. However, in extreme heat and high humidity, evaporation is slowed and the body must work much harder to maintain a normal temperature. Studies have shown that a significant rise in heat -related illness occurs when excessive heat persists for more than two days. 14-4 TETRA TECH 14. Severe Weather Table 14-2. Modified NOAA/TORRO Hailstorm Intensitv Scale HO Hard Hail 0.25 No Damage 1-11 Potentially Damaging 0.25 - 0.50 Slight general damage to plants, crops H2 Significant 0.50 - 0.75 Significant damage to fruit, crops, vegetation H3 Severe 0.75 -1.25 Severe damage to fruit and crops, damage to glass and plastic structures, paint and wood scored H4 Severe 1.0 -1.50 Widespread glass damage, vehicle bodywork damage H5 Destructive 1.25 - 1.75 Wholesale destruction of glass, damage to tiled roofs, significant risk of injuries H6 Destructive 1.50 - 2.25 Bodywork of grounded aircraft dented, brick walls pitted H7 Destructive 2.0 - 3.0 Severe roof damage, risk of serious injuries H8 Destructive 2.50 - 3.50 Severe damage to aircraft bodywork H9 Super Hailstorms 3.0 — 4.0 Extensive structural damage. Risk of severe or even fatal injuries to persons caught in the open H10 Super Hailstorms 4.0 + Extensive structural damage. Risk of severe or even fatal injuries to persons caught in the open Source: TORRO, 2019 Source: National Weather Service, 2019 Temperature (7) 80 82 84 86 88 90 92 94 96 98 100 102 104 106 108 110 40 80 81 83 85 88 91 94 97 101 105 ,. 109 114 119 1240. 45 80 82 84 87 89 93 96 100 104 109 114 119 124 50 81 83 85 88 91 95 gg 108 108 118 118 14 JU�.� 55 81 84 86 89 93 97 101 106 112 117 1 4 Z` 60 82 84 88 91 95 100 105 110 116 1 .E 65 82 85 89 93 08 108 108 114 121 = 70 88 86 90 95 100 105 112 110 15 84 88 92 07 108 100 116 124 80 84 89 94 100 106 113 11 85 85 00 96 102 110 117 90 86 01 98 105 118 122 95 86 93 100 108 117 100 87 95 108 112 121 Likelihood of Heat Disorders with Prolonged Exposure or Strenuous Activity Caution Extreme Caution Danger ■ Extreme Danger Figure 14-4. Extreme Heat Index TETRA TECH 14-5 Harris County Multi -Hazard Mitigation Action Plan; Volume 1—Area-Wide Elements Especially vulnerable populations may include elderly persons, young children, persons with respiratory difficulties, and those who are sick or overweight are more likely to become victims of extreme heat. Because men sweat more than women, they are more susceptible to heat -related illness because they become more quickly dehydrated. Extreme heat in urban areas can create health concerns when stagnant atmospheric conditions trap pollutants, thus adding unhealthy air to excessively hot temperatures. Spending at least 2 hours per day in air conditioning can significantly reduce the number of heat -related illnesses. 14.1.4 Tornados and Damaging Winds A tornado is a violent windstorm characterized by a twisting, funnel -shaped cloud extending to the ground (see Figure 14-5. Tornados are most often generated by thunderstorm activity (but sometimes result from hurricanes and other coastal storms) when cool, dry air intersects and overrides a layer of warm, moist air forcing the warm air to rise rapidly. Lightning and large hail frequently accompany these windstorms. Source: NOAA Photo Library, NOAA Central Library; National Severe Storms Laboratory Figure 14-5. Tornado South of Dimmitt, Texas, June 2, 1995, Which Reached an F-4 Level of Intensity According to the National Weather Service, tornado wind speeds range from 40 to more than 300 miles per hour. The most violent tornados have rotating winds of 250 mph or more and are capable of causing extreme destruction. Most tornados are a few dozen yards wide and touch down briefly, but even small short-lived tornados can inflict tremendous damage. Highly destructive tornados may carve out a path over a mile wide and several miles long. Tornados cause an average of 55 deaths and 1,500 injuries annually (NOAA). The damage caused by a tornado is a result of the high wind velocity and wind-blown debris. Typically, tornados cause the greatest damages to structures of light construction such as residential homes (particularly mobile homes). 14-6 TETRA TECH 14. Severe Weather Waterspouts are weak tornados that form over warm water and are most common along the Gulf Coast and southeastern states. Waterspouts occasionally move inland, becoming tornados that can cause damage and injury. However, most waterspouts dissipate over the open water, threatening marine and boating interests. Typically, a waterspout is weak and short-lived, and because they are so common, most go unreported unless they cause damage. Straight-line wind is a general term used to describe damaging winds that are not tornados. They are many different types of straight-line winds. Most damaging straight-line winds are generated by thunderstorm systems, although some result from other types of weather phenomena (National Severe Storms Laboratory, 2018). Tornado Distribution Nationwide Each year, an average of over 1,200 tornados are reported nationwide. According to the NOAA Storm Prediction Center, the highest concentration of tornados in the United States has been in Oklahoma, Texas, Kansas and Florida. Although the Great Plains region of the Central United States does favor the development of the largest and most dangerous tornados (earning the designation of "tornado alley"), Florida experiences the greatest number of tornados per square mile of all U.S. states (NOAA, 2018a). Figure 14-6 shows tornado activity in the United States based on the number of recorded tornados per 1,000 square miles (FEMA). Source: FFMA TORNADO ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES* Summary Per 1.000 Square Mike . anx arar ewla 7 * iq. r wrrr # IYIp" �r --r« irrn •9wR iar GYYI IW+a i.r.t .m+r - IlrraGlq "asvkdr� wuv�r.ac lu pYr • � r�MA•i � JAL. R��tl�l1� +-�� {tilnlbY- — Y swr. 1rr Y IItrY. E + xx _ ,.... NuAWMm�4T ROC9IEFO Udgac pad AL4S '- 1 AM $A.. 4G. - a,w. = r l :.:.:.;.Ma-10 :,m 11-fr, nHAWAJ1 M>13 All! .1:3-�'J f I2[i v k.slh rALANF16 ' BBBed Dn #JOAA, ]Atxm PfedmCdk Ceub3r SUrMbm Figure 14-6. Tornado Activity in the United States Tornado Timing and Location Tornados are more likely to occur during the spring and early summer months of March through June and can occur at any time of day but are likely to form in the late afternoon and early evening. The tornados associated with tropical cyclones are most frequent in September and October when the incidence of tropical storm systems TETRA TECH 14-7 Harris County Multi -Hazard Mitigation Action Plan; Volume 1—Area-Wide Elements is greatest. This type of tornado usually occurs around the perimeter of the storm, and most often to the right and ahead of the storm path or the storm center as it comes ashore. These tornados commonly occur as part of large outbreaks and generally move in an easterly direction. Measuring Tornado Magnitude The Enhanced Fujita-Pearson Scale for Tornados, noted in Table 14-3, was developed to measure tornado strength and associated damages. Table 14-3. Enhanced-Fuiita-Pearson Scale for Tornados EFO 65-85 53.5% 'Light damage. Peels surface off some roofs; some damage to gutters or siding; branches broken off trees; shallow -rooted trees pushed over. Confirmed tornados with no reported damage (i.e. those that remain in open fields) are always rated EFO. 1.6% Moderate damage. Roofs severely stripped; mobile homes overturned or badly damaged; loss of� exterior doors; windows and other glass broken. EF2 111-135 10.7% Considerable damage. Roofs torn off well- constructed houses; foundations of frame homes shifted; mobile homes completely destroyed; large trees snapped or uprooted; light -object missiles generated; cars lifted off ground. EF3 136— 3.4% Severe damage. Entire stories of well -constructed houses destroyed; severe damage to large buildings such as shopping malls; trains overturned; trees debarked; heavy cars lifted off the ground and thrown; structures with weak foundations blown awav some distance. EF4 166-200 0.7% Devastating damage. Well -constructed houses and whole frame houses completely leveled; cars thrown and small missiles generated. EF5 >200 IF <0.1 % Explosive damage. Strong frame houses leveled off foundations and swept away; automobile -sized ` missiles fly through the air in excess of 100 m (300 ft); steel reinforced concrete structure badly damaged; high-rise buildings have significant structural deformation; incredible phenomena will occur. Source: NOAA, 2018a Measuring Damaging Winds As shown in Table 14-4 the Beaufort Wind Scale is an empirical measure that relates wind speed to observed conditions at sea or on land. 14.1.5 Winter Storms and Freeze Winter storms may include snow, sleet, freezing rain, or a mix of wintry precipitation. Sleet — raindrops that freeze into ice pellets before reaching the ground — usually bounce when hitting a surface and do not stick to objects. However, sleet can accumulate like snow and cause a hazard to motorists. Freezing rain is rain that falls onto a surface with a temperature below freezing, forming a glaze of ice. Even small accumulations of ice can cause a significant hazard, especially on power lines and trees. An ice storm occurs when freezing rain falls and freezes immediately upon impact. Communications and power can be disrupted for days, and even small accumulations of ice may cause extreme hazards to motorists and pedestrians. Figure 14-7 shows the general circumstances that result in different winter precipitation events. The type of precipitation experienced during a winter storm can depend on location. Winter precipitation may fall as snow at higher altitudes but rain at lower elevations, with freezing rain or sleet at elevations in between. 14-8 TETRA TECH 14. Severe Weather 0 1 2 3 Less than 1 Calm 1-3 Light Air 4-6 Light Breeze Table 14-4. Beaufort Wind Scale Sea surface smooth and mirror-like Scaly ripples, no foam crests Small wavelets, crests glassy, no breaking 7-10 Gentle Breeze Large wavelets, crests begin to break, scattered whitecaps 4 11-16 Moderate Breeze Small waves 1-4 ft. becoming longer, numerous whitecaps 5 17-21 Fresh Breeze Moderate waves 4-8 ft taking longer form, many whitecaps, some spray Calm, smoke rises vertically Smoke drift indicates wind direction, still wind vanes Wind felt on face, leaves rustle, vanes begin to move Leaves and small twigs constantly moving, light flags extended Dust, leaves, and loose paper lifted; small tree branches move Small trees in leaf begin to sway 6 22-27 Strong Breeze Larger waves 8-13 ft, whitecaps common, more spray Larger tree branches moving, whistling in wires Near Gale Sea heaps up, waves 13-19 ft, white foam streaks off Whole trees moving, resistance felt breakers walking against wind 8 34-40 Gale Moderately high (18-25 ft) waves of greater length, edges of Twigs breaking off trees, generally crests begin to break into spindrift, foam blown in streaks impedes progress Strong Gale High waves (23-32 ft), sea begins to roll, dense streaks of Slight structural damage occurs, foam, spray may reduce visibility slate blows off roofs 10 48-55 Storm Very high waves (29-41 ft) with overhanging crests, sea Seldom experienced on land, trees white with densely blown foam, heavy rolling, lowered broken or uprooted, "considerable visibility structural damage" 11 56-63 Violent Storm Exceptionally high (37-52 ft) waves, foam patches cover sea, visibility more reduced 12 64+ Hurricane Air filled with foam, waves over 45 feet, sea completely white with driving spray, visibility greatly reduced Source: NOAA, NWS, Storm Prediction Center Source: NOAA, NWS, 2018b Warm Air id 10 *s + # ,, Rain Freezing Rain Sleet Snow Frozen pmclpitation Frozen preciphalim Frozen praclpdatlon meMs In Snow falls Melts and reaches melts in warm air. Rain falls shallow warm air. Then through cold air the ground as rain- and freezes on toll surfaces. refreezes into &beef before and reaches rasohing the sajirece. tha stlrrsoe Figure 14-7. Effects of Air Temperature on Winter Precipitation Events TETRA TECH 14-9 Harris County Multi -Hazard Mitigation Action Plan; Volume 1—Area-Wide Elements A freeze is weather marked by low temperatures below 32'F. Agricultural production is seriously affected when temperatures remain below the freezing point for an extended period of time. Areas unaccustomed to freezing temperatures are more susceptible to associated damages and threats to public health and safety. Extreme cold can often accompany severe winter storms. Wind can exacerbate the effects of cold temperatures by carrying heat away from the body more quickly, thus making it feel colder than is indicated by the temperature. This phenomenon is known as wind chill. Wind chill is the temperature that your body feels when the air temperature is combined with wind speed. Figure 14-8 shows the value of wind chill based on ambient temperature and wind speed. As the wind increases, the body is cooled at a faster rate, causing the skin temperature to drop. Wind chill does not impact inanimate objects like car radiators and exposed water pipes, because these objects cannot cool below the actual air temperature. Figure 14-8. Wind Chill Chart 14.2 HAZARD PROFILE 14.2.1 Past Events Source: National Weather Service/NOAA According to the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC), the severe weather event history for the planning area is extensive. Since 1999 (the past 20 years), there have been a total of 401 days where severe weather events were significant enough to be recorded by the NCDC. These events were across all five categories of severe weather events profiled for this assessment. Table 14-5 provides the statistical breakdown of these events. Table 14-6 provides a summary of the more significant events by category during this time frame. 14-10 TETRA TECH 14. Severe Weather Table 14-5. Statistical Breakdown of Severe Weather Events; 1999 to 2019 CategoryDays Casualties PropertyDamage Thunderstorm 195 29 $34.7 million Hail 118 None reported $22.4 million Heat 44 41 None Reported Tornado 36 7 $22.4 million Winter Storm/Freeze 8 5 $5,000 Total 401 82 $79.5 million Source: National Centers for Environmental Information, 2019 Table 14-6. Significant Severe Weather Events by Cate o ; 1999 to 2019 Date Event Typeor •. Damage Extreme Heat 8/1/1999 Heat 6 None Reported Description: Excessive heat plagued southeast Texas for the entire month of August. At Houston Intercontinental, high temperatures exceeded 100 degrees on 10 days out of the month, and 95 degrees on 29 out of the 31 days of the month. High temperature records were set on 4 days out of the month, and record high minimum temperatures were set on another 4 days. The temperature of 105 degrees on the 20th was the hottest temperature recorded at Houston Intercontinental Airport since 1980. 7/6/200 Heat 17 None Reported Description: Excessive heat impacted southeast Texas for much of the month of July. High temperatures ranged from 98 to 105 degrees on a daily basis over all but the immediate coast during a 2-week period. College Station recorded 12 consecutive days with temperatures of 100 degrees or higher. Highest temperatures for the month included 103 degrees at Houston Intercontinental Airport and 105 degrees at College Station. Only traces of rainfall were observed during this period. Of the 19 heat related deaths reported during this period, 17 were in Harris County and 2 were in Galveston County. 8/6/2001 Heat Description: Male died of heat exposure while exercising. 6/28/2004 Heat Description: Man collapsed and died while mowing lawn. 9/21 /2005 Heat None Reported None Reported 34 None reported Description: Deaths were all associated with the evacuation for Hurricane Rita, both before and after Rita's arrival. Rita made landfall just east of the Texas/Louisiana border early Saturday morning, September 24th. 6/24/2009 Heat None Reported Description: An upper level ridge built over the area, corresponding to a period of hot and humid conditions. A number of indirect fatalities were attributed to the heat. Hot, humid conditions led to heat indices above 105 degrees for several days in late June. 7/13/2015 Heat 1 None Reported Description: A male construction worker died after a full day of outdoor activity during a day with high temperatures in the 90s. A 53- year-old man died from complications from hyperthermia after a full day of outdoor construction work based on coroner's report. Maximum ambient heat index was around 100 F that day. 8/21 /2017 Heat Description: A jogger died of heatstroke while jogging in a Seabrook park. 6/4/2018 Heat Description: A jogger died of heatstroke while jogging in a Seabrook park. 7/19/2018 Heat None Reported None reported None reported Description: A three -year -old boy died after being left unattended for at least four hours in a hot vehicle. Law enforcement said the temperature inside the vehicle was at least 113 degrees. TETRA TECH 14-11 Harris County Multi -Hazard Mitigation Action Plan; Volume 1—Area-Wide Elements Hail 9/8/1999 Hail 0 $15K Description: Hail storm with hail up to 0.75" in size impacted LaPorte causing property damage. 4/2/200 Hail 0 $200K Description: Hail shattered windows and damaged cars in the Province Square subdivision along Becker Rd. and Botkins Rd. Hail up to 1.75" observed in many portions of the County. 4/16/2001 Hail 0 $20M Description: Numerous reports of hail on the west side of Houston. 0.75 inch to 1.5 inch hail along I-10 between Hunters Creek Village and the West Loop. 1 to 1.5 inch hail near South Braeswood and Fondren Road accumulated to several inches deep and was still on the ground 24 hours after the storm. 1.5 inch hail near South Post Oak Road and West Bellfort. 1 inch hail at Westheimer and Hillcroft. 0.8 inch hail near Gessner and Highway 59. Numerous reports of windows broken, and trees and shrubs stripped of their leaves. Hail up to 1.75" observed in many portions of the County. 2/21/2002 Hail 0 $15K Description: Storm spotter reported 1.00 inch hail at FM 249 and Beltway 8. 6/4/2004 Hail 0 $100K Description: Hail at Pasadena Blvd and Red Bluff Road. Hail up to 1.75" observed in Pasadena. 3/13/2005 Hail 0 $25K Description: Reported at the intersection of West 19th and Yale. Hail up to 1.75" observed in many portions of the County. 5/4/2006 Hail 0 $100K Description: Quarter to tea cup size hail in the Champions Forest Subdivision. 5/26/2011 Hail 0 150K Description: The trailing cold front from a strong storm system across the north central states triggered evening and overnight severe thunderstorms with very large hail and strong wind gusts across portions of southeast Texas. Ping pong ball size hail occurred in the Pasadena area. 8/1/2016 Hail 0 $15K Description: A strong upper level storm system moved across the area that aided in the generation of regional thunderstorms. The stronger thunderstorms produced large hail. Tennis ball sized hail occurred in Bellaire. 5/9/2019 Hail 0 $0 Description: Shortwave disturbances traveling across a slow -moving frontal boundary within a moist air mass allowed for the development of high rainfall producing storms. Ping pong ball sized hail was blowing through house windows. Tornado 11/24/2000 Tornado 0 $350K Description: Tornado touched down near intersection of Preston and Crenshaw. Roof blown off of home in Parkgate subdivision. Roof peeled off large storage building. Damage to windows and trailers at First Presbyterian Church. Fences and trees knocked over on western edge of adjoining neighborhood with portion of roof torn off Turner Elementary. 10/11/2001 Tornado 0 $3.75 M Description: 120 homes, 3 apartment complexes, 2 schools, and some businesses damaged by a tornado. The tornado touched down near Fairmont and Shaver, moving northeast to near the intersection of Southmore and Red -Bluff Road. 3/30/2002 Tornado 0 $350K Description: This Tornado began its path in the Shoreacres subdivision, 3 miles south of La Porte, with a home on Greenleaf Road receiving structural and roof damage (F1), then moved northeast and partially demolished a Super Mart on Broadway (F3), then ripped through an apartment complex across the street causing major roof and window damage and knocking down trees (F2), collapsing a car garage and destroying at least one car. Just northeast of the apartments, a few homes had minor damage with fences and large trees down. On Carlisle Street, in the Bayside Terrace subdivision, a few homes had minor roof damage, yard trees down, and debris from the convenience store, while part of the roof off the Super Mart dropped onto a Truck parked at the north end of Carlisle next to Galveston Bay. No injuries were reported. A survey was conducted. 14-12 TETRA TECH 14. Severe Weather 11/17/2003 Tornado 0 $500K Description: A total of 24 tornados touched down during this 15 hour period of severe weather in southeastern Texas on November 17, 2003. In addition to these tornados, a major flood developed over Harris and surrounding counties during the middle of this tornadic outbreak. Over 300 homes, along with hundreds of vehicles, were flooded. Tornado touched down in the Meadows subdivision in Fort Bend County and traveled into Harris County. Tornado moved over the intersection of West Bellfort and Kirkwood. Numerous apartments lost roofs in the extensive SW Village Apartment Complex damage. 10/31/2015 Tornado 0 $12.00 M Description: An EF-2 tornado began near the Genoa Red Bluff and Red Bluff intersection in Pasadena and ended near the Spencer Highway and Myrtle Creek Drive intersection in La Porte. The tornado caused extensive tree, fence and power line damage. Low end EF- 2 damage was observed where the tornado demolished an industrial building and caused significant roof loss to several homes in La Porte. One of these homes lost a portion of an exterior brick wall. The estimated peak wind was 125 mph. 4/27/2016 Tornado 1 $200K Description: NWS surveyed storm damage in the Willow Creek area. A west-northwest to east-southeast damage path was found just less than a half mile long. Numerous large trees were uprooted, several onto homes. An elderly woman died with a large tree crashed into her mobile home. Soils were extremely soft from recent rains and flooding. 3/29/2017 Tornado 2 Injuries $300K Description: This EF-1 was the third brief tornado with the larger mesocyclone associated with the HP supercell which moved across La Porte and Morgan's Point. This couplet was well defined on the Houston Hobby terminal doppler radar which spun up quickly along the north side of strong westerly outflow winds from the initial couplet that was responsible for two earlier weak tornados near and in parts of La Porte. This tornado was witnessed to start near the railroad tracks near Highway 146 and it tracked east southeastward across the Barbours Cut Port Facility and parts of Morgan's Point. Much of the more significant damage was to industrial areas around the Port complex. Large steel storage tanks were bent inward from the wind, and many large, metal shipping containers were toppled over. The tornado lifted near the eastern end of Morgan's Point near the Ship Channel. Estimated peak winds were around 105 mph. Thunderstorm 8/31/1999 Thunderstorm (wind) 1 $990K Description: A construction worker was killed when the Hawthorne Suites Motel under construction at intersection of Beltway 8 and Stancliff collapsed. Roof damage reported at Gillman Subaru at Bellaire and U.S. 59, and wall of glass blown down at Red Lion Hotel in Galleria area. Traffic light damaged at intersection of Corporate Dr. and Bellaire, and power lines downed in Westbury area. Numerous reports of trees down across central and southwest Houston including along 5th Street in Alief and in Westbury area. Highest wind gust of 63 MPH at KPRC-TV on U.S. 59. 4/2/2000 Thunderstorm (Wind) 0 $800K Description: Extensive wind damage over a 3 square mile area along Becker Rd. and Botkins Rd. in the Province Square subdivision. Two homes destroyed and over 20 homes damaged from downburst winds. A barn was also destroyed with several head of livestock injured and trees uprooted. 4/16/2001 Thunderstorm (wind) 0 $15M Description: Numerous reports of trees down on the west side of Houston. Power lines down near South Post Oak Road and Beltway 8. 6/1/2004 Thunderstorm (Lightning) 1 None Reported Description: 65-year-old woman killed when lightning struck a nearby pine tree while she was walking to catch a bus (Key Map 492S). 5/29/2005 Thunderstorm (Lightning) 0 $200K Description: Lightning strike sparked a fire that destroyed a church sanctuary. 8/19/2015 Thunderstorm (Lightning) 0 $150K Description: A lightning strike from an afternoon thunderstorm destroyed a home in Deer Park. 4/3/2018 Thunderstorm (Wind) 0 $2.OM Description: There was significant damage to a hanger and surrounding aircraft at Houston Hobby Airport due to a microburst. Four aircraft inside the hanger and four aircraft outside of the hanger sustained damage. Hangar destroyed. Debris deposited toward the south and southeast. TETRA TECH 14-13 Harris County Multi -Hazard Mitigation Action Plan; Volume 1—Area-Wide Elements Storm/Freeze 1/16/2007 Ice Storm 0 $5K Description: A very cold arctic air mass ascending down upon Texas, combined with southwesterly upper level disturbances, produced freezing rain across the northern and central regions of southeast Texas. Widespread ice accumulation on roads, bridges, and the roofing of general structures across the northern and central portions of the county. U.S. 290 to the Harris -Waller county line and the entry ramps on sections of Beltway 8 were iced over. 1/23/2014 Winter Storm 0 None Reported Description: Snow totals between 1 and 4 inches and some freezing rain was produced by a storm system that moved across the area during the late night and morning hours. Freezing rain produced significant icing on bridges and overpasses with several road closures in and around the Houston area and numerous accidents. Around a tenth of an inch of ice formed on bridges and overpasses from freezing rain and some sleet. The icing caused numerous accidents. Many major routes around Houston were closed due to icy conditions. 3/3/2014 Winter Storm 0 None reported Description: An upper level disturbance moved across the area and generated light to moderate precipitation within a near freezing air mass. There was an accumulation of ice from freezing rain that formed upon numerous vehicles, trees, power lines, and roadways. As a result, there were downed tree limbs and power lines that caused regional power outages. There was an eighth of an inch of ice accumulation on vehicles and trees at the intersection of Richmond and Beltway 8. Source: National Centers for Environmental Information, 2019 14.2.2 Location The entire Harris County planning area is at risk for the severe weather events assessed for this plan. 14.2.3 Frequency Severe weather events can impact the planning area at any time and are frequent based on the review of historical data. Using the data provided in Table 14-5, the probability of the Harris County planning area and all participating jurisdictions being affected by a severe weather event is once every 0.05 years or every 18.2 days. For the risk assessment for this plan update, the probability of occurrence for this hazard is considered "high". 14.2.4 Severity The severity that severe weather events can bring is evidenced by the fact that severe weather events profiled in this chapter have caused the deaths of 82 people and over $70 million of reported property damage. Thunderstorms The National Weather Service classifies a thunderstorm as "severe" if it produces a tornado, has winds of at least 58 mph, or has hail at least 1 inch in diameter (NOAA, NWS, 2018c). The effects on the Harris County planning area of a strong thunderstorm can include fallen trees, downed power lines and interruption of transportation lifelines, damaged homes and public buildings. Fatalities are uncommon, but they can occur. Lightning can cause severe damage and can be deadly. The entire planning area can expect to experience the full range of thunderstorms in the future, which may vary in duration, intensity and severity. The worst -case scenario event is a storm with a Lightning Activity Level of 6 (see Section 14.1.1) or a Thunderstorm Risk Category of 5-HIGH (see Table 14-1). Hail Damage caused by hailstones depends on the hail's size, density, free -fall velocity, shape, directionality, and angle of impact. Pea -sized hail (1/4 of an inch) or marble -sized hail (1/2 inch) might not cause damage. Anything larger, say a dime or a quarter (3/4 to one inch) can cause serious damage. Golf -ball -sized hail is 1-3/4 inches and 14-14 TETRA TECH 14. Severe Weather softball -sized hail is 4-1/2 inches according to NOAA. The entire planning area can expect to experience the entire range of hail sizes (H-0 to H-10; see Table 14-2) and intensity in the future, from potentially non -damaging to super hailstorms. Extreme Heat Impacts on the Harris County planning area due to extreme heat include but are not limited to negative health effects associated with heat due to the increased temperatures, increased risk of heat island effect, crop and vegetation damages, and isolated to widespread power outage. Highways, roads and transportation systems may also be damaged by excessive heat. Electric systems are impacted when power lines sag in high temperatures and the added demand for electricity can create rolling black -outs or power outages. Prolonged excessive heat can also lead to degradation of water quality, stress and breaks of water piping systems and negatively impact wildlife populations and natural resources. This is most dangerous for the small population without air conditioners (Texas Division of Emergency Management, 2013). A heat advisory is issued by the National Weather Service (NWS) within 12 hours of the heat index reaching one of two criteria levels: The NWS Houston Galveston (NWS-HGX) office criteria for a heat advisory is a heat index of 108 °F or higher for two consecutive days. The NWS-HGX maintains the heat advisory until the max heat index falls below 105 °F. In much of the rest of the county, an advisory is issued if there is a heat index of at least 105°F but less than 115°F for less than 3 hours per day and/or if nighttime low temperatures are above 80°F for two consecutive days. Tornados and Damaging Winds The destruction caused by tornados in the planning area can range from light to severe, depending on the intensity, size, and duration of the storm. Impacts include but are not limited to temporary displacement of residents and businesses, limited mobility for residents and responders, loss of life, isolated power outages, and temporary closure or limited access to critical infrastructure facilities. The planning area and all participating jurisdictions can expect to experience a tornado ranging from EFO to EF5 on the Enhanced Fujita Scale (Table 14-3). The majority of tornados that occur in Harris County are of the EFO scale with estimated wind speeds from 65 to 85 mph. The intensity and severity of a tornado event may vary within the planning area due to temperature, high winds, straight-line winds, downbursts and accompanying hazards like thunderstorms, heavy rains and hail. Damaging winds are those that exceed 50 to 60 mph. The Beaufort Wind Chart (Table 14-4) provides terminology and a description of potential impacts at different levels (National Severe Storms Laboratory, 2018). A worst -case scenario for the planning area would be a Beaufort Force Scale 12 event, which features wind speeds in excess of 64 knots and is classified as a hurricane. Winter Storms and Freeze Winter storms are generally categorized by the amount of precipitation, degree of cold or wind chill, and strength of winds. A blizzard occurs when a winter storm has sustained or frequent wind gusts of 30 mph or greater and considerable falling and/or blowing snow that reduces visibility to less than a quarter mile. Generally, blizzards last for a period of three hours or longer (NOAA, NWS, 2009). Snowfall is generally considered heavy when 4 inches or more accumulates in 12 hours or less, or 6 inches or more accumulates in 24 hours or less. In the planning area, severe winter storms generally consist of rain and wind events, rarely snow and ice. TETRA TECH 14-15 Harris County Multi -Hazard Mitigation Action Plan; Volume 1—Area-Wide Elements The lowest temperature ever recorded in the planning area was 5 °F on January 18, 1930 (NWS HGX). The lowest wind chill possible at that temperature is —26 °F (see Figure 14-8). A worst -case scenario for the planning area would be any event with wind chill lower than —26 'F. The effects of an ice storm or snowstorm are downed power lines and trees and a large increase in traffic accidents. These storms can cause death by exposure, heart failure due to strenuous snow removal activity, traffic accidents (over 85 percent of ice storm deaths are caused by traffic accidents), and carbon monoxide poisoning. These storms also have the potential to cause large losses of livestock, primarily due to dehydration. Two major concerns for snowfall are dangerous roadway conditions and collapse of structures due to heavy snow load on roofs. In addition, ice can create dangerous situations on roadways as well as freeze pipes. 14.2.5 Warning Time Meteorologists can often predict the likelihood of a severe thunderstorms. This can give several days of warning time. However, meteorologists cannot predict the exact time of onset or severity of a storm. Some storms may come on quickly, with only a few hours of warning time. 14.3 SECONDARY HAZARDS Localized flooding can occur when heavy rain overwhelms local drainage systems or pools in low-lying areas. Rain falling on saturated soils on slopes or on areas recently burned by wildfire may lead to landslides. Lightning during thunderstorms presents a risk of starting a wildfire. 14.4 EXPOSURE All the people, property (including critical facilities and infrastructure), and environment of the planning area are exposed to some degree to the severe weather hazard. 14.5 VULNERABILITY 14.5.1 Population The most common problems associated with severe weather events are immobility and loss of utilities. Although all populations in the planning area are exposed to severe weather events, some populations are more vulnerable. Vulnerable populations are the elderly, low income or linguistically isolated populations, people with life - threatening illnesses, and residents living in areas that are isolated from major roads. Power outages can be life threatening to those dependent on electricity for life support. Populations living at higher elevations with large stands of trees or power lines may be more susceptible to wind damage and black out, while populations in low- lying areas are at risk for possible flooding. In general, populations who lack adequate shelter during severe weather events, those who are reliant on sustained sources of power in order to survive, and those who live in isolated areas with limited ingress and egress options are the most vulnerable. The most common impacts of specific weather event types on people are as follows: Damaging Winds —Debris carried by extreme winds and trees felled by gusty conditions can contribute directly to loss of life and indirectly to the failure of protective building envelopes. Utility lines brought down by thunderstorms have also been known to cause fires, which start in dry roadside vegetation. Electric power lines falling down to the pavement create the possibility of lethal electric shock. Extreme TemperaturesIndividuals with physical or mobility constraints, cognitive impairments, economic constraints, or social isolation are typically at greater risk to the adverse effects of excessive 14-16 TETRA TECH 14. Severe Weather heat events. The average summertime mortality for excessive heat events is dependent upon the methodology used to derive such estimates. Certain medical conditions, such as heat stroke, can be directly attributable to excessive heat, while others may be exacerbated by excessive heat, resulting in medical emergencies. Individuals who lack shelter and heating are particularly vulnerable to extreme cold and wind chill Thunderstorms —Nationally, lighting is one of the leading causes of weather -related fatalities. Lightning strikes are far more common in other areas of the country than they are in the west. The majority of injuries and deaths associated with lighting strikes occur when people are outdoors; however, almost one- third of lightning -related injuries occur indoors. Males are five times more likely than females to be struck by lighting and people between the ages of 15 and 34 account for 41 percent of all lightning strike victims (CDC, 2013). Hail —It is possible for hailstones of significant size to kill an adult who is unable to find cover during a hailstorm. Massive hailstones are known to cause fatal head trauma or concussions. 14.5.2 Property All property is vulnerable during the severe weather events profiled in this chapter, but properties in poor condition or in particularly vulnerable locations may risk the most damage. Those in higher elevations and on ridges may be more prone to wind damage. Those that are located under or near overhead lines or near large trees may be vulnerable to falling ice or may be damaged in the event of a collapse. Extreme heat events are not known for causing direct damage to buildings, but may damage building systems such as heating, ventilation and cooling systems or infrastructure. Loss estimations for the severe weather hazards profiled in this assessment are not based on damage functions, because no such damage functions have been generated. Instead, loss estimates were developed representing 10 percent, 30 percent and 50 percent of the replacement value of exposed structures. This allows emergency managers to select a range of potential economic impact based on an estimate of the percent of damage to the general building stock. Damage in excess of 50 percent is considered to be substantial by most building codes and typically requires total reconstruction of the structure. Table 14-7 lists the loss estimates. 14.5.3 Critical Facilities All critical facilities are vulnerable during severe weather events, especially those that lack backup power generation capabilities. If facilities supplying power to planning area land line telephone systems were disrupted, significant issues would arise with communication in the planning area. In addition, some facilities are particularly vulnerable to specific types of severe weather events: Critical facilities in the direct path of a tornado would be particularly vulnerable. Facilities located near trees or power lines that are likely to fall are also vulnerable. Roads and other transportation infrastructure could be blocked by downed trees or other debris. Electric power losses due to severe weather can be estimated using standard values for loss of service for utilities published in FEMA's 2009 Benefit Cost Analysis Reference Guide. The values associated with the loss of power are based on the affected population. Table 14-8 presents estimates for power failure associated with severe weather in the event of 10, 30 or 50 percent of the total planning area population losing power simultaneously. These results do not account for physical damage to utility equipment and infrastructure. TETRA TECH 14-17 Harris County Multi -Hazard Mitigation Action Plan; Volume 1—Area-Wide Elements Table 14-7. Loss Potential for Severe Weather Ba towns $11,458,106,691 $1,145,810,669 $3,437,432,007 Bellaire $5,726,227,131 $572,622,713 $1,717,868,139 Bunker Hill Village $1,322,346,729 $5,845,168,035 $469,295,696 $6,185,226,675 $132,234,673 $396,704,019 Deer Park $584,516,804 $1,753,550,411 El Lago $46,929,570 $618,522,667 $140,788,709 Friendswoodc $1,855,568,002 Galena Park Hedwig Village _ Hilshire Village $1,178,706,765 $1,142,111,969 $207,926,478 $117,870,677 =14,211,197 $20,792,648 $48,737,942,823 $457,045,688 $353,612,030 $342,633,591 $62,377,943 Houstona, b $487,379,428,234 $146,213,828,470 Humble $4,570,456,883 $1,371,137,065 untersCreek Village Jacinto Citya Jersey Katyc $1,787,651,957 8,765,196 $536,295,587 $378,333,366 $1,261,111,221 $126,111,122 $2,275,428,136 $227,542,8 $682,628,441 $1,018,955,323 $3,396,517,744 $339,651,774 La Porte $6,575,613,440 $657,561,344 $1,972,684,032 League Citya, b $280,449,911 $28,044,991 $84,134,973 Missouri Cityc $12,398,706,197 $1,239,870,620 $3,719,611,859 Morgan's Point $262,314,866 $26,231,487 $78,694,460 Nassau Bay $1,635,924,802 $22,505,882,445 $709,046,327 $163,592,480 $2,250,588,244 $490,777,441 $6,751,764,733 $212,713,898 Pasadena Pearlanda $70,904,633 Piney Point Village $1,817,131,583 $181,713,158 $545,139,475 Seabrool $2,537,671,414 $253,767,141 $761,301L424 Shoreacres $218,188,519 South Houstona $2,162,541,092 Southside Placea $471,918,214 $21,818,852 T $216,254,109 $47,191,821 $65,456,556 $648,762,328 $141,575,464 pring Valley Village $1,227,871,955 $122,787,196 Staffordc $6,102,429,982 $610,242,998 aylor Lake Village $690,404,692 9,040,469 Tomball $3,569,286,191 $356,928,619 Wallera, b $221,680,638 $22,168,064 Webster $5,700,342,104 $570,034,210 West University Place $3,722,134,705� $372,213,470 Unincor orated $321,033,774,612 $32,103,377,461 $928,049,024,033 $92,804,902,402 $368,361,587 $1,830,728,995 $207,121,408 $1,070,785,857 $66,504,191 $1,710,102,631 $1,116,640,411 $96,310,132,384 $278,414,707,210 a. City at least partly in Harris County not participating as planning partner to his hazard mitigation plan b. City extends beyond Harris County. Values shown are for Harris County portion only. c. City extends beyond Harris County. Values shown are for entire city. $5,729,053,346 $2,863,113,565 $661,173,365 $2,922,584,018 $234,647,848 $3,092,613,337 $589,353,383 $571,055,984 10 $103,963,239 $243,689,714,117 $2,285,228,442 $893,825,979 $630,555,611 $1,137,714,068 $1,698,258,872 $3,287,806,720 $140,224,956 $6,199,353,098 $131,157,433 $817,962,401 $11,252,941,222 $354,523,163 $908,565,792 $1,268,835,707 $109,094,260 $1,081,270,546 , $235,959,107 $613,935,978 $3,051,214,991 $110,840,319 $2,850,171,052 $1,861,067,352 $160,516,887,306 $464,024,512,019 14-18 TETRA TECH 14. Severe Weather Table 14-8. Loss of Use Estimates for Power Failure for the Planning Area 10% 482,177 $62.2 million 30% 1,446,531 $186.6 million 50% 2,410,885 $311 million a. $126 per person per day; assuming 24 hours of functional downtime, based on FEMA's 2009 Benefit Cost Analysis Reference Guide 14.5.4 Environment The environment is highly vulnerable to severe weather events. Natural habitats such as streams and trees exposed to the elements during a severe storm risk major damage. Prolonged rains can saturate soils and lead to slope failure. Extended periods of extreme heat can impact drops and agriculture. Perhaps one of the most destructive effects of severe weather events can be observed on farms. A hailstorm with powerful winds can physically damage crops across large areas. The falling hailstones and strong winds bend and break plants and strip them of leaves and bark. Thus, farmers suffer heavy losses during such storms. Months of hard work by farmers can be destroyed almost instantly. 14.6 FUTURE TRENDS IN DEVELOPMENT All fixture development will be affected by severe weather events. As the Harris County planning continues to grow as projected in Chapter 4, section 4.6.6 of this plan, the key to mitigating the future impacts from severe weather events will be the continued adoption and enforcement strong codes and standards within the planning area. The core capability assessments by the municipal planning partners to this effort identified a strong commitment to adoption of uniform codes and standards, which will position the planning partnership well for the mange hurricane risk for fixture development. 14.7 SCENARIO A worst -case severe -weather event would involve prolonged high winds during a tornado or thunderstorm event. Such an event would have both short-term and long-term effects. Initially, schools and roads would be closed due to power outages caused by high winds and downed tree obstructions. Some areas of the county could experience limited ingress and egress. Intense rainfall associated with thunderstorm activity would produce flooding, overtopped culverts with ponded water on roads and mud over roadways. Prolonged power outage would have a significant economic impact on the planning area due to the area's reliance on power. 14.8 ISSUES Important issues associated with severe weather in the planning area include the following: • Older building stock in the planning area is built to low code standards or none at all. These structures could be highly vulnerable to severe weather events such as damaging winds. • Mobile homes are vulnerable to damaging winds. • Redundancy of power supply must be evaluated, especially for critical facilities. • Dead or dying trees are more susceptible to falling during severe storm events. • Power outages that disrupt land line service could cause significant communication disruption. • 16.8 percent of the county population is considered to be below the poverty status for the County. This population may lack the core capabilities to withstand impacts from severe weather events. • 10.2 percent of the county population is over 65 years of age, which is considered a vulnerable population to the impacts from severe weather. TETRA TECH 14-19 Harris County Multi -Hazard Mitigation Action Plan; Volume 1—Area-Wide Elements • Detailed spatial analysis is needed to locate the most vulnerable populations, followed by focused public education and outreach mitigation activities for these populations. • Climate change may cause more severe weather patterns that could impact vulnerable populations within the planning area. Increased frequency and intensity of storms may result in greater damage. • The risk associated with the severe weather hazard overlaps the risk associated with other hazards such as earthquake, landslide and flood. This provides an opportunity to seek mitigation alternatives with multiple objectives that can reduce risk for multiple hazards. • Isolated population centers are most vulnerable to the severe weather hazard. • Public education on dealing with the impacts of severe weather needs to continue to be provided so that citizens can be better informed and prepared for severe weather events. In particular, fog should be considered, since fog may be downplayed despite its potential for transportation accidents. • Debris management (downed trees, etc.) must be addressed, because debris can impact the severity of severe weather events, requires coordination efforts, and may require additional funding. 14-20 TETRA TECH 15. TSUNAMI 15.1 GENERAL BACKGROUND A tsunami is a series of high-energy waves that radiate outward like pond ripples from an area where a generating event occurs, arriving at shorelines over an extended period. Tsunamis can be induced by earthquakes, landslides and submarine volcanic explosions (see Figure 15-1). Tsunamis are typically classified as local or distant, depending on the location of their source in comparison to where waves occur: The waves nearest to the generating source represent a local tsunami. Such events have minimal warning time, leaving few options except to run to high ground. The damage from the tsunami itself may be accompanied by additional damage from the triggering earthquake due to ground shaking, surface faulting, liquefaction or landslides. The waves far from the generating source represent a distant tsunami. Distant tsunamis may travel for hours before striking a coastline, giving a community a chance to implement evacuation plans. � 1 � Saar CX%M k � 5ubaenal ;a {ai7al id a as Tsunarr 1 ,moo "A P� Sl; sur'aca ¢8C �. Submarine landslide r' } sea Tsurami SUFdU of /f Sa; Moor mae. PAW MW 1w ("A =au 11ng dY Sr9 aC99M1R06f KiIy JYGdk:Oe a lsunafnF Sabau W ur submanre Iandulidaa may pruduw u taurian . nsi.nrcavfr>r yplprjp �lprtt111a POd11Gf;tWllvlll. Figure 15-1. Common Sources of Tsunamis In the open ocean, a tsunami may be only a few inches or feet high, but it can travel with speeds approaching 600 miles per hour. As a tsunami enters the shoaling waters near a coastline, its speed diminishes, its wavelength decreases, and its height increases greatly. At the shoreline, tsunamis may take the form of a fast -rising tide, a cresting wave, or a bore (a large, turbulent wall-like wave). The bore phenomenon resembles a step -like change in the water level that advances rapidly (from 10 to 60 miles per hour). The first wave is usually followed by several larger and more destructive waves. The configuration of the coastline, the shape of the ocean floor, and the characteristics of advancing waves play important roles in the destructiveness of the waves. Bays, sounds, inlets, rivers, streams, offshore canyons, islands, and flood control channels may cause various effects that alter the level of damage. Offshore canyons can TETRA TECH 15-1 Harris County Multi -Hazard Mitigation Action Plan; Volume 1—Area-Wide Elements focus tsunami wave energy, and islands can filter the energy. It has been estimated that a tsunami wave entering a flood control channel could reach a mile or more inland, especially if it enters at high tide. The orientation of the coastline determines whether the waves strike head-on or are refracted from other parts of the coastline. A wave may be small at one point on a coast and much larger at other points. The inundation area for a tsunami event is often described as runup as illustrated in Figure 15-2. Source: UNESCO, Retrieved from Different Directions: Tsunami, n.d. Inundation line or .VIJNAMI limit TSUNAMI ` Maximum Water level water level RUN-UP at shoreline SHORELINE DATUM _ INUNDATION HORIZONTAL FLOODING DAT Af is mean sea levet Maximum Water Level may be or mean loin grater at time located at shoreline or the inundation tsunami attack, Ifne or anywhere in between. Figure 15-2. Runup Distance and Height in Relation to the Datum and Shoreline 15.2 HAZARD PROFILE 15.2.1 Past Events Though tsunamis are more likely to affect west coast states, historical evidence does show that tsunamis have affected the eastern United States and Gulf of Mexico, including Texas. The following Texas tsunami evidence was gathered from the National Geophysical Data Center (Tsunami Event Database): October 24, 1918A small tsunami, reported to have originated with an earthquake near Puerto Rico, ran ashore in Galveston. Wave height was unknown. No damage, deaths or injuries were recorded. May 2, 1922—Three tsunami waves ran ashore in Galveston within a 45-minute period, followed 8 hours later by a similar but smaller train of waves. The maximum water height of the highest wave was 0.6 meters above sea level. Researchers maintain that there is some question regarding the origin and nature of these tsunamis, noting that the waves were probably erroneously ascribed to a small earthquake in Puerto Rico (NOAA Center for Tsunami Research). Research of historical data shows no recorded property damage or loss of life due to tsunami in the Harris County planning area. In addition, the State of Texas Mitigation Plan does not identify tsunamis as a hazard for any location within the State of Texas. According to Figure 15-3, which identifies the tsunami hazard risk areas in the United States based on historical event impacts, the Texas Gulf Coast region (including Harris County) is not identified as a risk area. 15-2 TETRA TECH 15. Tsunami Figure 15-3. Tsunami Risk Based on Historical Impact Events 15.2.2 Location The Texas A&M University at Galveston Tsunami Research Group has developed a 3D numerical model for what could happen after a submarine landslide. The 3D model is combined with a 2D model to depict how a tsunami could affect coastal areas (see Figure 15-4). There is currently no extent and location mapping of the tsunami hazard available to support tsunami hazard risk assessment for this plan. 30.5 38 29.5 29 m a W 28 7 F 27.5 J 27 26.5 26 25.5 Source: AL.com, 2015 ". 15 0 2 12 9 3 4_. ms 9 ,Y uTIME 336 :: 0 �a 6 45 F is 0 3 N 97.5 97 96.5 96 95.5 95 94.5 94 93.5 93 92.5 92 91.5 91 90.5 90 39.5 89 88.5 88 87.5 87 86.5 86 85.5 85 84.5 84 83.5 33 82.5 82 81.5 81 80 LONGITUDE (deg) Figure 15-4. Texas A&M Galveston Tsunami Model Simulation Lim TETRA TECH 15-3 Harris County Multi -Hazard Mitigation Action Plan; Volume 1—Area-Wide Elements 15.2.3 Frequency Preliminary modeling of potential tsunami sources outside the Gulf of Mexico by USGS has indicated a very low threat and may not pose a tsunami hazard to the Gulf coastal communities or infrastructure. Nevertheless, recent assessments of tsunami hazards along the Gulf of Mexico carried out by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and the National Tsunami Hazard Mitigation Program have identified underwater landslides as the primary potential source of tsunami generation. Although a massive underwater landslide in the Gulf is considered a potential hazard, the probability of such an event is quite low. The probability of occurrence is related to large ancient landslides which were probably active prior to 7,000 years ago when large quantities of sediments were emptied into the Gulf. However, nowadays sediments continue to empty into the Gulf mainly from the Mississippi river. The sediment supply contributes to slope steepening and also to the increasing of the excess pore water pressure in the underlying soils, which may lead to further landslide activities. Recent evidence from seismic records of small-scale energetic seismic -waves in the Gulf have confirmed that there is a probability of recurrence. For the risk assessment for this plan update, the probability of occurrence for this hazard is considered "low." 15.2.4 Severity According to the National Tsunami Hazard Mitigation Program, tsunami events with runups of more than 1 meter are the most likely to be dangerous to people and property. The tsunami's size and speed, as well as the coastal area's form and depth, affect the impact of a tsunami. At some locations, the advancing turbulent wave front will be the most destructive part of the tsunami wave. In other situations, the greatest damage will be caused by the outflow of water back to the sea between crests, sweeping away items on the surface and undermining roads, buildings, bulkheads, and other structures. This outflow action can carry enormous amounts of highly damaging debris, resulting in further destruction. Ships and boats, unless moved away from shore, may be dashed against breakwaters, wharves, and other craft, or be washed ashore and left grounded after the withdrawal of the seawater (National Tsunami Hazard Mitigation Program, 2001). A local tsunami resulting from an underwater landslide in the Gulf of Mexico presents the most severe risk to the planning area. 15.2.5 Warning Time While tsunamis in the Gulf of Mexico are rare, the Gulf states were added to the U.S. Tsunami Warning System in 2005. The main purpose of the warning system is to enable local emergency management to act in response to warnings. To plan for the warning response, emergency managers must understand what specific areas within their jurisdictions are threatened by tsunamis. Potential tsunami sources for the Gulf of Mexico are local submarine landslides and earthquakes (induced co -seismic tsunami source) along the Caribbean plate boundary faults. However, preliminary modeling of potential tsunami sources outside the Gulf has indicated a very low threat and may not pose a tsunami hazard to the Gulf coastal communities or infrastructure. Visible Indications Tsunamis are difficult to detect in the open ocean; with waves generally less than 3 feet high. The first visible indication of an approaching tsunami may be either a rise or drop in water surface levels (National Tsunami Hazard Mitigation Program, 2001): A drop in water level (draw down) can be caused by the trough preceding the advancing, large inbound wave crest. Rapid draw down can create strong currents in harbor inlets and channels that can severely damage coastal structures due to erosive scour around piers and pilings. As the water's surface drops, piers can be damaged by boats or ships straining at or breaking their mooring lines. The vessels can overturn or sink due to strong currents, collisions with other objects, or impact with the harbor bottom. The advancing tsunami may initially arrive as a strong surge increasing the sea level. This can be similar to the rising tide, but the tsunami surge rises faster and does not stop at the shoreline. Even if the wave 15-4 TETRA TECH 15. Tsunami height appears to be small, 3 to 6 feet for example, the strength of the accompanying surge can be deadly. Waist -high surges can cause strong currents that float cars, small structures, and other debris. Boats and debris are often carried inland by the surge and left stranded when the water recedes. National Tsunami Warning System The Tsunami Warning Centers depend on an observation system that includes seismic and water -level networks from around the world to help them determine when and where to issue tsunami messages. These networks are critical to the warning centers' ability to provide timely and accurate messages: Seismic Networks —When an earthquake occurs, seismic networks provide information about its location, depth, magnitude, and other source characteristics. The warning centers analyze this information to determine if the earthquake could have generated a tsunami and if a tsunami message is necessary. Water -Level Networks —If an earthquake meets certain criteria, the warning centers turn to water -level information, looking for changes in water -level height that could indicate the existence and size of a tsunami. The primary sources of information about water -level change are a network of Deep -ocean Assessment and Reporting of Tsunami systems and an extensive array of coastal water -level stations. 15.3 SECONDARY HAZARDS Aside from the tremendous hydraulic force of the tsunami waves themselves, floating debris carried by a tsunami can endanger human lives and batter inland structures. Flooding can cause contamination of drinking water and can result in the spread of disease. 15.1 EXPOSURE AND VULNERABILITY The exposure and vulnerability for the people, property, critical facilities/infrastructure, and environment are low to none for the planning area. This is based on the lack of historical occurrence of the tsunami hazard and/or the lack of extent and location data for the planning area to support risk assessment of the tsunami hazard. This does not mean that these types events could not happen in the future, it just means that there is currently no empirical data to assess impacts as of this planning effort. Therefore, no exposure and vulnerability analysis was performed for this hazard. 15.2 FUTURE TRENDS IN DEVELOPMENT Due the lack of exposure and impacts from these hazards, future development in the planning area is not likely to be impacted by the tsunami hazard in the short term. However, as a changing climate continues to influence the frequency, severity and magnitude of hazard events, there could be impacts to future development. Future updates to this plan will have to measure those possibilities as it assesses the mass movement hazards of concern. 15.3 SCENARIO For the performance period of this plan update (5 years), there is no likely tsunami scenario projected to impact the planning area. 15.4 ISSUES Other than a lack of extent and location data to support risk assessment of the tsunami hazard for the planning area, the CPT has identified no issues related to the tsunami hazard. Harris County and its planning partners will continue to monitor conditions as they pertain to this hazard to inform future updates to this plan. TETRA TECH 15-5 16. WILDFIRE 16.1 GENERAL BACKGROUND A wildfire is any uncontrolled fire on undeveloped land that requires fire suppression. Wildfires can occur naturally and are important to many ecosystem processes, but most are started by people. The second most common cause for wildfire is lightning. There are three classes of wildland fires: A surface fire is the most common class and burns along the floor of a forest, moving slowly and killing or damaging trees. A ground fire (muck fire) is usually started by lightning or human carelessness and burns on or below the forest floor. • Crown fires spread rapidly by wind and move quickly by jumping along the tops of trees. Fire probability depends on local weather conditions, outdoor activities such as camping, debris burning, and construction, and the degree of public cooperation regarding the use of fire prevention measures. Drought conditions and other natural disasters (tornadoes, hurricanes, etc.) increase the probability of wildfires by producing fuel in both urban and rural settings. Forest damage from hurricanes and tornadoes may block interior access roads and fire breaks, pull down overhead power lines, or damage pavement and underground utilities. Many individual homes and cabins, subdivisions, resorts, recreational areas, organizational camps, businesses, and industries are located within high fire hazard areas. Increasing recreational demands place more people in wildlands during holidays, weekends, and vacation periods. Unfortunately, wildland residents and visitors are rarely educated or prepared for the inferno that can sweep through the brush and timber, destroying property in minutes. Approximately 90 percent of all wildfires in Texas are believed to be human -caused, due primarily to the unchecked burning of debris. State and local governments can impose fire safety regulations on home sites and developments to help curb wildfire. Land treatment measures such as fire access roads, water storage, helipads, safety zones, buffers, firebreaks, and fuel breaks can be designed as part of an overall fire defense system to aid in fire control. Fuel management, prescribed burning, and cooperative land management planning can also be encouraged to reduce fire hazards. 16.1.1 Fire Risk Index Based on Drought The continuous fire risk index provides a number representing the net effect of evapotranspiration and precipitation in producing cumulative moisture deficiency in deep duff and upper soil layers directly relating to the flammability of organic material in the ground: 0-200—Soil moisture and large class fuel moistures are high and do not contribute much to fire intensity. Typical of spring dormant season following winter precipitation. 200-400—Typical of late spring, early growing season. Lower litter and duff layers are drying and beginning to contribute to fire intensity. 400-600—Typical of late summer, early fall. Lower litter and duff layers actively contribute to fire intensity and will burn actively. TETRA TECH 16-1 Harris County Multi -Hazard Mitigation Action Plan; Volume 1—Area-Wide Elements • 600-800—Often associated with more severe drought with increased wildfire occurrence. Intense, deep burning fires with significant downwind spotting can be expected. Live fuels can also be expected to burn actively at these levels. 16.1.2 Wildfire Classifications The National Wildfire Coordinating Group provides a standard code and definition for classifying a fire into one of several ranges of fire sizes based on the number of acres within the final fire perimeter: • Fire Size Class A-0 — 1/4 acre • Fire Size Class B1/4 — 10 acres • Fire Size Class C10 — 99 acres • Fire Size Class D-100 — 299 acres • Fire Size Class E300 — 999 acres • Fire Size Class F-1,000 — 4,999 acres • Fire Size Class G5,000+ 16.2 HAZARD PROFILE 16.2.1 Past Events Accurate historical occurrence data is difficult to obtain for the wildfire hazard and does not follow a standard criterion. The National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) does not show any history of wildfire within the Harris County planning area since 1950. In determining the historical occurrences of wildfires in the Harris County planning area, wildfires classified as Fire Size Class A were excluded due to their limited impact and size. According to the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the Harris County planning area and all participating jurisdictions experienced 174 wildfires between 2005 and 2016. Table 16-1 outlines the historical occurrences of wildfires in the Harris County planning area for all participating jurisdictions, with the exception of Fire Size Class A. The USGS Federal Wildland Fire Occurrence Data identifies all reported wildfires in the Harris County planning area using the National Fire Incident Reporting System reporting method. The data, shown on Figure 16-1, was utilized for historical occurrence records, vulnerability assessment and risk analysis. 16.2.2 Location The wildfire urban interface definition in the Federal Register was developed to identify communities as risk in the vicinity of public lands; the area where houses meet or intermingle with undeveloped vegetation. The entire planning are can expect to experience wildfires in the future; especially jurisdictions within the wildland urban interface area. Figure 16-2 from the Texas Forest Service identifies the wildfire urban interface areas within Harris County. The intensity and severity of the wildfire may vary within the planning area due to variations in wildland vegetation, defensible space, weather conditions and fuel sources. The sections below describe two sources of fire hazard mapping used for this risk assessment. 16-2 TETRA TECH 16. Wildfire 2005 2006 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Total Source: USGS, 2019 Table 16-1. Wildfire Historical Occurrences in Harris County (2005 — 2016 Fire Size Class Locations B Houston, TX 77044 B, C, and D Cypress, TX 77433 Hockley, TX 77447 Crosby, TX 77532 Tomball, TX 77377 Houston, TX 77044 None Reported N/A None Reported N/A B and C Katy, TX 77493 Houston, TX 77084 Hockley, TX 77447 B and C Houston, TX 77049 Humble, TX 77396 Huffman, TX 77336 Atascocita, TX 77346 Spring, TX 77373 B and C New Caney, TX 77357 Crosby, TX 77532 Huffman, TX 77336 B and C Atascocita, TX 77346 Crosby, TX 77532 Highlands, TX 77562 Houston, TX 77049 Hockley, TX 77084 Humble, TX 77396 Huffman, TX 77336 Atascocita, TX 77346 Spring, TX 77373 We- Tomball, TX 77375 Waller, TX 77484 Webster, TX 77598 B Houston, TX 77044 Houston, TX 7 None reported N/A None r N/A None Reported N/A 21 39 0 0 16 10 3 76 4 1 0 0 0 TETRA TECH 16-3 Harris County Multi -Hazard Mitigation Action Plan; Volume 1—Area-Wide Elements Figure 16-1. Wildfire Historical Occurrence Information for Harris County * 2014 HARRIS COUNTY LMP WILOLAND URBAN INTERFACE �i� Montgomery L _vu • V • �Y �-�iyyy..t. Wa77er <• Legend w -coe HCrCD • ,0— 1 .. MCMD FortBend Jun.UcLa.wl Bounoares dft I MgM1w.Y> Alan-ro.d. wme Cum+r c.w. W ildla ndU rba nl nt a r[a ce Value - mmu 1 N W+E S L+berty Y Chambers Z � G�7vesfon say Braroria Ga7ves[on Figure 16-2. Texas Forest Service Wildland Urban Interface In and Around Harris County 16-4 TETRA TECH 16. Wildfire Wildfire Threat Wildfire threat is the likelihood of a wildfire occurring or burning into an area. Threat is derived by combining a number of landscape characteristics including surface and canopy fuels, resultant fire behavior, historical fire occurrence, percentile weather derived from historical weather observations, and terrain conditions. These inputs are combined using analysis techniques based on established fire science. The measure of wildfire threat used in the Texas Wildfire Risk Assessment is based on the Wildland Fire Susceptibility Index. The index combines the probability of an acre igniting (wildfire ignition density), and the expected final fire size based on rate of spread in four percentile weather categories. The Wildland Fire Susceptibility Index is defined as the likelihood of an acre burning. This index is calculated consistently for all areas in Texas, so it allows for comparison of areas across the entire state. For example, a high threat area in East Texas is equivalent to a high threat area in West Texas. The threat map is derived at a 30-meter resolution. This scale of data was chosen to be consistent with the accuracy of the primary surface fuels dataset used in the assessment. While not appropriate for site specific analysis, it is ideal for state and regional scale analysis. The wildfire threat mapping for the planning area is shown in Figure 16-3. The only wildfire threat zone within the planning area has been classified as "low" as defined by the wildfire threat parameters defined by the Texas Wildfire Risk Assessment Portal. Wildfire lanition Densit The measure of wildfire occurrence used in the Texas Wildfire Risk Assessment is called the wildfire ignition density. Wildfire ignition density is the likelihood of a wildfire starting based on historical ignition patterns. Occurrence is derived by modeling historical wildfire ignition locations to create an average ignition rate map. The ignition rate is measured in the number of fires per year per 1,000 acres. Since all areas in Texas have ignition density calculated consistently, it allows for comparison and ordination of areas across the entire state. For example, a high occurrence area in East Texas is equivalent to a high occurrence area in West Texas. Five years of historic fire report data was used to create the ignition points for all Texas fires. Data was obtained from federal, state and local fire department report data sources for the years 2005 to 2009. For East Texas, additional fire data was obtained for state fires for the years 2000 to 2004. The compiled wildfire occurrence database was cleaned to remove duplicate records and to correct inaccurate locations. The database was then modeled to create a density map reflecting historical fire ignition rates. The Ignition Density map is derived at a 30-meter resolution. This scale of data was chosen to be consistent with the accuracy of the primary surface fuels dataset used in the assessment. While not appropriate for site specific analysis, it is appropriate for regional, county or local planning efforts. The Wildfire Ignition Density mapping for the planning area is shown in Figure 16-4. 16.2.3 Frequency Based on the historical data provided by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the probability of the Harris County planning area and all participating jurisdictions being affected by a wildfire event is once every 0.04 years or 14.6 days. For the risk assessment for this plan update, the probability of occurrence for this hazard is considered "high." TETRA TECH 16-5 Y i \ r , I - 4. 290 ., 146 go=� `'� i. � •d -' ` it-, _ jE., � Iv 14 90 Harris County HMP Project Area t 88 l_ Figure 16-3. Wildfire Threat 1 (Low) r j Incorporated Cities 35 \ \' 3 S 2 Harris County 3 (Moderate) 6 g: 288 > �, 146 \ `- -\Yx X� TETRATEGH 4 6 — 5 (High) 6 96 0 2 4 8 7 (Very High) Miles o� }'`." 00. a ) r �P } ` �z �/ , 1 r _F r I i 290',. r �. ,- L � #} I J ( 90 � 146 C , 225 146 (y 90 Harris County HMP Project Area 88 l- - — — - Figure 16-4. Wildfire Ignition Density 1 (Low) r — - j Incorporated Cities 35 2 Harris County 6 288 3 (Moderate) J� \ „{ 146 (* TETRATEGH 4 6 1 5 (High) 6 96 N - 6 A 0 2 4 8 7 (Very High) Miles Harris County Multi -Hazard Mitigation Action Plan; Volume 1—Area-Wide Elements 16.2.4 Severity Potential losses from wildfire include human life, structures and other improvements, and natural resources. Given the immediate response times to reported fires and the proximity to firefighting resources, the likelihood of injuries and casualties is minimal. However, under the right conditions, fire can move quickly and overwhelm an initial response. Smoke and air pollution from wildfires can be a health hazard, especially for sensitive populations including children, the elderly and those with respiratory and cardiovascular diseases. Wildfire may also threaten the health and safety of those fighting the fires. First responders are exposed to the dangers from the initial incident and after-effects from smoke inhalation and heat stroke. In addition, wildfire can lead to ancillary impacts such as landslides in steep ravine areas and flooding due to the impacts of silt in local watersheds. Smoke generated by wildfire consists of visible and invisible emissions that contain particulate matter (soot, tar, water vapor, and minerals), gases (carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, nitrogen oxides) and toxics (formaldehyde, benzene). Emissions from wildfires depend on the type of fuel, the moisture content of the fuel, the efficiency (or temperature) of combustion, and the weather. Public health impacts associated with wildfire include difficulty in breathing, odor, and reduction in visibility. Air quality for Harris County is monitored by the Pollution Control Services Department (PCS). PCS Outdoor Air Program conducts activities that include complaint response and investigations, monitoring activities, emissions events investigations, programmatic inspections and permit reviews. 16.2.5 Warning Time Wildfires are often caused by humans, intentionally or accidentally. There is no way to predict when one might break out. Since fireworks often cause brush fires, extra diligence is warranted around the Fourth of July when the use of fireworks is highest. Dry seasons and droughts are factors that greatly increase fire likelihood. Dry lightning may trigger wildfires. Severe weather can be predicted, so special attention can be paid during weather events that may include lightning. Reliable National Weather Service lightning warnings are available on average 24 to 48 hours prior to a significant electrical storm. If a fire does break out and spread rapidly, residents may need to evacuate within days or hours. A fire's peak burning period generally is between 1 p.m. and 6 p.m. Once a fire has started, fire alerting is reasonably rapid in most cases. The rapid spread of cellular and two-way radio communications in recent years has further contributed to a significant improvement in warning time; however, the lack of reliable cell service in many parts of the planning area means that providing warning to those in the path of a fire may still be difficult, particularly if individuals are not in areas with land lines. 16.3 SECONDARY HAZARDS Wildfires can generate a range of secondary effects, which in some cases may cause more widespread and prolonged damage than the fire itself. Fires can cause direct economic losses in the reduction of harvestable timber and indirect economic losses in reduced tourism. Wildfires cause the contamination of reservoirs, destroy transmission lines and contribute to flooding. They strip slopes of vegetation, exposing them to greater amounts of runoff. This in turn can weaken soils and cause failures on slopes. Major landslides can occur several years after a wildfire. Most wildfires burn hot and for long durations that can bake soils, especially those high in clay content, thus increasing the imperviousness of the ground. This increases the runoff generated by storm events, thus increasing the chance of flooding. 16-8 TETRA TECH 16. Wildfire 16.4 EXPOSURE A quantitative assessment of exposure to the wildfire hazard was conducted using the wildfire threat and ignition density mapping shown in Figure 16-3 and Figure 16-4 and the asset inventory developed for this plan. Detailed results are provided in Appendix C and summarized below. 16.4.1 Population Population was estimated using the residential building count in each mapped hazard area and multiplying by the 2018 estimated average population per household. The population exposure estimates by risk area are shown in Table 16-2. Table 16-2. Harris Countv Population Exposure to the Wildfire Hazard Wildfire Threat Zones Low Wildfire Threat i 1,153,102 23.91% Wildfire Ignition Density Zones Very High 4,384 0.09% Hick 6,995 0.14% Moderate 25,712 0.53% Total for ignition Density I 0.76% _ 16.4.2 Property The property exposure estimates by risk area are shown in Table 16-3. Of the structures located in the very high, high and moderate Wildfire Ignition Density zones, over 96% are residential structures. Table 16-3. Harris Countv Property Exposure to the Wildfire Hazard Wildfire Threat Zones Low Wildfire Threat Wildfire Ignition Density Zones Very High High Moderate Total for ignition Density $198.2 billion $824.9 million $1.7 billion $6.5 billion $9.02 billion 16.4.3 Critical Facilities and Infrastructure 21.4% 0.09% 0.18% 0.69% Critical facilities and infrastructure exposed to the wildfire hazard represent less that 1 percent of the total critical infrastructure and facilities in the planning area. The breakdown of exposure by ignition density zone and facility type is shown in Figure 16-5. Most (84%) exposed critical facilities are in the moderate wildfire ignition density zone. Linear, above -ground infrastructure, such as power lines, is also exposed to damage from wildfire. 16.4.4 Environment All natural resources and habitats in mapped fire hazard severity zones are exposed to the risk of wildfire. TETRA TECH 16-9 Harris County Multi -Hazard Mitigation Action Plan; Volume 1—Area-Wide Elements 13 1 Utilities 1 0 Transportation 0 0 3 Histical/Cultural 0 0 Moderate Ignition Density High Ignition Density Very High Ignition Density Planning Area Total 2035 T I I 1 2904 0 m U 0 Healt/Medical 0 U 7 m C: 14 1 Hazardous Materials a_ 1 421 2690 U 0 Government 2 0 1083 0 Emergency Services 0 0 312 11 2 Education 0 1181 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 Number of Facilities in the Identified Area Figure 16-5. Critical Facilities Mapped Wildfire Ignition Density Zones Countywide 16-10 TETRA TECH 16. Wildfire 16.5 VULNERABILITY Vulnerability estimates for the wildfire hazard are described qualitatively. No loss estimation of these facilities was performed because damage functions have not been established for the wildfire hazard. Modeling based on identified fire hazard areas would overestimate potential losses because it is unlikely that all areas susceptible to wildfire would experience a fire at the same time. 16.5.1 Population All people exposed to the wildfire hazard are potentially vulnerable to wildfire impacts. Smoke and air pollution from wildfires can be a severe health hazard, especially for sensitive populations, including children, the elderly and those with respiratory and cardiovascular diseases. In addition, wildfire may threaten the health and safety of those fighting the fires. First responders are exposed to dangers from the initial incident and after-effects from smoke inhalation and heat stroke. Persons with access and functional needs, the elderly and very young may be especially vulnerable to a wildfire if there is not adequate warning time before evacuation is needed. 16.5.2 Property All property exposed to the wildfire hazard is vulnerable. Structures that were not constructed to standards designed to protect a building from a wildfire may be especially vulnerable. As of 2008, the International Building code requires minimum standards be met for new buildings in fire hazard severity zones. Most housing in the planning area-84 percent —was built prior to this code requirement (U.S. Census, 2018). It is unknown how many of these structures are in fire hazard zones. Estimates were developed to indicate the loss that would occur if wildfire damage were equal to 10, 30 or 50 percent of the exposed property value, as summarized in Table 16-4. Damage in excess of 50 percent is considered to be substantial by most building codes and typically requires total reconstruction of the structure. Very High $824,988,075 $82,498,808 0.009% $247,496,423 0.03% $412,494,037 0.04% High _11W $1,677,483,353 $167,748,335 0.02% $503,245,006 5% $838,741,60.09% Moderate 1 $6,515,392,102 1 $651,539,210 0.7% $1,954,617,631 0.21% $3,257,696,051 0.35% 1,786,353 0.73% $2,705,359,060 0.29%W' $4,508,931,764 0.48% 16.5.3 Critical Facilities and Infrastructure Critical facilities not built to fire protection standards, utility poles and lines, and facilities containing hazardous materials are most vulnerable to the wildfire hazard. Most road and railroads would be without damage except in the worst scenarios, although roads and bridges can be blocked by debris or other wildfire -related conditions and become impassable. The following critical facilities are located in very high and high severity zones and their vulnerability could complicate response and recovery efforts during and following an event: • Hazardous Materials and Fuel Storage —During a wildfire event, these materials could rupture due to excessive heat and act as fuel for the fire, causing rapid spreading and escalating the fire to unmanageable levels. In addition, they could leak into surrounding areas, saturating soils and seeping into surface waters, and have a disastrous effect on the environment. TETRA TECH 16-11 Harris County Multi -Hazard Mitigation Action Plan; Volume 1—Area-Wide Elements Communication Facilities —If these facilities are damaged and become inoperable, it would exacerbate already difficult communication in the planning area. Fire Stations —There are three fire stations as well as facilities that support firefighting efforts located in these risk areas. 16.5.4 Environment Fire is a natural and critical ecosystem process in most terrestrial ecosystems, affecting the types, structure, and spatial extent of native vegetation. However, it also can cause severe environmental impacts: • Damaged Fisheries —Critical fisheries can suffer from increased water temperatures, sedimentation, and changes in water quality. • Soil Erosion —The protective covering provided by foliage and dead organic matter is removed, leaving the soil fully exposed to wind and water erosion. Accelerated soil erosion occurs, causing landslides and threatening aquatic habitats. • Spread of Invasive Plant Species —Non-native woody plant species frequently invade burned areas. When weeds become established, they can dominate the plant cover over broad landscapes, and become difficult and costly to control. • Disease and Insect Infestations —Unless diseased or insect -infested trees are swiftly removed, infestations and disease can spread to healthy forests and private lands. Timely active management actions are needed to remove diseased or infested trees. • Destroyed Endangered Species Habitat —Fire can have negative consequences for endangered species. • Soil Sterilization —Some fires burn so hot that they can sterilize the soil. Topsoil exposed to extreme heat can become water repellant, and soil nutrients may be lost. • Reduced Timber Harvesting —Timber can be destroyed and lead to smaller available timber harvests. • Reduced Agricultural Resources —Wildfire can have disastrous consequences on agricultural resources, removing them from production and necessitating lengthy restoration programs. • Damaged Cultural Resources —Scenic vistas can be damaged, access to recreational areas can be reduced and destruction of cultural resources may occur. 16.6 FUTURE TRENDS IN DEVELOPMENT As a highly urbanized planning area, wildfire risk exposure is low. Urbanization tends to alter the natural fire regime, and can create the potential for the expansion of urbanized areas into wildland areas. The expansion of development toward wildfire hazard areas can be managed with strong land use and building codes. The International Building Code includes minimum standards related to the design and construction of buildings in fire hazard zones. The planning area is well equipped with these tools and this planning process has assessed capabilities with regards to the tools. As the planning area experiences future growth, it is anticipated that the exposure to this hazard will remain as assessed or even decrease over time due to these capabilities. 16.7 SCENARIO A major wildfire in the planning area might begin with a wet spring, adding to fuels already present on the forest floor. Flashy fuels would build throughout the spring. The summer could see the onset of insect infestation. A dry summer could follow the wet spring, exacerbated by dry hot winds. Carelessness with combustible materials or a tossed lit cigarette, or a sudden lightning storm could trigger a multitude of small isolated fires. The embers from these smaller fires could be carried miles by hot, dry winds. The deposition zone for these embers could be deep in forested areas. Fires that start in flat areas move slower, but wind still pushes them. It is not unusual for a wildfire pushed by wind to burn the ground fuel and later climb into the crown and reverse its 16-12 TETRA TECH 16. Wildfire track. This is one of many ways that fires can escape containment, typically during periods when response capabilities are overwhelmed. These new small fires would most likely merge. Suppression resources would be redirected from protecting the natural resources to saving more remote subdivisions. The worst -case scenario would include an active fire season throughout the American west and southwest, spreading resources thin. Firefighting teams would be exhausted or unavailable. Many federal assets would be responding to other fires that started earlier in the season. To further complicate the problem, heavy rains could follow, causing flooding and landslides and releasing tons of sediment into rivers, permanently changing floodplains and damaging sensitive habitat and riparian areas. Such a fire followed by rain could release millions of cubic yards of sediment into streams for years, creating new floodplains and changing existing ones. With the forests removed from the watershed, stream flows could easily double. Floods that could be expected every 50 years may occur every couple of years. With the streambeds unable to carry the increased discharge because of increased sediment, the floodplains and floodplain elevations would increase. 16.8 ISSUES Issues for wildfire are the following: • Human activities have been the cause of 63 percent of wildfires nationally. • Much of the planning area's building stock is of wood -frame construction built before 2008 when International building codes began requiring minimum standards for buildings in fire hazard severity zones. • Several vulnerable and isolated populations are in areas of high and very high risk for wildfire. • Public education and outreach to people living in the fire hazard zones should include information about and assistance with mitigation activities such as defensible space, and advance identification of evacuation routes and safe zones. • Climate change could affect the wildfire hazard. • Future housing growth into interface areas should continue to be managed. • Area fire districts need to continue to train on wildland-urban interface events. • Vegetation management activities. This would include enhancement through expansion of the target areas as well as additional resources. • Fire departments require reliable water supply in high risk wildfire areas. • Certifications and qualifications should be expanded for fire department personnel. All firefighters should be trained in basic wildfire behavior and basic fire weather, and all company officers and chief level officers should be trained at the wildland command and strike team leader level. TETRA TECH 16-13 17. OTHER HAZARDS OF INTEREST The hazards of concern assessed in Chapters 7 through 16 and rated and ranked in Chapter 19 are those that present significant risks in the Harris County planning area. Additional hazards, both natural and human -caused, were identified by the Steering Committee as having some potential to impact the planning area, but at a much lower risk level than the hazards of concern. These other hazards are identified as hazards of interest. The sections below provide short profiles of each hazard of interest, including qualitative discussion of their potential to impact Harris County. No formal risk assessment of these hazards was performed, and no mitigation initiatives have been developed to address them. However, all planning partners for this plan should be aware of these hazards and should take steps to reduce the risks they present whenever it is practical to do so. 17.1 ENERGY PIPELINE FAILURE 17.1.1 General Background The energy infrastructure of the United States consists of many components, including the physical network of pipes for oil and natural gas, electricity transmission lines, and other means for transporting energy to the nation's consumers. This infrastructure includes facilities that convert raw natural resources into energy products, as well as rail networks, trucking lines and marine transportation (U.S. Department of Energy, 2009). Much of this infrastructure is aging, and in addition to the challenges of keeping the infrastructure up-to-date with the latest technological advances and consumer needs, the potential for an energy pipeline failure must be considered. The 1.6 million miles (Bureau of Transportation and Statistics, 2009) of petroleum and gas pipelines in the United States are the principal mode for transporting oil, natural gas, and other petroleum products such as gasoline (Allegro Energy, 2001). Much of the oil pipeline infrastructure is old, requiring regular safety and environmental reviews to ensure its safety and reliability. The potential risk of pipeline accidents is a significant national concern. The energy infrastructure is vulnerable to physical and cyber disruption, either of which could threaten its integrity and safety (U.S. Department of Energy, 2009). Disruptions could originate with natural events such as geomagnetic storms and earthquakes, or could result from accidents, equipment failures or deliberate interference. In addition, the nation's transportation and power infrastructures have grown increasingly complex and interdependent — consequently, any disruption could have far-reaching consequences. 17.1.2 Past Events Due to the secured nature of this data, it was difficult to obtain any historical occurrence information for energy pipeline failures. However, the Harris County Fire Marshal's Office reports a total of 55 energy pipeline failures between 2006 and 2013 within the planning area. Harris County will attempt to include additional information in future updates of this plan if new studies or future releases of data become available. TETRA TECH 17-1 Harris County Multi -Hazard Mitigation Action Plan; Volume 1—Area-Wide Elements 17.1.3 Location Energy pipelines cross counties throughout southeast Texas. Although the majority of Harris County is at risk, the eastern region of the planning area is likely the most vulnerable due to an increased quantity of pipelines in the area. Figure 17-1 identifies all areas within the Harris County planning area within a quarter -mile of an identified pipeline; this was used as the focal point for the vulnerability and estimated exposure analysis. 2014 HARRIS COUNTY LMP N PIPELINE FAILURE 1/4 - MILE BUFFER W+E 5 Montgomery Liberty Waller /',J i \} Chambers ea Legend Pipelines_HC_2053 1 II Pipelines _HC_2013_quartermilehufler Highways Fort Bend Harris County Galveston Lake � � Bay MMNIS COUNT, COMMISSIONERS O RT Brazona cONRPY JNONE EO EYRRii E ('. NARRIS COUNTY COMMISSIONERS +w Galveston PPlCN-Tf !LFMLN R �ACR MMNRWIN vRfCnCi18TEVE RADACN ., .,,. � PreCNtC}1 RJRCN C0.G�! -- Figure 17-1. Pipeline Failure Hazard Areas in Harris County 17.1.4 Frequency Based on historical data provided by the Harris County Fire Marshal's Office, the probability of the Harris County planning area and all participating jurisdictions being affected by a pipeline failure event is once every 0.13 years or 47.45 days. The majority of pipeline incidents are isolated; although the risk area and estimated exposure appear large, the actual exposure per event, even for large events, is isolated. 17-2 TETRA TECH 17. Other Hazards of Interest 17.1.5 Severity The impacts associated with a pipeline failure are highly dependent upon the product being transported. If any of the energy pipelines in the planning area were to rupture, such an event could endanger lives and cause damage to property in the immediate area (within less than a half -mile radius). 17.1.6 Warning Time Energy pipeline failures are occasional events, with an event possible in the next five years. Energy pipeline failures are not subject to seasonal patterns; an event can occur at any time of year. Warning time for pipeline accidents is minimal or none. Most pipelines are continuously monitored by their operators. Information about the pipeline's operating equipment and parameters is constantly communicated to the control center where personnel use computers to monitor pipeline pressure, temperature, flow, alarms, and other conditions in the pipeline. While pipeline operators work hard to achieve reliable incident -free operation, accidents do occur. In the event of an emergency, the control center may be able to immediately shutdown the pipeline and begin to isolate the source of the leak. The pipeline operator's control center may also have the capability to remotely open and close valves and transfer products both to and from the main pipeline at marketing and distribution facilities. 17.1.7 Secondary Hazards Pipeline spills and leaks can pollute waterways exposing fish to toxic chemicals that can kill on impact or cause disease over the long-term. Spills of petrochemicals can also negatively impact the growth of other aquatic life destroying plant habitat and insect food sources. Common secondary hazards associated with pipeline failure include: • Fire • Mass movements • Air Quality • Public Health 17.2 TOXIC RELEASE/HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 17.2.1 General Background In a hazardous materials incident, solid, liquid and/or gaseous contaminants may be released from fixed or mobile containers. Nationwide, an average of almost 6,800 hazardous materials events occur each year: 5,500 highway incidents, 1,000 railroad incidents and 270 events from other causes. The duration of a hazardous materials incident can range from hours to days. This profile focuses on releases from fixed sites. 17.2.2 Causes Hazardous materials incidents can occur as a result of or in tandem with natural hazard events, such as floods, hurricanes, tornadoes and earthquakes, which in addition to causing incidents can also hinder response efforts. In the case of Hurricane Floyd in September 1999, communities along the Eastern United States were faced with flooded junkyards, disturbed cemeteries, deceased livestock, floating propane tanks, uncontrolled fertilizer spills and a variety of other environmental pollutants that caused widespread concern. Weather conditions will directly affect how the hazard develops. The micro -meteorological effects of buildings and terrain can alter travel and duration of agents. Non-compliance with fire and building codes, as well as failure to maintain existing fire and containment features can substantially increase the damage from a hazardous materials release. In addition to the primary release, explosions and/or fires can result from a release, and TETRA TECH 17-3 Harris County Multi -Hazard Mitigation Action Plan; Volume 1—Area-Wide Elements contaminants can be extended beyond the initial area by persons, vehicles, water, wind and wildlife. These factors contribute to the importance of maintaining an effective response team at all times. 17.2.3 Reporting Standards The Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) is a publicly available database from the federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that contains information on toxic chemical releases and other waste management activities reported annually by certain industry groups and federal facilities (EPA, 2O16a). This inventory was established under the Emergency Planning and Community Right -to -Know Act of 1986 and expanded by the Pollution Prevention Act of 1990. Each year, facilities that meet certain activity thresholds must report their releases and other waste management activities for listed toxic chemicals to EPA and to their state or tribal entity. A facility must report if it meets the following three criteria: The facility falls within one of the following industrial categories: manufacturing; metal mining; coal mining; electric generating facilities that combust coal and/or oil; chemical wholesale distributors; petroleum terminals and bulk storage facilities; RCRA Subtitle C treatment, storage, and disposal facilities; and solvent recovery services; Has 10 or more full-time employees, and Manufactures or processes more than 25,000 pounds or otherwise uses more than 10,000 pounds of any listed chemical during the calendar year. Persistent, bio-accumulative and toxic chemicals are subject to different thresholds of 10 pounds, 100 pounds or 0.1 grams depending on the chemical. 17.2.4 Past Events Due to methodology of data reporting used for TRI data, we are unable to determine or provide historical occurrence data for events causing off -site impact based on this information. However, we are able to determine that as of 2012, Harris County has 386 TRI facilities within its boundaries. The Harris County Hazardous Materials Response Team reports 736 toxic / hazardous materials incident responses between the years 2010 through 2013. Table 17-1 shows the team's number of responses for each year within the planning area. Table 17-1. Toxic / Hazardous Materials Responses in Harris Countv (2010 - 2013 2010 80 2011 227 2012 185 2013 _ZIL Total 736 Source: Harris County Hazardous Materials Response Team Annual Emergency Operations Performance Metrics (2010-2013) 17.2.5 Location With one of the largest petrochemical complexes in the nation, the Harris County planning area is at risk to the release of hazardous materials. Based on the TRI data and Tobler's law, the areas in proximity to a TRI facility would be at a higher risk of impact that those further away. Due to the large number of chemicals associated with these facilities, it is not feasible to conduct an analysis based on each chemical and its potential effects. However, the chemical involved in a release is a factor in measuring impacts. Figure 17-2 shows the locations of all 386 toxic sites listed on the TRI in the Harris County planning area. 17-4 TETRA TECH 17. Other Hazards of Interest w z�'__ "' o 4 J • • • i O 1 • • • � e ti • W LL LL . +• t W • 0•• . • CL J_ • ti S S �. • _ Z. r = 0 �_ • • •� • i• ' • N 2 • • 22 fn • L W • • oa N LU • i • - N • • • J • W • • • U _ 0• X no • b • 1. .• m �' • • •o. • • L on o 10 • • o = a_ O ` N _ y UMgt LL _sx • , _i uazzz -UBo Figure 17-2. Toxic Release / Haz-Mat Hazard Areas in Harris County TETRA TECH 17-5 Harris County Multi -Hazard Mitigation Action Plan; Volume 1—Area-Wide Elements 17.2.6 Frequency Based on the historical occurrence data provided by the Harris County Fire Marshal's Office, the probability of the Harris County planning area and all participating jurisdictions being affected by a toxic/hazardous materials event is once every 0.04 years or every 1.46 days. 17.2.7 Severity Hazardous materials or toxic releases can have a substantial impact. Such events can cause multiple deaths, completely shut down facilities for 30 days or more, and cause more than 50 percent of affected properties to be destroyed or suffer major damage. Toxic releases can have a substantial impact on the health and safety of the public and first responders. Such events can cause multiple deaths, shut down facilities or operations, and cause major damage to nearby properties. Shielding in the form of sheltering -in -place can protect people and property from harmful effects. 17.2.8 Warning Time Warning time for hazardous materials incidents is minimal to none. 17.2.9 Secondary Hazards Common secondary hazards associated with toxic releases and hazardous materials include: • Fire • Air quality • Public health. 17-6 TETRA TECH 18. CLIMATE CHANGE 18.1 GENERAL BACKGROUND 18.1.1 What is Climate Change? Climate, consisting of patterns of temperature, precipitation, humidity, wind and seasons, plays a fundamental role in shaping natural ecosystems and the human economies and cultures that depend on them. "Climate change" refers to changes over a long period of time. Worldwide, average temperatures have increased 1.8°F since 1880 (NASA, 2018). Although this change may seem small, it can lead to large changes in climate and weather. The warming trend and its related impacts are caused by increasing concentrations of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in the earth's atmosphere. Greenhouse gases are gases that trap heat in the atmosphere, resulting in a warming effect. Carbon dioxide is the most commonly known greenhouse gas; however, methane, nitrous oxide and fluorinated gases also contribute to warming. Emissions of these gases come from a variety of sources, such as the combustion of fossil fuels, agricultural production, changes in land use and volcanic eruptions. Carbon dioxide concentrations measured about 280 parts per million before the industrial era began in the late 1700s and are now recorded at more than 407 parts per million (EPA, 2016 and NASA, 2018) (see Figure 18-1). Source: EPA, 2016 800,000 BCE to 2015 CE 1950 to 2015 CE E 450 — C. C- 400 ,4 350 *, 300 u 250 200 'x 150 0 100 .0 50 i -800,000-600,000-400,000-200,000 0 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 Year (negative values = BCE) Year Figure 18-1. Global Carbon Dioxide Concentrations Over Time TETRA TECH 18-1 Harris County Multi -Hazard Mitigation Action Plan; Volume 1—Area-Wide Elements In addition, the concentration of methane has almost doubled and nitrous oxide was being measured at a record high of 328 parts per billion as of 2015. In the United States, electricity generation is the largest source of these emissions, followed by transportation (EPA, 2016b). Scientists are able to place this rise in carbon dioxide in a longer historical context through the measurement of carbon dioxide in ice cores. According to these records, carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere are the highest that they have been in 650,000 years (NASA, 2016). According to NASA, most of this trend is very likely human -induced and it is proceeding at an unprecedented rate (NASA, 2016). There is broad scientific consensus (97 percent of scientists) that climate -warming trends are extremely likely due to human activities (NASA, 2018). Unless emissions of greenhouse gases are substantially reduced, this warming trend is expected to continue. Climate change will affect the people, property, economy and ecosystems of the planning area in a variety of ways. Climate change impacts are most frequently associated with negative consequences, such as increased flood vulnerability or increased heat -related illnesses/public health concerns; however, other changes may present opportunities. The most important effect for the development of this plan is that climate change will have a measurable impact on the occurrence and severity of natural hazards. 18.1.2 How Climate Change Affects Hazard Mitigation An essential aspect of hazard mitigation is predicting the likelihood of hazard events. Typically, predictions are based on statistical projections from records of past events. This approach assumes that the likelihood of hazard events remains essentially unchanged over time. Thus, averages based on the past frequencies of, for example, floods are used to estimate future frequencies: if a river has flooded an average of once every 5 years for the past 100 years, then it can be expected to continue to flood an average of once every 5 years. For hazards that are affected by climate conditions, the assumption that future behavior will be equivalent to past behavior is not valid if climate conditions are changing. As flooding is generally associated with precipitation frequency and quantity, for example, the frequency of flooding will not remain constant if broad precipitation patterns change over time. Floods currently considered to be 1-percent-annual-chance events might strike more often, leaving many communities at greater risk. The risks of landslide, severe storms, extreme heat and wildfire are all affected by climate patterns as well. For this reason, an understanding of climate change is pertinent to efforts to mitigate natural hazards. Information about how climate patterns are changing provides insight on the reliability of future hazard projections used in mitigation analysis. This chapter summarizes current understandings about climate change in order to provide a context for the recommendation and implementation of hazard mitigation measures. 18.1.3 Current Indicators of Climate Change Global Impacts The major scientific agencies of the United States and the world —including NASA, NOAA and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)—agree that climate change is occurring. Multiple temperature records from all over the world have shown a warming trend. The IPCC has stated that the warming of the climate system is unequivocal (IPCC, 2014). Seventeen of the 18 warmest years on record occurred since 2001, and 2016 was the warmest year on record (NASA, 2017). Rising global temperatures have been accompanied by other changes in weather and climate. Many places have experienced changes in rainfall resulting in more intense rain, as well as more frequent and severe heat waves (IPCC, 2014a). The planet's oceans and glaciers have also experienced changes: oceans are warming and becoming more acidic, ice caps are melting, and sea levels are rising. Global sea level has risen approximately 6.7 inches, on average, in the last 100 years (NASA, 2018). This has already put some coastal homes, beaches, 18-2 TETRA TECH 18. Climate Change roads, bridges, and wildlife at risk (USGCRP, 2009). At the time of the development of this plan, NASA reports the following trends (NASA, 2017): • Carbon Dioxide —Increasing trend, currently at 407.61 parts per million • Global Temperature —Increasing trend, increase of 1.8°F since 1880 • Arctic Ice Minimum —Decreasing trend, 13.2 percent per decade • Land Ice —Decreasing trend, 286.0 gigatonnes per year • Sea Level —Increasing trend, 3.2 millimeters (0.13 inches) per year. Impacts in Texas Texas's climate is changing. Most of the state has warmed between one-half and one degree (F) in the past century. In the eastern two-thirds of the state, average annual rainfall is increasing, yet the soil is becoming drier. Rainstorms are becoming more intense, and floods are becoming more severe. Along much of the coast, the sea is rising almost 2 inches per decade (U.S. EPA, 2016c). 18.1.4 Projected Future Impacts Global Impacts The Third National Climate Assessment Report for the United States indicates that impacts resulting from climate change will continue through the 21 st century and beyond. Although not all changes are understood at this time and the impacts of those changes will depend on global emissions of greenhouse gases and sensitivity in human and natural systems, the following impacts are expected in the United States (NASA, 2014): • Temperatures will continue to rise. • Growing seasons will lengthen. • Precipitation patterns will change. • Droughts and heat waves will increase. • Hurricanes will become stronger and more intense. • Sea level will rise 1 to 4 feet by 2100. • The Arctic may become ice free. Sea levels have been rising over the past several decades and are expected to continue to rise. Sea level rise is mostly attributed to two factors: the expansion of water as it warms (thermal expansion) and the melting of ice sheets and glaciers. As average ocean temperatures continue to increase, thermal expansion will continue and can be projected with some degree of certainty. Less certain is how quickly ice sheets will melt, accounting for most of the uncertainty in projections. Sea level rise will cause currently dry areas to be permanently or chronically inundated. Temporary inundation from extreme tide events and storm surge also will change. Impacts in Texas In the coming decades, storms are likely to become more severe in Texas. Deserts may expand, and summers are likely to become increasingly hot and dry. If the oceans and atmosphere continue to warm, sea level is likely to rise 2 to 5 feet in the next century along much of the Texas coast. Hurricane wind speeds and rainfall rates are likely to increase as the climate continues to warm (U.S. EPA, 2016c). Coastal homes and infrastructure will flood more often as sea level rises, because storm surges will become higher as well. Many cities, roads, railways, ports, airports, and oil and gas facilities along the Gulf Coast are vulnerable to the combined impacts of storms and sea level rise. The amount of rainfall during the wettest days of the year is likely to continue to increase, which would increase flooding (U.S. EPA, 2016c). TETRA TECH 18-3 Harris County Multi -Hazard Mitigation Action Plan; Volume 1—Area-Wide Elements Despite the increase in heavy storms, changing climate is likely to make water less available overall. Seventy years from now, Texas is likely to have three or four times as many days per year above 100°F as it has today. As warmer temperatures increase evaporation and water use by plants, soils are likely to continue to become drier. Average rainfall is likely to decrease during winter, spring, and summer. Higher temperatures and drought are likely to increase the severity, frequency, and extent of wildfires. Warmer air can also increase the formation of ground -level ozone, a key component of smog (U.S. EPA, 2016c). 18.1.5 Responses to Climate Change Communities and governments worldwide are working to address, evaluate and prepare for climate changes that are likely to impact communities in coming decades. Generally, climate change discussions encompass two separate but inter -related considerations: mitigation and adaptation. The term "mitigation" can be confusing, because its meaning changes across disciplines: Mitigation in restoration ecology and related fields generally refers to policies, programs or actions that are intended to reduce or to offset the negative impacts of human activities on natural systems. Generally, mitigation can be understood as avoiding, minimizing, rectifying, reducing or eliminating, or compensating for known impacts. Mitigation in climate change discussions is defined as "a human intervention to reduce the impact on the climate system." It includes strategies to reduce greenhouse gas sources and emissions and enhance greenhouse gas sinks. Mitigation in emergency management is typically defined as the effort to reduce loss of life and property by lessening the impact of disasters. In this chapter, mitigation is used as defined by the climate change community. In the other chapters of this plan, mitigation is primarily used in an emergency management context. The IPCC defines adaptation as "the process of adjustment to actual or expected climate and its effects." Mitigation and adaptation are related, as the world's ability to reduce greenhouse gas emissions will affect the degree of adaptation that will be necessary. Some actions can both reduce greenhouse gas emissions and support adaptation to likely future conditions. Some adaptation actions also help communities reach other community goals (often referred to as co -benefits). The ability to adapt to changing conditions is often referred to as adaptive capacity, which is "the ability of systems, institutions, humans and other organisms to adjust to potential damage, to take advantage of opportunities, or to respond to consequences" (IPCC, 2014a). Societies across the world are facing the need to adapt to changing conditions and to identify ways to increase their adaptive capacity. Some efforts are already underway. Farmers are altering crops and agricultural methods to deal with changing rainfall and rising temperature; architects and engineers are redesigning buildings; planners are looking at managing water supplies to deal with droughts or flooding. Adaptive capacity goes beyond human systems, as some ecosystems are able to adapt to change and to buffer surrounding areas from the impacts of change. Forests can bind soils and hold large volumes of water during times of plenty, releasing it through the year; floodplains can absorb vast volumes of water during peak flows; coastal ecosystems can hold out against storms, attenuating waves and reducing erosion. Other ecosystem services —such as food provision, timber, materials, medicines and recreation —can provide a buffer to societies in the face of changing conditions. Ecosystem -based adaptation is the use of biodiversity and ecosystem services as part of an overall strategy to help people adapt to the adverse effects of climate change. This includes the sustainable management, conservation and restoration of specific ecosystems that provide key services. Assessment of the current efforts and adaptive capacity of the planning partners participating in this hazard mitigation plan are included in the jurisdiction -specific annexes in Volume 2. 18-4 TETRA TECH 18. Climate Change 18.2 CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS ON NATURAL HAZARDS The following sections provide information on how each identified hazard of concern for this planning process may be impacted by climate change and how these impacts may alter current exposure and vulnerability to these hazards for the people, property, critical facilities and the environment in the planning area. 18.2.1 Coastal Erosion The impacts of climate change —especially sea level rise —are likely to worsen coastal erosion problems. Growing populations and development along the coasts increase the vulnerability of coastal ecosystems to sea level rise. Development can block the inland migration of wetlands in response to sea level rise, change the amount of sediment delivered to coastal areas, and accelerate erosion. As a result of such changes, wetlands may not receive enough sediment to keep up with rising seas, and may no longer function as natural buffers to flooding and erosion (U.S. EPA, 2017). 18.2.2 Dam Failure Dams are designed partly based on assumptions about a river's flow behavior, expressed as hydrographs. Changes in weather patterns can have significant effects on the hydrograph used for the design of a dam. If the hygrograph changes, it is conceivable that the dam can lose some or all of its designed margin of safety, also known as freeboard. If freeboard is reduced, dam operators may be forced to release increased volumes earlier in a storm cycle in order to maintain the required margins of safety. Such early releases of increased volumes can increase flood potential downstream. Dams are constructed with safety features known as "spillways." Spillways are put in place on dams as a safety measure in the event of the reservoir filling too quickly. Spillway overflow events, often referred to as "design failures," result in increased discharges downstream and increased flooding potential. Although climate change will not increase the probability of catastrophic dam failure, it may increase the probability of design failures. 18.2.3 Drought The long-term effects of climate change on regional water resources are unknown, but global water resources are already experiencing the following stresses without climate change: • Growing populations • Increased competition for available water • Poor water quality • Environmental claims • Uncertain reserved water rights • Groundwater overdraft • Aging urban water infrastructure. With a warmer climate, droughts could become more frequent, more severe, and longer -lasting. According to the National Climate Assessment, "higher surface temperatures brought about by global warming increase the potential for drought. Evaporation and the higher rate at which plants lose moisture through their leaves both increase with temperature. Unless higher evapotranspiration rates are matched by increases in precipitation, environments will tend to dry, promoting drought conditions" (U.S. Climate Resilience Toolkit, 2018). Because changes in precipitation patterns are still uncertain, the potential impacts and likelihood of drought are uncertain. TETRA TECH 18-5 Harris County Multi -Hazard Mitigation Action Plan; Volume 1—Area-Wide Elements 18.2.4 Earthquake The impacts of global climate change on earthquake probability are unknown. Secondary impacts of earthquakes could be magnified by climate change. Soils saturated by repetitive storms or heavy precipitation could experience liquefaction or an increased propensity for slides during seismic activity due to the increased saturation. Dams storing increased volumes of water due to changes in the hydrograph could fail during seismic events. 18.2.5 Flood Use of historical hydrologic data has long been the standard of practice for designing and operating water supply and flood protection projects. For example, historical data are used for flood forecasting models and to forecast snowmelt runoff for water supply. This method of forecasting assumes that the climate of the future will be similar to that of the period of historical record. However, the hydrologic record cannot be used to predict changes in frequency and severity of extreme climate events such as floods. Scientists project greater storm intensity with climate change, resulting in more direct runoff and flooding. High frequency flood events in particular will likely increase with a changing climate. What is currently considered a 1-percent-annual-chance also may strike more often, leaving many communities at greater risk. Going forward, model calibration must happen more frequently, new forecast -based tools must be developed, and a standard of practice that explicitly considers climate change must be adopted. Climate change is already impacting water resources, and resource managers have observed the following: • Historical hydrologic patterns can no longer be solely relied upon to forecast the water future. • Precipitation and runoff patterns are changing, increasing the uncertainty for water supply and quality, flood management and ecosystem functions. • Extreme climatic events will become more frequent, necessitating improvement in flood protection, drought preparedness and emergency response. Changes in watershed vegetation and soil moisture conditions will likewise change runoff and recharge patterns. As stream flows and velocities change, erosion patterns will also change, altering channel shapes and depths, possibly increasing sedimentation behind dams, and affecting habitat and water quality. With potential increases in the frequency and intensity of wildfires due to climate change, there is potential for more floods following fire, which increase sediment loads and water quality impacts. 18.2.6 Mass Movement Climate change may impact storm patterns, increasing the probability of more frequent, intense storms with varying duration. Warming temperatures also could increase the occurrence and duration of droughts, which would increase the probability of wildfire, reducing the vegetation that helps to support steep slopes. All of these factors would increase the probability for landslide occurrences. 18.2.7 Severe Weather, Including Hurricanes and Coastal Storms Climate change presents a challenge for risk management associated with severe weather. The number of weather -related disasters during the 1990s was four times that of the 1950s and led to 14 times as much in economic losses. The science for linking the severity of specific severe weather events to climate change is still evolving; however, a number or trends provide some indication of how climate change may be impacting these events. According to the U.S. National Climate Change Assessment (2014), there were more than twice as many high temperature records as low temperature records broken between 2001 and 2012, and heavy rainfall events are becoming more frequent and more severe. The increase in average surface temperatures can also lead to more 18-6 TETRA TECH 18. Climate Change intense heat waves. Evidence suggests that heat waves are already increasing, especially in western states. Extreme heat days in the planning area are likely to increase. Climate change impacts on other severe weather events such as thunderstorms and high winds are still not well understood. 18.2.8 Tsunami The impacts of global climate change on tsunami probability are unknown. Some scientists say that melting glaciers could induce tectonic activity, inducing earthquakes. Other scientists have indicated that underwater avalanches (also caused by melting glaciers), may also result in tsunamis. Even if climate change does not increase the frequency with which tsunamis occur, it may result in more destructive waves. As sea levels continue to rise, tsunami inundation areas would likely reach further into communities than current mapping indicates. 18.2.9 Wildfire Climate change has the potential to affect multiple elements of the wildfire system: fire behavior, ignitions, fire management, and vegetation fuels. Hot dry spells create the highest fire risk. Increased temperatures may intensify wildfire danger by warming and drying out vegetation. Changes in climate patterns may impact the distribution and perseverance of insect outbreaks that create dead trees (increase fuel). When climate alters fuel loads and fuel moisture, forest susceptibility to wildfires changes. Climate change also may increase winds that spread fires. Faster fires are harder to contain, and thus are more likely to expand into residential neighborhoods. 18.3 ISSUES The major issues for climate change are the following: • Planning for climate change related impacts can be difficult due to inherent uncertainties in projection methodologies. • Average temperatures are expected to continue to increase in the planning area, which may lead to a host of primary and secondary impacts, such as an increased incidence of heat waves. • Expected changes in precipitation patterns are still poorly understood and could have significant impacts on the water supply and flooding in the planning area. • Some impacts of climate change are poorly understood such as potential impacts on the frequency and severity of earthquakes, thunderstorms and tsunamis. • Heavy rain events may result in inland stormwater flooding after stormwater management systems are overwhelmed. • Permanent and temporary inundation resulting from sea level rise has the potential to impact portions of the population and assets in the planning area. TETRA TECH 18-7 19. RISK RANKING FEMA requires all hazard mitigation planning partners to have jurisdiction -specific mitigation actions based on local risk, vulnerability and community priorities (FEMA, 2011). This plan included a risk ranking protocol for each planning partner, in which "risk" was calculated by multiplying probability by impact on people, property and the economy. The risk estimates were generated using methodologies promoted by FEMA. The Steering Committee reviewed, discussed and approved the methodology and results. All planning partners ranked risk for their own jurisdictions following the same methodology. Numerical ratings of probability and impact were based on the hazard profiles and exposure and vulnerability evaluations presented in Chapters 7 through 17. Using that data, each planning partner ranked the risk of all the natural hazards of concern described in this plan. When available, estimates of risk were generated with data from Hazus or GIS. For hazards of concern with less specific data available, qualitative assessments were used. As appropriate, results were adjusted based on local knowledge and other information not captured in the quantitative assessments. Risk ranking results are used to help establish mitigation priorities. Each partner used its risk ranking to inform the development of its action plan. Planning partners were directed to identify mitigation actions, at a minimum, to address each hazard with a "high" or "medium" risk ranking. Actions that address hazards with a low or no hazard ranking are optional. Volume 2 presents the risk rankings for each planning partner. The following planning -area -wide risk ranking was prepared by the CPT. 19.1 PROBABILITY OF OCCURRENCE The probability of occurrence of a hazard is indicated by a probability factor based on likelihood of annual occurrence: High —Hazard event is likely to occur within 25 years (Probability Factor = 3) Medium —Hazard event is likely to occur within 100 years (Probability Factor =2) Low —Hazard event is not likely to occur within 100 years (Probability Factor =1) No exposure —There is no probability of occurrence (Probability Factor = 0) The assessment of hazard frequency is based on past hazard events in the area and the potential for changes in the frequency of these events resulting from climate change. Table 19-1 summarizes the probability assessment for each natural hazard of concern for this plan. TETRA TECH 19-1 Harris County Multi -Hazard Mitigation Action Plan; Volume 1—Area-Wide Elements Coastal Erosion Dam/Levee Failure Drought Earthquake Flood Hurricane /Coastal Storms Mass Movements Severe Weather Tsunami Wildfire 19.2 IMPACT Table 19-1. Probabilitv of Hazards Low Low High Low Low Low 1 3 Hazard impacts were assessed in three categories: impacts on people, impacts on property and impacts on the local economy. Numerical impact factors were assigned as follows: • People —Values were assigned based on the percentage of the total population exposed to the hazard event. The degree of impact on individuals will vary and is not measurable, so the calculation assumes for simplicity and consistency that all people exposed to a hazard because they live in a hazard zone will be equally impacted when a hazard event occurs. It should be noted that planners can use an element of subjectivity when assigning values for impacts on people. Impact factors were assigned as follows: ➢ High-25 percent or more of the population is exposed to a hazard (Impact Factor = 3) ➢ Medium-10 percent to 25 percent of the population is exposed to a hazard (Impact Factor = 2) ➢ Low-10 percent or less of the population is exposed to the hazard (Impact Factor = 1) ➢ No impact —None of the population is exposed to a hazard (Impact Factor = 0) Property —Values were assigned based on the percentage of the total property value exposed to the hazard event: ➢ High-25 percent or more of the total assessed property value is exposed to a hazard (Impact Factor = 3) ➢ Medium-10 percent to 25 percent of the total assessed property value is exposed to a hazard (Impact Factor = 2) ➢ Low-10 percent or less of the total assessed property value is exposed to the hazard (Impact Factor = 1) ➢ No impact —None of the total assessed property value is exposed to a hazard (Impact Factor = 0) Economy —Values were assigned based on the percentage of the total property value vulnerable to the hazard event. Values represent estimates of the loss from a major event of each hazard in comparison to the total replacement value of the property exposed to the hazard. Loss estimates separate from the exposure estimates were generated for the earthquake, flooding, and tsunami hazards using Hazus. For other hazards, such as dam failure, landslide and wildfire, vulnerability was estimated as a percentage of exposure, due to the lack of loss estimation tools specific to those hazards. ➢ High —Estimated loss from the hazard is 10 percent or more of the total exposed property value (Impact Factor = 3) 19-2 TETRA TECH 19. Risk Ranking ➢ Medium —Estimated loss from the hazard is 5 percent to 10 percent of the total exposed property value (Impact Factor = 2) ➢ Low —Estimated loss from the hazard is 5 percent or less of the total exposed property value (Impact Factor = 1) ➢ No impact —No loss is estimated from the hazard (Impact Factor = 0) The impacts of each hazard category were assigned a weighting factor to reflect the significance of the impact. These weighting factors are consistent with those typically used for measuring the benefits of hazard mitigation actions: impact on people was given a weighting factor of 3; impact on property was given a weighting factor of 2; and impact on the economy was given a weighting factor of 1. Table 19-2, Table 19-3 and Table 19-4 summarize the impacts for each hazard. Table 19-2. Impact on People from Hazards Coastal Erosion Low 1 10 =3 Dam/Levee Failure Low 1 _10=3 Drought None 0 Ox3=0 ffarthquake ZME[Hig-h 3 30=9 Flood Medium 2 20-6 Hurricane /Coastal Storms 3 30=9 Mass Movements Low 1 1x3=3 3 3x3=9 Tsunami Low 1 10=3 Wildfire 1 1 x3=3 Coastal Erosion Dam/Levee Failure Table 19-3. Impact on Property from Hazards Low Low Drought None Earthquake High Flood Medium Hurricane /Coastal Storms High 1x2=2 1x2=2 Ox2=0 3x2=6 2x2=4 Mass Movements Low 1 1x2=2 High 3 3x2=6 Tsunami Low 1 1x2=2 Wildfire Medium 2 2x2=4 TETRA TECH 19-3 Harris County Multi -Hazard Mitigation Action Plan; Volume 1—Area-Wide Elements Table 19-4. Impact on Economy from Hazards �.rrYu���iau Coastal Erosion Lam/Levee Failure Drought �uurrty��uieusui:��ii�iusurv��I111/Y•ly\l%lyl•J��ru�un�ua��y���a���unue�rtyt•��u� Low Low Medium Low Medium Medium 1 1 2 1 2 2 1x1=1 1x1=1 2x1=2 1x1=1 2x1=2 2x1=2 arth uake Flood Hurricane /Coastal Storms Mass Movements Low 1 1x1=1 Severe Weather Tsunami Wildfire edium Low 2 2x1=2 1 1x1=1 1 1 x1=1 19.3 RISK RATING AND RANKING The risk rating for each hazard was determined by multiplying the probability factor by the sum of the weighted impact factors, as summarized in Table 19-5. Based on these ratings, a priority of high, medium or low was assigned to each hazard. The hazards of highest concern are Hurricanes/Coastal Storms, severe weather and Flood. Hazards ranked as being of medium concern are wildfire and earthquake. The hazards ranked as being of lowest concern are coastal erosion, drought, dam failure, mass movements and tsunami. Table 19-6 shows the hazard risk ranking for the planning area. Hazard risk ranking and scoring for each participating planning partner can be found in Volume 2 of this plan. Table 19-7 shows risk ranking results for all planning partners. Table 19-5. Hazard Risk Rating ■.rr�au�wiau ��r•�ri�w��riy�a��►l�uu•n�iaieiuca��uu•riy�riyt•�ti��u�riu�u�•ri•nu►�:�unrr.y�� Coastal Erosion 1 3+2+1=6 1x6=6 Dam/Levee Failure 1 3+2+1=6 1x6=6 Drought 3 0+0+2=2 3x2=6 Earthquake 1 9+6+1=16 1x16=16 Flood 3 6+4+2=12 3x12=36 Hurricane /Coastal Storms 3 9+6+2=17 3x17=51 Mass Movements 1 3+2+1=6 1x6=6 Severe Weather 3 9+6+2=17 3x17=51 Tsunami 1 3+2+1=6 1x6=6 Wildfire 3 3+4+1=8 3x8=24 Table 19-6. Hazard Risk Ranki 1 Hurricane and Coastal Storms 51 High 1 Severe Weather (51T High 2 Flood (36) High 3 Wildfire (24) Medium 4 Earthquake (16) Medium 5 Coastal Erosion (6) _ Low 5 Drought (6 Low 5 _JMR_ Dam Failure 6 Low 5 Mass Movements ( _qV Low 5 Tsunami (6) Low a. Scores of 30 or greater are rated as "high," scores of 15 to 29 are "medium," and scores of less than 15 are "low" 19-4 TETRA TECH 19. Risk Ranking Table 19-7. Aggregate Risk Ranking Results for all Planninq Partners Harris County Low Low Low_ f7ty of Baytown JL Low Low Low City of Bellaire None Low Low City of Bunker Hill Village T None None Low _City of Deer Park None Low Low City of El Lago None Low Low City of Friendswood None None Low City of Galena Park None _ Low Low_ City of Hedwig Village None None Low_ City of Hilshire Village None Low_ City of Humble None Medium Low City of Hunters Creek Village _ None Low Low City of Jersey Villa a None None Low City of Katy None Low Low City of La Porte Low Low Low_ C_ ity of Missouri Ch None Medium Medium C�of Mor an's Point Low Low Low _City of Nassau Bay Low None Low City of Pasadena None Low Medium City of Piney Pointl§MMR None None Low_ City of Seabrook None None Low_ City of Shoreacres None None Low City of Spring Valley Village None None Low_ City of Stafford None None Low_ City of Taylor Lake Village None None Low_ City of Tomball None None Low_ None None Low_ City of Webster City of West University Place _ None None Low Houston ISD None Low Low Huffman ISD None None Low PasadenalSD None None Low Houston Community College Low Medium Low Lone Star College None Low Lowf University of Houston dew None None Low Harris County FCD None Low Low _Harris County ESD-12 None None Low Harris County Hospital District (dba None Low Low Harris Health System) Texas Medical Center Medium High High High High Low Low Low High Hi h High Low None None Medium Low Hi h Low High Low ow ow Medium High Medium Medium, High High High High High None_ Low_ Low None Low High_ High High High High None ow Low None Hi h Low None Low Low None Medium Low None Low Low None I High Low Hi h None Low Low Medium Medium Medium, High High High High Medium High None High None High Low ne I High rMedium High High w High Low High Low High High High High High High High High None None None None None None Low None Low Low Medium ow None Low Low Low Medium Low Low Low Low Low Low Low High High Medium High High High Medium Low Low High None Low High None Medium ow High High High High High None Low Low None None Low Hi h High Low Low Low High High Low High Low M Low Low Low Low Low High None Low High High Low High None Medium Low Medium' High Medium_ Medium High Medium High Medium High High T High I High LIHigh High Hi h High None Low Low Low_ None_ None Low None High _High l High High Medium High High High None None None Low None None Low None MW Low Low Low None Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low High High Medium Medium High High _High High Low Low None None High High High High None Low Low Low None Low None Low Low I Medium I Low I Low I High I High Low I High I Medium I Low TETRA TECH 19-5 Harris County Multi -Hazard Mitigation Action Plan PART 3-MITIGATION STRATEGY 20. MISSION STATEMENT, GOALS AND OBJECTIVES Hazard mitigation plans must identify goals for reducing long-term vulnerabilities to identified hazards (44 CFR Section 201.6(c)(3)(i)). The Steering Committee reviewed the mission statement, goals and objectives from the 2015 Hazard Mitigation Plan. The mission statement, goals, objectives and actions in this plan all support each other. Goals were selected to support the mission statement. Objectives were selected that met multiple goals. Actions (presented in Chapter 19) were prioritized based on their ability to meet multiple objectives. 20.1 MISSION STATEMENT A mission statement focuses the range of objectives and actions to be considered. This is not a goal because it does not describe a hazard mitigation outcome, and it is broader than a hazard -specific objective. The mission statement for this hazard mitigation plan is as follows: Develop and maintain a comprehensive pre- and post -disaster hazard mitigation program. The Mission Statement is guided by the effective use of technology and data, improved communications and warning, the purchase of necessary equipment, sound planning, the adoption of codes, enhanced transportation networks, expanded education and outreach efforts, strengthened public facilities and infrastructure, the utilization/enhancement of natural resources, the consideration of future hazard conditions and the implementation ofprojects designed to reduce the vulnerability of individuals, families, households, businesses, infrastructure and critical facilities to the negative effects of natural and human -caused hazards. 20.2 GOALS The following are the mitigation goals for this plan: 1. Expand warning systems and local warning capabilities among departments and between jurisdictions. 2. Improve and coordinate data collection efforts to fully maximize the intent of the efforts and to improve the mitigation capabilities of the county and all jurisdictions. 3. Enhance education strategies to improve the dissemination of information to the public regarding hazards, including the steps that can be taken to reduce their impact. 4. Improve the capabilities of local government officials to reduce or eliminate hazards that cause loss of life, inflict injuries, cause property damage and to improve the protection of natural resources. 5. Work to improve and coordinate existing local plans, codes and regulations to reduce the impacts of natural hazards. 6. Implement property protection measures to reduce the effects of natural hazards throughout the county, including measures that reduce or eliminate repetitive loss occurrences. 7. Investigate and implement a range of structural projects that will reduce the effects of natural hazards on public and private property throughout the county. 8. Investigate and implement a range of nature -based solutions and utilize and enhance natural resources and their ability to reduce the impacts from natural hazards TETRA TECH 2O-1 Harris County Multi -Hazard Mitigation Action Plan; Volume 1—Area-Wide Elements 20.3 OBJECTIVES The selected objectives meet multiple goals. They serve as a stand-alone measurement of the effectiveness of a mitigation action, rather than as a subset of a goal. The objectives also are used to help establish priorities. The objectives are as follows: 1. Improve and expand systems that provide warning and emergency communications to the whole community 2. Implement wildfire mitigation and watershed protection strategies through local, state, tribal, federal and private partnerships. 3. Improve understanding of the locations, potential impacts, and linkages among threats, hazards, vulnerability, and measures needed to protect life safety and health. 4. Reduce the impacts of hazards on individuals with disabilities and others with access and functional needs. 5. Coordinate state and local efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and implement climate adaptation strategies through hazard mitigation plans and actions. 6. Control access and provide buffers to maximize resource protection where possible. 7. Encourage all state, regional and local hazard mitigation projects and planning programs to protect the environment and promote implementation of sustainable mitigation and climate resilience actions. 8. Support hazard mitigation measures that promote and enhance natural processes and minimize adverse impacts on the ecosystem. 9. Encourage all cities, counties, special districts, Councils of Governments and tribal organizations to develop, adopt, and implement local hazard mitigation principles that may be integrated with local comprehensive plan safety elements, local coastal plans, facilities master plans, and other local plan initiatives. 10. Advance community resilience through preparation, adoption, and implementation of state, regional and local multi -hazard mitigation plans and projects. 11. Encourage projects that simultaneously reduce risk while increasing resilience and sustainability. 12. Manage new and existing development in high hazard areas, especially those known to be repetitively damaged. 13. Support the protection of vital and essential records, and strengthening or replacement of buildings, infrastructure, and lifelines to minimize post -disaster disruption and facilitate short-term and long-term recovery. 14. Through the enforcement of relevant federal, State and local regulations, sustain life and property protection measures for all communities and structures located in the greater Harris County region. 15. Promote disaster resistant development. 20-2 TETRA TECH 21. MITIGATION BEST PRACTICES AND ADAPTIVE CAPACITY 21.1 MITIGATION BEST PRACTICES Catalogs of hazard mitigation best practices were developed that present a broad range of alternatives to be considered for use in this plan, in compliance with 44 CFR (Section 201.6(c)(3)(ii)). One catalog was developed for each hazard of concern evaluated in this plan. The catalogs present alternatives that are categorized in two ways: • By who would have responsibility for implementation: ➢ Individuals (personal scale) ➢ Businesses (corporate scale) ➢ Government (government scale). • By what the alternative would do: ➢ Manipulate the hazard ➢ Reduce exposure to the hazard ➢ Reduce vulnerability to the hazard ➢ Build local capacity to respond to or prepare for the hazard. The alternatives presented include actions that will mitigate current risk from hazards and actions that will help reduce risk from changes in the impacts of these hazards resulting from climate change. Hazard mitigation actions recommended in this plan were selected from an analysis of the alternatives presented in the catalogs. The catalogs provide a baseline of mitigation alternatives that are backed by a planning process, are consistent with the established goals and objectives, and are generally within the capabilities of the planning partners to implement. Some of these actions may not be feasible based on the selection criteria identified for this plan. The purpose of the catalogs was to provide a list of what could be considered to reduce risk from natural hazards within the planning area. Actions selected out of the catalogs were based on an analysis of the planning partner's ability to implement the action and general feasibility. Actions in the catalog that are not included for the partnership's action plan were not selected for one or more of the following reasons: • The action is not feasible. • The action is already being implemented. • The planning partner does not have the capability to implement the action. • There is an apparently more cost-effective alternative. • The action does not have public or political support. The catalogs for each hazard are presented in Table 21-1 through Table-21-9. TETRA TECH 21-1 Harris County Multi -Hazard Mitigation Action Plan; Volume 1—Area-Wide Elements Table 21-1. Alternatives to Mitiaate the Dam Failure Hazard • Manipulate the hazard: • Manipulate the • Manipulate the hazard: ❖ None hazard: ❖ Remove dams • Reduce exposure to ❖ Remove dams ❖ Harden dams the hazard: ❖ Harden dams • Reduce exposure to the hazard: ❖ Relocate out of dam • Reduce exposure to ❖ Replace earthen dams with hardened structures failure inundation the hazard: ❖ Relocate critical facilities out of dam failure inundation areas areas ❖ Replace earthen ❖ Consider open space land use in designated dam failure inundation • Reduce vulnerability to dams with hardened areas the hazard: structures • Reduce vulnerability to the hazard: ❖ Elevate home to Reduce vulnerability ❖ Adopt higher floodplain standards in mapped dam failure inundation appropriate levels to the hazard: areas • Build local capacity to ❖ Flood -proof facilities ❖ Retrofit critical facilities within dam failure inundation areas respond to or prepare within dam failure • Build local capacity to respond to or prepare for the hazard: for the hazard: inundation areas ❖ Map dam failure inundation areas ❖ Learn about risk Build local capacity to ❖ Enhance emergency operations plan to include a dam failure component reduction for the dam respond to or prepare ❖ Institute monthly communications checks with dam operators failure hazard for the hazard: ❖ Inform the public on risk reduction techniques ❖ Learn the evacuation ❖ Educate employees ❖ Adopt real-estate disclosure requirements for the re -sale of property routes for a dam on the probable located within dam failure inundation areas failure event impacts of a dam ❖ Consider the probable impacts of climate change in assessing the risk ❖ Educate yourself on failure associated with the dam failure hazard early warning systems ❖ Develop a continuity ❖ Establish early warning capability downstream of listed high hazard dams and the dissemination of operations plan ❖ Consider the residual risk associated with protection provided by dams in of warnings future land use decisions Table-21-2. Alternatives to Mitigate the Drought Hazard • Manipulate the hazard: • Manipulate the hazard: • Manipulate the hazard: ❖ None ❖ None ❖ Groundwater recharge through stormwater management • Reduce exposure to the • Reduce exposure to the ❖ Develop a water recycling program hazard: hazard: ❖ Increase "above -the -dam" regional natural water storage ❖ None ❖ None systems • Reduce vulnerability to • Reduce vulnerability to the • Reduce exposure to the hazard: the hazard: hazard: ❖ Identify and create groundwater backup sources ❖ Drought -resistant ❖ Drought -resistant landscapes • Reduce vulnerability to the hazard: landscapes ❖ Reduce private water system ❖ Water use conflict regulations ❖ Reduce water system losses ❖ Reduce water system losses losses ❖ Support alternative irrigation ❖ Distribute water saving kits ❖ Modify plumbing techniques to reduce water • Build local capacity to respond to or prepare for the hazard: systems (through use and encourage use of ❖ Public education on drought resistance water saving kits) climate -sensitive water ❖ Identify alternative water supplies for times of drought; mutual • Build local capacity to supplies aid agreements with alternative suppliers respond to or prepare • Build local capacity to respond ❖ Develop drought contingency plan for the hazard: to or prepare for the hazard: ❖ Develop criteria "triggers" for drought -related actions ❖ Practice active water ❖ Practice active water ❖ Improve accuracy of water supply forecasts conservation conservation ❖ Modify rate structure to influence active water conservation techniques 21-2 TETRA TECH 21. Mitigation Best Practices and Adaptive Capacity Table-21-3. Alternatives to Mitigate the Earthquake Hazard • Manipulate the hazard: • Manipulate the hazard: • Manipulate the hazard: ❖ None ❖ None ❖ None • Reduce exposure to the hazard: • Reduce exposure to the • Reduce exposure to the hazard: ❖ Locate outside of hazard area (off hazard: ❖ Locate critical facilities or functions outside hazard soft soils) ❖ Locate or relocate mission- area where possible • Reduce vulnerability to the critical functions outside • Reduce vulnerability to the hazard: hazard: hazard area where possible ❖ Harden infrastructure ❖ Retrofit structure (anchor house Reduce vulnerability to the ❖ Provide redundancy for critical functions structure to foundation) hazard: ❖ Adopt higher regulatory standards ❖ Secure household items that can ❖ Build redundancy for critical • Build local capacity to respond to or prepare for the cause injury or damage (such as functions and facilities hazard: water heaters, bookcases, and ❖ Retrofit critical buildings and ❖ Provide better hazard maps other appliances) areas housing mission -critical ❖ Provide technical information and guidance ❖ Build to higher design functions ❖ Enact tools to help manage development in hazard • Build local capacity to respond to Build local capacity to areas (e.g., tax incentives, information) or prepare for the hazard: respond to or prepare for the ❖ Include retrofitting and replacement of critical ❖ Practice "drop, cover, and hold" hazard: system elements in capital improvement plan ❖ Develop household mitigation ❖ Adopt higher standard for ❖ Develop strategy to take advantage of post -disaster plan, such as creating a retrofit new construction; consider opportunities savings account, communication "performance -based design" ❖ Warehouse critical infrastructure components such capability with outside, 72-hour when building new structures as pipe, power line, and road repair materials self-sufficiency during an event ❖ Keep cash reserves for ❖ Develop and adopt a continuity of operations plan ❖ Keep cash reserves for reconstruction ❖ Initiate triggers guiding improvements (such as reconstruction ❖ Inform your employees on the <50% substantial damage or improvements) ❖ Become informed on the hazard possible impacts of ❖ Further enhance seismic risk assessment to target and risk reduction alternatives earthquake and how to deal high hazard buildings for mitigation opportunities. available. with them at your work facility. ❖ Develop a post -disaster action plan that includes ❖ Develop a post -disaster action ❖ Develop a continuity of grant funding and debris removal components. plan for your household operations plan ❖ Consider the probable impacts of climate change on the risk associated with the drought hazard TETRA TECH 21-3 Harris County Multi -Hazard Mitigation Action Plan; Volume 1—Area-Wide Elements Table-21-4. Alternatives to Mitiaate the Floodina Hazard • Manipulate the • Manipulate the • Manipulate the hazard: ❖ Facilitate managed retreat from, or hazard: hazard: ❖ Maintain drainage system upgrade of, the most at -risk areas ❖ Clear storm ❖ Clear storm ❖ Dredging, levee construction, and ❖ Require accounting of sea level rise in drains and drains and providing regional retention areas all applications for new development in culverts culverts ❖ Structural flood control, levees, shoreline areas • Reduce Reduce exposure channelization, or revetments. Build local capacity to respond to or exposure to the to the hazard: ❖ Stormwater management regulations prepare for the hazard: hazard: ❖ Locate critical and master planning ❖ Produce better hazard maps ❖ Locate outside facilities or ❖ Acquire vacant land or promote open ❖ Provide technical information and of hazard area functions space uses in developing watersheds guidance ❖ Elevate utilities outside hazard to control increases in runoff ❖ Enact tools to help manage above base area Reduce exposure to the hazard: development in hazard areas (stronger flood elevation Reduce ❖ Locate or relocate critical facilities controls, tax incentives, and • Reduce vulnerability to outside of hazard area information) vulnerability to the hazard: ❖ Acquire or relocate identified repetitive ❖ Incorporate retrofitting or replacement the hazard: ❖ Build loss properties of critical system elements in capital ❖ Raise redundancy for ❖ Promote open space uses in identified improvement plan structures critical functions high hazard areas via techniques such ❖ Develop strategy to take advantage of above base or retrofit critical as: planned unit developments, post -disaster opportunities flood elevation buildings easements, setbacks, greenways, ❖ Warehouse critical infrastructure ❖ Elevate items ❖ Provide flood- sensitive area tracks. components within house proofing when ❖ Adopt land development criteria such ❖ Develop and adopt a continuity of above base new critical as planned unit developments, density operations plan flood elevation infrastructure transfers, clustering ❖ Consider participation in the ❖ Build new must be located ❖ Institute low impact development Community Rating System homes above in floodplains techniques on property ❖ Maintain and collect data to define base flood Build local ❖ Acquire vacant land or promote open risks and vulnerability elevation capacity to space uses in developing watersheds ❖ Train emergency responders ❖ Flood -proof respond to or to control increases in runoff ❖ Create an elevation inventory of structures prepare for the ❖ Preserve undeveloped and vulnerable structures in the floodplain • Build local hazard: shoreline ❖ Develop and implement a public capacity to ❖ Keep cash ❖ Restore existing flood control and information strategy respond to or reserves for riparian corridors ❖ Charge a hazard mitigation fee prepare for the reconstruction Reduce vulnerability to the hazard: ❖ Integrate floodplain management hazard: ❖ Support and ❖ Harden infrastructure, bridge policies into other planning ❖ Buy flood implement replacement program mechanisms within the planning area. insurance hazard ❖ Provide redundancy for critical ❖ Consider the probable impacts of ❖ Develop disclosure for functions and infrastructure climate change on the risk associated household sale of property ❖ Adopt regulatory standards such as with the flood hazard plan, such as in risk zones. freeboard standards, cumulative ❖ Consider the residual risk associated retrofit savings, ❖ Solicit cost- substantial improvement or damage, with structural flood control in future communication sharing through lower substantial damage threshold; land use decisions with outside, partnerships compensatory storage, non- ❖ Enforce National Flood Insurance 72-hour self- with others on conversion deed restrictions. Program requirements sufficiency projects with ❖ Stormwater management regulations ❖ Adopt a Stormwater Management during and multiple and master planning. Master Plan after an event benefits. ❖ Adopt "no -adverse impact" floodplain ❖ Develop an adaptive management management policies that strive to not plan to address the long-term impacts increase the flood risk on downstream of sea level rise communities 21-4 TETRA TECH 21. Mitigation Best Practices and Adaptive Capacity Table-21-5. Alternatives to Mitigate the Hurricane Hazard • Manipulate the Corporate -Scale Manipulate the hazard: • Manipulate the hazard: hazard: ❖ Protect, preserve, restore ❖ Protect, preserve, restore barrier island protection. ❖ Protect, preserve, barrier island protection. ❖ Protect, preserve, restore wetland protection. restore barrier island ❖ Protect, preserve, restore ❖ Protect, preserve and restore beaches and dune protection protection. wetland protection. ❖ Structural flood control, such as floodwalls, berms and levels ❖ Protect, preserve, ❖ Protect, preserve and restore Reduce exposure to the hazard: restore wetland beaches and dune protection ❖ Preserve, restore, enhance the barrier islands. protection. Reduce exposure to the ❖ Consider open space land uses in areas of high risk exposure to ❖ Protect, preserve hazard: coastal storms. and restore beaches ❖ Participate in voluntary ❖ Acquire or relocate vulnerable properties in high risk areas and dune protection property acquisition/relocation impacted by coastal storms. • Reduce exposure to programs sponsored by ❖ Place utilities underground when and where appropriate. the hazard: federal, state or local ❖ Consider low -density land use in high risk coastal zones. ❖ Participate in agencies • Reduce vulnerability to the hazard: voluntary property Reduce vulnerability to the ❖ Consider appropriate higher regulatory standards to the risk acquisition/relocation hazard: exposure to coastal storms such as: higher freeboard, enclosure programs sponsored ❖ Retrofit your facilities to meet prohibitions, coastal zone setbacks, lower substantial damage by federal, state or current building code thresholds, non -conversion deed restrictions local agencies standards for wind driven ❖ Elevate vulnerable properties in high risk areas impacted by • Reduce vulnerability forces. coastal storms. to the hazard: ❖ Maintain drainage facilities ❖ Adopt/amend building codes such that they will address pre- ❖ Elevate your home. that service your property. existing properties. ❖ Retrofit your home to . Build local capacity to ❖ Implement tree management programs. meet current building respond to or prepare for the ❖ Elevate roads that are vital/critical to evacuation and local code standards for hazard: community operations. wind driven forces. ❖ Develop a continuity of ❖ Design or enhance existing drainage systems for higher design • Build local capacity to operations plan to address storms to provide increased capacity of the drainage system. respond to or prepare operations before, during and ❖ Maintain the drainage infrastructure to levels that equal or exceed for the hazard: after coastal storm events. their design specifications. ❖ Buy flood Insurance ❖ Buy flood Insurance ❖ Stockpile property ❖ Partner with personal scale protection measures and government scale to be utilized once partners to provide property your receive notice protection components such of pending coastal as plywood and water storms. resistant barriers in the preparedness phase pending coastal storms. • Build local capacity to respond to or prepare for the hazard: ❖ Develop or enhance existing plans to include comprehensive evaluation of coastal storms and the reduction of their impacts at the local level. Seek to coordinate all levels of planning with this regard. ❖ Support/enhance code enforcement programs at the local level. ❖ Continue to develop, enhance and implement existing emergency response plans to utilize new and developing technology/ information as it become available. ❖ Develop a post -disaster action plan for coastal storm events that will address the local government operations post disaster. ❖ Promote the purchase of Flood Insurance ❖ Adopt regulations that require the disclosure of ocean -related hazards at the time of the purchase or sale of real property. ❖ Implement measures that will provide or help to provide property protection measures to property owners prior to the arrival of coastal storms. ❖ Utilize the best available technology to provide early warning of pending coastal storms to provide ample time to implement property protection measures. ❖ Educate the public on ways to protect their property before and during coastal storms, and where they can acquire the appropriate property protection measures. TETRA TECH 21-5 Harris County Multi -Hazard Mitigation Action Plan; Volume 1—Area-Wide Elements Table-21-6. Alternatives to M Manipulate the hazard: ❖ Stabilize slope (dewater, armor toe) ❖ Reduce weight on top of slope ❖ Minimize vegetation removal and the addition of impervious surfaces. Reduce exposure to the hazard: ❖ Locate structures outside of hazard area (off unstable land and away from slide -run out area) Reduce vulnerability to the hazard: ❖ Retrofit home Build local capacity to respond to or prepare for the hazard: ❖ Institute warning system, and develop evacuation plan ❖ Keep cash reserves for reconstruction ❖ Educate yourself on risk reduction techniques for landslide hazards • Manipulate the hazard: ❖ Stabilize slope (dewater, armor toe) ❖ Reduce weight on top of slope • Reduce exposure to the hazard: ❖ Locate structures outside of hazard area (off unstable land and away from slide -run out area) • Reduce vulnerability to the hazard: ❖ Retrofit at -risk facilities • Build local capacity to respond to or prepare for the hazard: ❖ Institute warning system, and develop evacuation plan ❖ Keep cash reserves for reconstruction ❖ Develop a continuity of operations plan ❖ Educate employees on the potential exposure to landslide hazards and emergency response protocol. the Landslide Hazard • Manipulate the hazard: ❖ Stabilize slope (dewater, armor toe) ❖ Reduce weight on top of slope • Reduce exposure to the hazard: ❖ Acquire properties in high -risk landslide areas. ❖ Adopt land use policies that prohibit the placement of habitable structures in high -risk landslide areas. • Reduce vulnerability to the hazard: ❖ Adopt higher regulatory standards for new development within unstable slope areas. ❖ Armor/retrofit critical infrastructure against the impact of landslides. • Build local capacity to respond to or prepare for the hazard: ❖ Produce better hazard maps ❖ Provide technical information and guidance ❖ Enact tools to help manage development in hazard areas: better land controls, tax incentives, information ❖ Develop strategy to take advantage of post -disaster opportunities ❖ Warehouse critical infrastructure components ❖ Develop and adopt a continuity of operations plan ❖ Educate the public on the landslide hazard and appropriate risk reduction alternatives. ❖ Consider the probable impacts of climate change on the risk associated with the landslide hazard 21-6 TETRA TECH 21. Mitigation Best Practices and Adaptive Capacity Table-21-7. Alternatives to Mitigate the Severe Weather Hazard Corporate-ScalePersonal-Scale t • Manipulate the hazard: • Manipulate the hazard: • Manipulate the hazard: ❖ None ❖ None ❖ None • Reduce exposure to the • Reduce exposure to the • Reduce exposure to the hazard: hazard: hazard: ❖ Develop an urban heat island reduction program that includes ❖ None ❖ None an urban forest program or plan • Reduce vulnerability to the • Reduce vulnerability to • Reduce vulnerability to the hazard: hazard: the hazard: ❖ Harden infrastructure such as locating utilities underground ❖ Insulate house ❖ Relocate critical ❖ Trim trees back from power lines ❖ Provide redundant heat and infrastructure (such as ❖ Designate snow routes and strengthen critical road sections power power lines) and bridges ❖ Insulate structure underground Build local capacity to respond to or prepare for the hazard: ❖ Plant appropriate trees near ❖ Reinforce or relocate ❖ Support programs such as "Tree Watch" that proactively home and power lines ("Right critical infrastructure manage problem areas through use of selective removal of tree, right place" National such as power lines to hazardous trees, tree replacement, etc. Arbor Day Foundation meet performance ❖ Establish and enforce building codes that require all roofs to Program) expectations withstand snow loads • Build local capacity to ❖ Install tree wire ❖ Increase communication alternatives respond to or prepare for the Build local capacity to ❖ Modify land use and environmental regulations to support hazard: respond to or prepare for vegetation management activities that improve reliability in ❖ Trim or remove trees that the hazard: utility corridors. could affect power lines ❖ Trim or remove trees ❖ Modify landscape and other ordinances to encourage ❖ Promote 72-hour self- that could affect power appropriate planting near overhead power, cable, and phone sufficiency lines lines ❖ Obtain a NOAA weather ❖ Create redundancy ❖ Provide NOAA weather radios to the public radio. ❖ Equip facilities with a ❖ Consider the probable impacts of climate change on the risk ❖ Obtain an emergency NOAA weather radio associated with the severe weather hazard generator. ❖ Equip vital facilities with ❖ Review and update heat response plan in light of climate emergency power change (heat events) projections sources. TETRA TECH 21-7 Harris County Multi -Hazard Mitigation Action Plan; Volume 1—Area-Wide Elements Table 21-8. Alternatives to Mitiaate the Tsunami Hazard • Manipulate the hazard: • Manipulate the hazard: • Manipulate the hazard: ❖ None ❖ None ❖ Build wave abatement structures (e.g. the "Jacks" looking • Reduce exposure to the . Reduce exposure to the structure designed by the Japanese) hazard: hazard: . Reduce exposure to the hazard: ❖ Locate outside of hazard ❖ Locate structure or ❖ Locate structure or functions outside of hazard area whenever area mission critical functions possible • Reduce vulnerability to the outside of hazard area ❖ Harden infrastructure for tsunami impacts hazard: whenever possible ❖ Relocate identified critical facilities located in tsunami high ❖ Apply personal property Reduce vulnerability to the hazard areas mitigation techniques to hazard: Reduce vulnerability to the hazard: your home such as ❖ Mitigate personal ❖ Adopt higher regulatory standards that will provide higher levels anchoring your foundation property for the impacts of protection to structures built in a tsunami inundation area and foundation openings of tsunami ❖ Utilize tsunami mapping to guide development away from high to allow flow though. Build local capacity to risk areas through land use planning • Build local capacity to respond to or prepare for Build local capacity to respond to or prepare for the hazard: respond to or prepare for the hazard: ❖ Create a probabilistic tsunami map for the planning area the hazard: ❖ Develop and practice a ❖ Provide incentives to guide development away from hazard ❖ Develop and practice a corporate evacuation areas household evacuation plan plan ❖ Develop a tsunami warning and response system ❖ Educate yourself on the ❖ Educate employees on ❖ Provide residents with tsunami inundation maps risk exposure from the the risk exposure from ❖ Join NOAA's Tsunami Ready program tsunami hazard and ways the tsunami hazard and ❖ Develop and communicate evacuation routes to minimize that risk ways to minimize that risk ❖ Enhance the public information program to include risk reduction options for the tsunami hazard 21-8 TETRA TECH 21. Mitigation Best Practices and Adaptive Capacity Table-21-9. Alternatives to Mitigate the Wildfire Hazard • Manipulate the hazard: Corporate -Scale Manipulate the Manipulate the hazard: ❖ Clear potential fuels on hazard: ❖ Clear potential fuels on property such as dry underbrush and property such as dry ❖ Clear potential fuels diseased trees overgrown underbrush on property such as ❖ Implement best management practices on public lands and diseased trees dry underbrush and Reduce exposure to the hazard: • Reduce exposure to the diseased trees ❖ Create and maintain defensible space around structures and hazard: Reduce exposure to infrastructure ❖ Create and maintain the hazard: ❖ Locate outside of hazard area defensible space around ❖ Create and maintain ❖ Enhance building code to include use of fire resistant materials in structures defensible space high hazard area. ❖ Locate outside of hazard around structures Reduce vulnerability to the hazard: area and infrastructure ❖ Create and maintain defensible space around structures and ❖ Mow regularly ❖ Locate outside of infrastructure • Reduce vulnerability to the hazard area ❖ Use fire -retardant building materials hazard: Reduce vulnerability ❖ Use fire-resistant plantings in buffer areas of high wildfire threat. ❖ Create and maintain to the hazard: ❖ Consider higher regulatory standards (such as Class A roofing) defensible space around ❖ Create and maintain ❖ Establish biomass reclamation initiatives structures and provide defensible space ❖ Reintroduce fire (controlled or prescribed burns) to fire -prone water on site around structures ecosystems ❖ Use fire -retardant building and infrastructure ❖ Manage fuel load through thinning and brush removal materials and provide water on Build local capacity to respond to or prepare for the hazard: ❖ Create defensible spaces site ❖ More public outreach and education efforts, including an active around home ❖ Use fire -retardant Firewise USA program • Build local capacity to building materials ❖ Possible weapons of mass destruction funds available to enhance respond to or prepare for ❖ Use fire-resistant fire capability in high -risk areas the hazard: plantings in buffer ❖ Identify fire response and alternative evacuation routes ❖ Employ techniques from areas of high wildfire ❖ Seek alternative water supplies the National Fire threat. ❖ Become a Firewise USA community Protection Association's • Build local capacity to ❖ Use academia to study impacts/solutions to wildfire risk Firewise USA program to respond to or prepare ❖ Establish/maintain mutual aid agreements between fire service safeguard home for the hazard: agencies ❖ Identify alternative water ❖ Support Firewise ❖ Develop, adopt, and implement integrated plans for mitigating supplies for fire fighting USA community wildfire impacts in wildland areas bordering on development ❖ Install/replace roofing initiatives. ❖ Consider the probable impacts of climate change on the risk material with non- ❖ Create /establish associated with the wildfire hazard in future land use decisions combustible roofing stored water supplies ❖ Establish a management program to track forest and rangeland materials. to be utilized for fire health fighting. TETRA TECH 21.9 Harris County Multi -Hazard Mitigation Action Plan; Volume 1—Area-Wide Elements 21.2 ADAPTIVE CAPACITY Adaptive capacity is defined as "the ability of systems, institutions, humans and other organisms to adjust to potential damage, to take advantage of opportunities, or to respond to consequences" (IPCC, 2014b). This term is typically used while discussing climate change adaptation; however, it is similar to the alternatives presented in the tables for building local capacity. In addition to hazard -specific capacity building, the following list provides general alternatives that planning partners considered to build capacity for adapting to both current and future risks: • Incorporate climate change adaptation into relevant local and regional plans and projects. • Establish a climate change adaptation and hazard mitigation public outreach and education program. • Build collaborative relationships between regional entities and neighboring communities to promote complementary adaptation and mitigation strategy development and regional approaches. • Establish an ongoing monitoring program to track local and regional climate impacts and adaptation strategy effectiveness. • Increase participation of low-income, immigrant, non -English-speaking, racially and ethnically diverse, and special -needs residents in planning and implementation. • Ask local employers and business associations to participate in local efforts to address climate change and natural hazard risk reduction. • Conduct a communitywide assessment and develop a program to address health, socioeconomic, and equity vulnerabilities. • Focus planning and intervention programs on neighborhoods that currently experience social or environmental injustice or bear a disproportionate burden of potential public health impacts. • Use performance metrics and data to evaluate and monitor the impacts of climate change and natural hazard risk reduction strategies on public health and social equity. • Develop coordinated plans for mitigating future flood, landslide, and related impacts through concurrent adoption of updated comprehensive plan safety elements and local hazard mitigation plans. • Implement comprehensive plan safety elements through zoning and subdivision practices that restrict development in floodplains, landslide, and other natural hazard areas. • Identify and protect locations where native species may shift or lose habitat due to climate change impacts (sea level rise, loss of wetlands, warmer temperatures, drought). • Collaborate with agencies managing public lands to identify, develop, or maintain corridors and linkages between undeveloped areas. • Promote economic diversity. • Incorporate consideration of climate change impacts as part of infrastructure planning and operations. • Conduct a climate impact assessment on community infrastructure. • Identify gaps in legal and regulatory capabilities and develop ordinances or guidelines to address those gaps. • Identify and pursue new sources of funding for mitigation and adaptation activities. • Hire new staff or provide training to current staff to ensure an adequate level of administrative and technical capability to pursue mitigation and adaptation activities. 21-10 TETRA TECH 22. AREA -WIDE ACTION PLAN 22.1 RECOMMENDED MITIGATION ACTIONS Area -wide actions are actions to be implemented under this plan that will benefit the entire planning partnership. HCOHSEM, with support from the Steering Committee, reviewed the catalogs of hazard mitigation alternatives and selected area -wide actions based on the risk assessment of hazards of concern and the hazard mitigation goals and objectives. These actions are more applicable on a regional scale than on a local scale. All planning partners agree to support the implementation of these area -wide actions by identifying an action in their local action plans provided in Volume 2 of this plan. Table 22-1 lists the recommended area -wide actions. The timeframe in the table is defined as follows: • Short Term = to be completed in 1 to 5 years • Long Term = to be completed in greater than 5 years • Ongoing = currently being funded and implemented under existing programs. 22.2 BENEFIT -COST REVIEW The action plan must be prioritized according to a benefit/cost analysis of the proposed actions (44 CFR, Section 201.6(c)(3)(iii)). The benefits of proposed actions were weighed against estimated costs as part of the action prioritization process. The benefit/cost analysis was not of the detailed variety required by FEMA for project eligibility under various grant programs. A less formal approach was used because some actions may not be implemented for up to 10 years, and associated costs and benefits could change dramatically in that time. Therefore, a review of the relative benefit versus relative cost of each action was performed. Parameters were established for assigning subjective ratings (high, medium, and low) to the cost and benefit of these actions. Cost ratings were defined as follows: • High —Existing funding will not cover the cost of the action; implementation would require new revenue through an alternative source (for example, bonds, grants, and fee increases). • Medium —The action could be implemented with existing funding but would require a re -apportionment of the budget or a budget amendment, or the cost of the action would have to be spread over multiple years. • Low —The action could be funded under the existing budget. The action is part of or can be part of an ongoing existing program. Benefit ratings were defined as follows: • High —Action will provide an immediate reduction of risk exposure for life and property. • Medium —Action will have a long-term impact on the reduction of risk exposure for life and property, or action will provide an immediate reduction in the risk exposure for property. • Low —Long-term benefits of the action are difficult to quantify in the short term. Using this approach, actions with positive benefit versus cost ratios (such as high over high, high over medium, medium over low, etc.) are considered cost -beneficial and are prioritized accordingly. TETRA TECH 22-1 Harris County Multi -Hazard Mitigation Action Plan; Volume 1—Area-Wide Elements Table 22-1. Action Plan Action AW-1—Utilize best available data and science as it becomes available with relevance to the planning area to map the extent and location of the Coastal Erosion, Dam Failure, Mass Movement and Tsunami hazards. The objective for this hazard mapping would be for the data to be in a geospatial format, suitable to support risk analysis in support of future updates to this plan Hazards Mitigated: Coastal Erosion, Dam Failure, Earthquake, Mass -Movements, and Tsunami New and Existing 3, 10 HCOHSEM Local, state and federal agencies that Medium Grant Funding, Long capture and produce data on risk HCOHSEM funds Action AW-2—Continue to maintain and update the Hazard Mitigation Plan website with relevant information on the plan's implementation such as: annual progress reports, grant funding opportunities, public comment opportunities and plan integration opportunities.. Each planning partner can support this initiative by creating a link to the County hazard mitigation website on their jurisdictional websites . Hazards Mitigated: Coastal erosion, Dam/levee failure, Drought, Earthquakes, Flooding, Hurricanes and coastal storms, Mass movement, Severe weather, Tsunami and Wildfire New and Existing 1, 3, 5, 9, 10, HCOHSEM All Planning Partners Low HCOHSEM Funds Ongoing 15 Action #AW-3—Utilizing the existing public outreach capability of the HCOHSEM Public Information Office; develop, deploy and disseminate targeted outreach projects promoting risk communication, mitigation and resilience to all the hazards of concern addressed by this plan. Note, that projects may include but not be limited to; public meetings/workshops, target mailings, brochures, social media, multi -media releases, web -deployed information, and citizen awareness timeframes. Hazards Mitigated: Coastal erosion, Dam/levee failure, Drought, Earthquakes, Flooding, Hurricanes and coastal storms, Mass movement, Severe weather, Tsunami and Wildfire New and Existing 1, 3, 5, 9, 10, HCOHSEM All Planning Partners Low HCOHSEM funds Ongoing 15 Action #AW-4— Strive to capture time -sensitive, perishable data —such as high-water marks, extent and location of hazard, and loss information —following hazard events to support future updates to the risk assessment as well as other plans and programs that utilize hazard extent and location data Hazards Mitigated: Coastal erosion, Dam/levee failure, Drought, Earthquakes, Flooding, Hurricanes and coastal storms, Mass movement, Severe weather, Tsunami and Wildfire New and Existing 1, 3, 15 HCOHSEM All Planning Partners Medium Local Funding Ongoing Action #AW5— Continue to develop, improve and implement an enhanced mass public warning and alert system (iPAWS) within the Harris County Joint Information Center to provide warning capability throughout Harris County to support the emergency management of all hazards of concern and disasters impacting critical infrastructure and residents. Hazards Mitigated: Coastal erosion, Dam/levee failure, Drought, Earthquakes, Flooding, Hurricanes and coastal storms, Mass movement, Severe weather, Tsunami and Wildfire New and Existing 1, 4, 10, 11 HCOHSEM All Planning Partners Low HCOHSEM Funds, Ongoing EMPG, UWASI Action #AW6— Utilize viable and relevant information, data and tools (Hazus models) developed as part of the update to the risk assessment of this plan update to support training and exercise of the County's preparedness, response and recovery programs Hazards Mitigated: Coastal erosion, Dam/levee failure, Drought, Earthquakes, Flooding, Hurricanes and coastal storms, Mass movement, Severe weather, Tsunami and Wildfire New and Existing 1, 3, 15 HCOHSEM All Planning Partners Low HCOHSEM Funds, Short EMPG, UWASI Term For many of the strategies identified in this action plan, financial assistance may be available through the HMA program, which requires detailed benefit/cost analyses. These analyses will be performed on projects at the time of application using the FEMA benefit -cost model. For actions not seeking financial assistance from grant programs that require detailed analysis, "benefits" can be defined according to parameters that meet the goals and objectives of this plan. 22-2 TETRA TECH 22. Area -Wide Action Plan 22.3 ACTION PLAN PRIORITIZATION Table 22-2 lists the priority of each area -wide action. A qualitative benefit -cost review was performed for each of these actions. The priorities are defined as follows: • Implementation Priority ➢ High Priority —An action that meets multiple objectives, has benefits that exceed costs, and has a secured source of funding. Action can be completed in the short term (1 to 5 years). ➢ Medium Priority —An action that meets multiple objectives, has benefits that exceed costs, and is eligible for funding though no funding has yet been secured for it. Action can be completed in the short term (1 to 5 years), once funding is secured. Medium -priority actions become high -priority actions once funding is secured. ➢ Low Priority —An action that will mitigate the risk of a hazard, has benefits that do not exceed the costs or are difficult to quantify, has no secured source of funding, and is not eligible for any known grant funding. Action can be completed in the long term (1 to 10 years). Low -priority actions are generally "wish -list" actions. They may be eligible for grant funding from programs that have not yet been identified. • Grant Pursuit Priority ➢ High Priority —An action that meets identified grant eligibility requirements, has high benefits, and is listed as high or medium implementation priority; local funding options are unavailable or available local funds could be used instead for actions that are not eligible for grant funding. ➢ Medium Priority —An action that meets identified grant eligibility requirements, has medium or low benefits, and is listed as medium or low implementation priority; local funding options are unavailable. ➢ Low Priority —An action that has not been identified as meeting any grant eligibility requirements. Table 22-2. Prioritization of Area -Wide Mitigation Actions AW-1 AW-2 AW-3 2 6 6 Medium Low Low Low Low Low Yes --Yes Yes Yes _ No No No Yes Medium High High Low Yes Hi h Low LAW-4 AW-5 3 4 3 High Mediu Medium Low Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes High High High Yes Yes AW 22.4 CLASSIFICATION OF MITIGATION ACTIONS Each recommended action was classified based on the hazard it addresses and the type of mitigation it involves. Please note that this plan is using the 6 mitigation categories defined under activity 510 of the Community Rating System (CRS) program. Please note that the CRS program is considered to be a higher standard than those specified by FEMA for compliance with the provisions of 44CFR, section 201.6. The CRS program criteria was a big driver for this planning effort, as 16 of the municipal planning partners in this effort participate in the CRS program. This classification expands upon the 4 mitigation categories defined by FEMA. Table 22-3 shows these classifications. TETRA TECH 22-3 Harris County Multi -Hazard Mitigation Action Plan; Volume 1-Area-Wide Elements Mitigation types used for this categorization are as follows: • Prevention -Government, administrative or regulatory actions that influence the way land and buildings are developed to reduce hazard losses. Includes planning and zoning, floodplain laws, capital improvement programs, open space preservation, and stormwater management regulations. • Property Protection -Modification of buildings or structures to protect them from a hazard or removal of structures from a hazard area. Includes acquisition, elevation, relocation, structural retrofit, storm shutters, and shatter -resistant glass. • Public Education and Awareness -Actions to inform residents and elected officials about hazards and ways to mitigate them. Includes outreach projects, real estate disclosure, hazard information centers, and school -age and adult education. • Natural Resource Protection -Actions that minimize hazard loss and preserve or restore the functions of natural systems. Includes sediment and erosion control, stream corridor restoration, watershed management, forest and vegetation management, wetland restoration and preservation, and green infrastructure. • Emergency Services -Actions that protect people and property during and immediately after a hazard event. Includes warning systems, emergency response services, and the protection of essential facilities. • Structural Projects -Actions that involve the construction of structures to reduce the impact of a hazard. Includes dams, setback levees, floodwalls, retaining walls, and safe rooms. • Climate ResiliencyActions that incorporate methods to mitigate and/or adapt to the impacts of climate change. Includes aquifer storage and recovery activities, incorporating future conditions projections in project design or planning, or actions that specifically address jurisdiction -specific climate change risks, such as sea level rise or urban heat island effect. • Community Capacity Building -Actions that increase or enhance local capabilities to adjust to potential damage, to take advantage of opportunities, or to respond to consequences. Includes staff training, memorandums of understanding, development of plans and studies, and monitoring programs. Table 22-3. Analvsis of Miticlation Actions Coastal Erosion AW-1, AW-4 AW-1, AW-2, AW-3 AW-5, AW-6 AW-1, AW-2, AW-3 AW-5, AW-6 AW-2, AW-3 AW-5, AW-6 AW-1, AW-2, AW-3 AW-5, AW-6 AW-2, AW-3 AW-5, AW-6 AW-2, AW-3 -5, AW-6 AW-1, AW-5 Dam/levee Failure AW-1, AW-4 AW-1, AW-5 Drought Earthquakes AW-4 AW-5 AW-1, AW-4 AW-1, AW-5 Flooding AW-4 AW-5 Hurricanes and Coastal StormsIL - Aw-5 Mass Movement Severe Weath Tsunami AW-1, AW-4 AW-4 AW-1, AW-4 AW-1, AW-2, AW-3 W-2, AW-1, AW-2, AW-3 AW-5, AW-6 AW-5, AW-6 AW-1, AW-5 AW-1, AW-5 Wildfire AW-4 AW-2. AW-3 AW-5. AW-6 22.5 AREA -WIDE ACTION PLAN IMPLEMENTATION The area -wide action plan here and jurisdiction -specific action plans in Volume 2 present a range of action items for reducing loss from hazard events. The planning partners have prioritized actions and can begin to implement the highest -priority actions over the next five years. The effectiveness of the hazard mitigation plan depends on its 22-4 TETRA TECH 22. Area -Wide Action Plan effective implementation and incorporation of the outlined action items into all partners' existing plans, policies, and programs. Some action items do not need to be implemented through regulation but can be implemented through the creation of new educational programs, continued interagency coordination, or improved public participation. HCOHSEM will have lead responsibility for overseeing the plan implementation and maintenance strategy. Plan implementation will be a shared responsibility among all planning partnership members and agencies identified as lead agencies in the area -wide and jurisdiction -specific action plans. TETRA TECH 22-5 23. PLAN ADOPTION, IMPLEMENTATION AND MAINTENANCE 23.1 PLAN ADOPTION A hazard mitigation plan must document that it has been formally adopted by the governing bodies of the jurisdictions requesting federal approval of the plan (44 CFR Section 201.6(c)(5)). For multi jurisdictional plans, each jurisdiction requesting approval must document that is has been formally adopted. This plan update was submitted to the Harris County attorney for review. Once finalized, it was presented to Commissioner's Court for approval to submit to the state. This plan will be submitted for a pre -adoption review to Texas Division of Emergency Management and FEMA Region VI prior to adoption. Once pre -adoption approval has been provided, all planning partners will formally adopt the plan. DMA compliance and its benefits cannot be achieved until the plan is adopted. Copies of the resolutions adopting this plan for all planning partners can be found in Appendix E of this volume. 23.2 ACTION PLAN IMPLEMENTATION The jurisdiction -specific action plans in Volume 2 present a range of action items for reducing loss from hazard events. The planning partners have prioritized actions and can begin to implement the highest -priority actions over the next five years. The effectiveness of the hazard mitigation plan depends on its effective implementation and incorporation of the outlined action items into all partners' existing plans, policies, and programs. Some action items do not need to be implemented through regulation but can be implemented through the creation of new educational programs, continued interagency coordination, or improved public participation. Harris County will have lead responsibility for overseeing the plan implementation and maintenance strategy. Plan implementation will be a shared responsibility among all planning partnership members and agencies identified as lead agencies in the jurisdiction -specific action plans. 23.3 PLAN MAINTENANCE STRATEGY A hazard mitigation plan must present a plan maintenance process that includes the following (44 CFR Section 201.6(c)(4)): • A section describing the method and schedule of monitoring, evaluating, and updating the mitigation plan over a 5-year cycle • A process by which local governments incorporate the requirements of the mitigation plan into other planning mechanisms, such as comprehensive or capital improvement plans, when appropriate • A discussion on how the community will continue public participation in the plan maintenance process. This section details the formal process that will ensure that the hazard mitigation plan remains an active and relevant document and that the planning partners maintain their eligibility for applicable funding sources. The plan maintenance process includes a schedule for monitoring and evaluating the plan annually and producing an updated plan every five years. TETRA TECH 23-1 Harris County Multi -Hazard Mitigation Action Plan; Volume 1—Area-Wide Elements This chapter also describes how public participation will be integrated throughout the plan maintenance and implementation process. It also explains how the mitigation strategies outlined in this plan will be incorporated into existing planning mechanisms and programs, such as comprehensive land -use planning processes, capital improvement planning, and building code enforcement and implementation. The plan's format allows sections to be reviewed and updated when new data become available, resulting in a plan that will remain current and relevant. Pursuant to 44CFR 201.6(c)(4)(i), the plan maintenance matrix shown in Table-23-1 provides a synopsis of responsibilities for the overall plan maintenance strategy, which are discussed in further detail in the sections below. Table-23-1. Plan Maintenance Matrix Monitoring- Preparation of status updates Progress and action implementation Reporting tracking as part of submission for annual progress report. Evaluation Annual progress reports will be evaluated by an oversight steering committee annually. Update Reconvene the planning partners, at a minimum, every 5 years to guide a full update to review and revise the plan. January to January of each calendar year or upon full update to comprehensive plan or major disaster Finalized progress report completed by March 1 of each year Every 5 years or upon full update to comprehensive plan or major disaster Grant Grant funding opportunities will Ongoing during the Monitoring be monitored via agency performance period of this and notifications, state associations plan Coordination and post -disaster response. Plan Create a linkage between the Ongoing during the Integration hazard mitigation plan and performance period of this individual jurisdictions' plan as opportunities for comprehensive plans or similar integration become available, plans identified in the core or according to timelines capability assessments. identified in the actions plans for each planning partner Jurisdictional points of contact Jurisdictional identified in Volume 2 annexes implementation lead identified in Volume 2 annexes HCOHSEM Jurisdictional points of contacts identified in Volume 2 annexes HCOHSEM and oversight steering Jurisdictional points committee of contacts identified in Volume 2 annexes HCOHSEM Jurisdictional points of contacts identified in Volume 2 annexes Jurisdictional points of contact Jurisdictional identified in Volume 2 annexes implementation lead identified in Volume 2 annexes Continuing Keep the website maintained Ongoing during the HCOHSEM will maintain the HCOHSEM and Public and receive comments through performance period of the overall hazard mitigation plan Jurisdictional Involvement it over the course of the plan. plan. Progress reports to be website and post the Countywide implementation lead Maintain planning partner links posted annually. Participating progress report annually. Each identified in Volume 2 to the website. Post county- CRS communities are to planning partner will provide a link annexes wide progress report to the provide the annual progress to the website and post their website. report to their governing individual progress report at their bodies for their information discretion. Participating CRS communities will follow protocol identified under step 10 of the 10- strep CRS planning requirements. 23.3.1 Plan Monitoring -Annual Progress Reporting The Harris County Office of Homeland Security and Emergency Management (HCOHSEM) will be the lead agency responsible for monitoring the plan, and each partner will have plan implementation by tracking the status of all recommended mitigation actions in its action plan. Staff or departments with primary responsibility are identified in each jurisdictional annex (see Volume 2). 23-2 TETRA TECH 23. Plan Adoption, Implementation and Maintenance The minimum task of each planning partner will be the monitoring of the progress of its individual action plan during a 12-month performance period. This review will include the following: • The internal process for monitoring and evaluating the plan's processes will be evaluated as part of the annual progress reporting process. • Summary of any hazard events that occurred during the performance period and the impact these events had on the planning area • Review of mitigation success stories • Review of continuing public involvement • Brief discussion about why targeted strategies were not completed • Re-evaluation of the action plan to determine if the timeline for identified projects needs to be amended (such as changing a long-term project to a short-term one because of new funding) • Recommendations for new projects • Changes in or potential for new funding options (grant opportunities) • Impact of any other planning programs or actions that involve hazard mitigation. The Core Planning Team has created a template that shows the minimum level of detail that will be sought for preparing a progress report. The Harris County Office of Homeland Security and Emergency Management (HCOHSEM) will oversee progress reporting and will have the discretionary authority on how to capture this information at least annually over the performance period of the plan. This information may be captured by various means available to the planning partnership. This report should be used as follows: • Posted on the Harris County website page dedicated to the hazard mitigation plan • Provided to the local media through available media outlets • Presented to planning partner governing bodies to inform them of the progress of actions implemented during the reporting period • Provided as part of the CRS annual re -certification package for planning partners that participate in the CRS. The CRS requires an annual recertification to be submitted by October 1 of every calendar year for which the community has not received a formal audit. To meet this recertification timeline, the planning team will strive to complete progress reports between June and September each year. Uses of the progress report will be at the discretion of each planning partner. Annual progress reporting is not a requirement specified under 44 CFR. However, it may enhance the planning partners' opportunities for funding. While failure to implement this component of the plan maintenance strategy will not jeopardize a planning partner's compliance under the DMA, it may jeopardize its opportunity to partner and leverage funding opportunities with the other partners. Each planning partner was informed of these protocols at the beginning of this planning process (in the "Planning Partner Expectations" package provided at the start of the process), and each partner acknowledged these expectations with submittal of a letter of intent to participate in this process. 23.3.2 Plan Evaluation The Steering Committee is a total volunteer body that oversaw the development of the Plan and made recommendations on key elements of the plan, including the maintenance strategy. It was the Steering Committee's position that an oversight committee with representation similar to the initial Steering Committee should have an active role in the Plan maintenance strategy. Therefore, it is recommended that a steering committee remain a viable body involved in key elements of the Plan maintenance strategy. The new steering committee should strive to include representation from the planning partners, as well as other stakeholders in the planning area, at the discretion of HCOHSEM. TETRA TECH 23-3 Harris County Multi -Hazard Mitigation Action Plan; Volume 1—Area-Wide Elements The principal role of the steering committee in this plan maintenance strategy will be to provide a review forum to be used by Harris County and its Planning Partners to identify enhancements to be considered at the next update. Future plan updates will be overseen by a steering committee similar to the one that participated in this update process, so keeping a steering committee intact will provide a head start on future updates. Completion of the progress report is the responsibility of each planning partner, not the responsibility of the steering committee. It will be the steering committee's role to serve as a resource to the planning partnership as needed to review the progress report in an effort to identify issues needing to be addressed by future plan updates. 23.3.3 Plan Update Federal regulations require that local hazard mitigation plans be reviewed, revised if appropriate, and resubmitted for approval in order to remain eligible for benefits awarded under the Disaster Mitigation Act (44 CFR Section 201.6.d(3) and Section 201.7(d)(3)). This plan's format allows the planning partnership to review and update sections when new data become available. New data can be easily incorporated, resulting in a plan that will remain current and relevant. The planning partnership intends to update the plan on a five-year cycle from the date of plan approval. This cycle may be accelerated to less than 5 years based on the following triggers: • A presidential disaster declaration that impacts the planning area • A hazard event that causes loss of life • An update of a participating jurisdiction's comprehensive plan It will not be the intent of the update process to develop a completely new hazard mitigation plan. Based on needs identified by the planning team, the update will, at a minimum, include the following elements: • The update process will be convened through a new steering committee. • The hazard risk assessment will be reviewed and, if necessary, updated using best available information and technologies. • Action plans will be reviewed and revised to account for any actions completed, dropped, or changed and to account for changes in the risk assessment or planning partnership policies identified under other planning mechanisms (such as the comprehensive plan). • The draft update will be sent to appropriate agencies and organizations for comment. • The public will be given an opportunity to comment on the update prior to adoption. • Partners' governing bodies will adopt their respective portions of the updated plan. Because plan updates can require a year or more to complete, HCOHSEM will initiate efforts to update the plan before it expires. HCOHSEM will consider applying for funding to update the plan no later than 2 calendar years before plan expiration. 23.3.4 Grant Monitoring and Coordination HCOHSEM will identify grant funding opportunities and send notifications to participating partner jurisdictions. Once these opportunities are identified, planning partners interested in pursuing a grant opportunity will convene in a short meeting to review the hazard mitigation plan and pursue a strategy to capture that grant funding. HCOHSEM will assume lead responsibility for planning and facilitating grant opportunity meetings. Review of the hazard mitigation plan at these meetings can include the following: • Discussion of any hazard events that occurred during the prior year and their impact on the planning area • Impact of potential grant opportunities on the implementation of mitigation actions • Re-evaluation of the action plans to determine if the timeline for identified actions need to be amended (such as changing a long-term action to a short-term action because of funding availability) • Recommendations for new actions 23-4 TETRA TECH 23. Plan Adoption, Implementation and Maintenance • Impact of any other planning programs or initiatives that involve hazard mitigation. If multiple planning partners decide to pursue the same grant funding opportunity, partnerships can be formed to utilize the hazard mitigation plan in the grant application. 23.3.5 Incorporation into Other Planning Mechanisms The information on hazard, risk, vulnerability, and mitigation contained in this plan is based on the best science and technology available at the time this plan was prepared. The comprehensive plans of the planning partners are considered to be integral parts of this plan. The planning partners, through adoption of comprehensive plans and zoning ordinances, have planned for the impact of natural hazards. The plan development process provided them with the opportunity to review and expand on policies contained within these planning mechanisms. The planning partners used their comprehensive plans and the hazard mitigation plan as complementary documents that work together to achieve the goal of reducing risk exposure to the citizens of the planning area. An update to a comprehensive plan may trigger an update to the hazard mitigation plan. All municipal planning partners are committed to creating a linkage between the hazard mitigation plan and their individual comprehensive plans by identifying a mitigation action as such and giving that action a high priority. Other planning processes and programs to be coordinated with the recommendations of the hazard mitigation plan include the following: • Emergency response plans • Training and exercise of emergency response plans • Debris management plans • Recovery plans • Capital improvement programs • Municipal codes • Community design guidelines • Water -efficient landscape design guidelines • Stormwater management programs • Water system vulnerability assessments • Community wildfire protection plans • Comprehensive flood hazard management plans • Resiliency plans • Community Development Block Grant -Disaster Recovery action plans • Public information/education plans. Some action items do not need to be implemented through regulation. Instead, these items can be implemented through the creation of new educational programs, continued interagency coordination, or improved public participation. As information becomes available from other planning mechanisms that can enhance this plan, that information will be incorporated via the update process. 23.3.6 Continuing Public Participation The public outreach strategy used during development of the current update will provide a framework for public engagement through the plan maintenance process. It can be adapted for ongoing public outreach as determined to be feasible by the planning partnership. A steering committee similar to the one involved in developing this hazard mitigation plan update will be put in place to provide stakeholder input on plan maintenance activities. The public will continue to be apprised of hazard mitigation activities through the website and reports on successful hazard mitigation actions provided to the media. HCOHSEM will keep the website maintained, TETRA TECH 23-5 Harris County Multi -Hazard Mitigation Action Plan; Volume 1—Area-Wide Elements including monitoring the email address where members of the public can submit comments to the steering committee. This site will house the final plan and will be a one -stop shop for information regarding the plan, the partnership and plan implementation. Copies of the plan also will be distributed to the Harris County Library System. Upon initiation of the next plan update process, a new public involvement strategy will be initiated, with guidance from the new steering committee. This strategy will be based on the needs and capabilities of the planning partnership at the time of the update. At a minimum, it will include the use of local media outlets. 23-6 TETRA TECH REFERENCES AL.com. 2015. "Gulf Coast not immune to tsunamis, say researchers." Web site posted March 25, 2015. Accessed at https://www.al.com/news/2015/03/aulf coast_ not immune to_tsuna.html Allegro Energy. 2001. How Pipelines Make the Oil Market Work - Their Networks, Operation and Regulation. American Meteorological Society, 1959. Glossary of Meteorology. Edited by Ralph E. Huschke. Boston, Mass. Association of State Dam Safety Officials. 2013. "Introduction to Dams." Dam Safety 101. Accessed 2017. http://www.damsafety.org/news/?p=e4cdal7l-b5lO-4a9 I-aa30-067140346bb2. Association of State Dam Safety Officials. 2016. Dam Failures and Incidents. The website of the Association of State Dam Safety Officials, accessed January 2016, http://www.damsafeiy.org/news/?p=412f29c8-3fd8-4529- b5c9-8d47364clf3e Brown, W. et al. 2001. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). "Hazard Maps Help Save Lives and Property." 2001. Accessed 2017. htt2://pubs.usgs.fzov/fs/1996/fsl83-96/fsl83-96.pdf. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 2012. "Drought and Health." Accessed February 2017. htip://www.cdc.fzov/nceh/drgqgh�t/. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 2013. Emergency Preparedness and Response: Lightning: Victim Data. The website of the CDC, last reviewed December 23, 2013, htip://www.bt.cdc.jzov/disasters/lightniniz/victimdata.M. City of Houston. 2019. Annexation web page on the City of Houston web site. Accessed online at http://www.houstontx.gov/plannin _/Annexation/annexation.html Drought Impact Reporter. 2019. The website of the National Drought Mitigation Center. Accessed online at http://drought.unl.edu/monitoringtools/drou hghtimpactreporter.aspx Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 1997. FEMA's Multi -Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment; Subpart B, Geological Hazards. January 1, 1997. Accessed 2018. https://www.fema.gov/media- library-data/20130726-1545-20490-9696/mhira_n2.pdf Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 2001. Understanding Your Risks; Identifying Hazards and Determining your Risks. FEMA (386-2). August 2001 Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 2002. Getting Started; Building support for Mitigation Planning; FEMA (386-1). September 2002 Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 2003. Developing the Mitigation Plan; Identifying Mitigation Actions and Implementing Strategies. FEMA (386-3). April 2003 TETRA TECH References-1 Harris County Multi -Hazard Mitigation Action Plan; Volume 1—Area-Wide Elements Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 2004. Using HAZUS-MH for Risk Assessment, How to Guide, FEMA (433). August 2004 Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 2007. FEMA, National Flood Insurance Program, Community Rating System; CRS Coordinator's Manual FIA-15/2007 OMB No. 1660-0022 Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 2014. FEMA Disaster Declaration Summary — Open Government Dataset. Spreadsheet Data Accessed December 10, 2012 from Federal Emergency Management Agency Website: http://www.fema.gov/library/viewRecord.do?id=6292 Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 2019. Data Visualization: Disaster Declarations for States and Counties, Harris County, Texas. Accessed online at https://www.fema.gov/data-visualization-disaster- declarations-states-and-counties Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis. 2019. Unemployment data page of the Economic Research web site of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis. Accessed online at https:Hfred.stlouisfed.org/series/UNRATE#Ov Harris County Appraisal District. 2017. Harris County Appraisal District 2017 Annual Report. Accessed online at http://hcad. org/assets/uploads/pdf/resources/2019/2017-Annual-Report.pdf Harris County Flood Control District. 2019. "Harris County's Flooding History." Web paged accessed online at Harris -Galveston Coastal Subsidence District (HGCSD). 1999. 1999 Regulatory Plan. Houston Chronicle. 2019. "Greater Houston's top 100 employers." Web paged accessed online at https://www.hcfcd.or flooding floodplains/harris-countys-floodin -hg istor Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2014. "Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Parts A, B and Annexes." Accessed January 2017. http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg2/. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2014a. "Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Parts A, B and Annexes." Accessed January 2017. htt2://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg2/. Lone Star College. 2018. Fast Facts Harris County informational flier. Prepared by Lone Star College North Houston Economic Development Center. Accessed online at htlps://hcoed.harriscountM.gov/docs/HarrisCogptyFastFacts.pd National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). 2016. "NASA, NOAA Data Show 2016 Warmest Year on Record Globally." Accessed February 2017. hops://www.nasa.goy/press-release/nasa-noaa-data-show-2016- wannest -year -on -record -globally. National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). 2017. "NASA, NOAA Data Show 2016 Warmest Year on Record Globally" Accessed May 2017. https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-noaa-data-show-2016- wannest -year -on -record -globally. National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). 2018. "Global Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet." Accessed April 2018. http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs National Centers for Environmental Information. 2018. "Drought — February 2018." The website of NOAA. Accessed 2018. https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/drought/201802 References-2 TETRA TECH References National Centers for Environmental Information. 2018a. "Drought Indices and Data." The website of NOAA. Accessed 2018. https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/temp-and-precip/drought/nadm/indices National Centers for Environmental Information. 2018b. "NGDC/WDS Global Historical Tsunami Database." Accessed 2018. https://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/hazard/tsu db.shtml National Centers for Environmental Information. 2018c. Tsunami Travel Times to Coastal Locations viewer. Accessed 2018. https://maps.ngdc.noaa.gov/viewers/ttt coastal_ locations/ National Centers for Environmental Information. 2019. "Storm Events Database." Web page accessed at https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/stonnevents/ National Drought Mitigation Center. 2017. "Drought Affecting People." Accessed February 2017. http://drought.unl.edu/droughtbasics/ensoandforecasting.aspx. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2010. http://www4.ncdc.noaa.goy cg win/wwcgi.dll?wwEvent—Storms. NOAA, National Climatic Data Center website, accessed 2010 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2018a. "Enhanced F Scale for Tornado Damage." The website of NOAA. Accessed 2018. http://www.spc.noaa. og v/faq/tornado/ef-scale.html National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and National Weather Service (NOAA and NWS). 2009. "National Weather Service Glossary." Accessed 2018. http://wl.weather.gov/ lg ossa /. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and National Weather Service (NOAA and NWS). 2018. "Drought Monitoring." The website of NOAA. Last updated 2015. http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov//products/monitoring and data/drought.shtml National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and National Weather Service (NOAA and NWS). 2018a. "Introduction to Thunderstorms." The website of the NWS. Accessed 2018. hllps://www.weather.gov/jetstream/tstorms intro National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and National Weather Service (NOAA and NWS). 2018b. "Freezing Rain and Sleet." The website of the NWS. Accessed 2018. htips://www.weather.gov/mk/Measure Icing National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and National Weather Service (NOAA and NWS). 2018c. "Severe Weather Definitions." The website of the NWS. Accessed 2018. https://www.weather.gov/bgm/severedefinitions National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and National Weather Service (NOAA and NWS). 2018d. "Weather Fatalities." The website of NWS. Accessed 2018. http://www.nws.noaa.gov/om/hazstats/resources/weather fatalities.pdf National Severe Storms Laboratory. 2018. "Severe Weather 101." The website of the National Severe Storms Laboratory. Accessed 2018. https://www.nssl.noaa.gov/education/svrwxl0l/wind/types/ National Tsunami Hazard Mitigation Program. 2001. Designing for Tsunamis: Seven Principles for Planning and Designing for Tsunami Hazards. Accessed 2018. https://nws.weather.gov/nthmp/documents/designingfortsunamis.pd National Weather Service. 2019. "What Is the Heat Index?" Web page accessed online at https://www.weather.gov/ama/heatindex TETRA TECH References-3 Harris County Multi -Hazard Mitigation Action Plan; Volume 1—Area-Wide Elements Texas A&M Agrilife Extension Service. 2019. Texas Coastal Wetlands web page. Accessed online at texaswetlands.org Texas Demographic Center. 2019. Estimates of the Total Populations of counties and Places in Texas for July 1, 2018 and January 1, 2019. Produced by the Population Estimates and Projections Program at The Texas Demographic Center, University of Texas at San Antonio. October 2019. Accessed online at https://demogrgphics.texas. gov/Resources/TPEPP/Estimates/2018/2018_Wopest_countypdfv Texas General Land Office. 2014. Texas Coastwide Erosion Response Plan; 2013 Update. Prepared for the Texas General Land Office by K.K. McKenna, PG. Accessed online at http://www.glo.texas.gov/coast/coastal- management/forms/files/coastwide-erosion-response-plan.pdf Texas State Historical Association. 2019a. The Handbook of Texas Online. Harris County web page. Accessed online at https://tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/hch07 Texas State Historical Association. 2019b. The Texas Almanac web page. Accessed online at htlps://texasalmanac.com/ Tornado and Storm Research Organisation (TORRO). 2019. Hail Scale web page. Accessed online at http://www.torro.org.uk/site/hscale.php U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2011. Safety of Dams —Policy and Procedures; ER 1110-2-1156. October 28, 2011. Accessed online at hgps://www.lrh.usace.army.mil/Portals/38/docs/zoar/ER%201110-2-1156%20-- %2028%20Oct%2011_2_.pdf U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2019. "National Inventory of Dams." Web page accessed online at https://nid.sec.usace.army.mil/ords/f?p=105:22:13630916806800::NO::: U.S. Census Bureau. 2018. Quick Facts for Harris County. U.S. Census Bureau. 2019. American Community Survey. Accessed 2019. https://factfinder.census. gov/faces/nav/j sf/pages/index.xhtml# U.S. Climate Resilience Toolkit. 2018. U.S. Climate Resilience Toolkit web page on drought: htips://toolkit.climate. og v/topics/water/drought U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Farm Service Agency, 2018. "Disaster Designation Information. Accessed 2018. hitps://www.fsa.usda.goy/programs-and-services/disaster-assistance-program/disaster- designation-information/index U.S. Department of Agriculture. 2017. National Agricultural Statistics Service, 2017 Census Publications, accessed online at https://www.nass.usda.gov/Publications/AgCensus/2017/Full_ReportNolume_1, Chapter_2_Counly Level/Texa s/ U.S. Department of Energy. 2009. US Department of Energy. Accessed September 7, 2009, from U.S. Department of Energy at http://www.oe.energy.gov U.S. Drought Portal. 2018. National Integrated Drought Information System. Accessed 2018. https://www.drought.gov/drought/data- ag llery/crop-moisture-index U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2016. "Climate Change Indicators in the United States." 2016. https: //www. epa. gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-atmospheric-concentrations-,greenhouse-gases. References-4 TETRA TECH References U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2016a. "Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) Program." https: //www. epa.,gov/toxics-release-inventory-tri-program/leam-about-toxics-release-inventory. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2016b. "Climate Change Indicators in the United States." 2016. EPA 430-R-16-004. www.epa.gov/climate-indicators. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2016c. "What Climate Change Means for Texas." Publication EPA 430-F-16-045. August 2016. Accessed online at https:// 19j anuary20l 7snapshot. epa. gov/sites/production/files/2016-09/documents/climate-change-tx.pdf U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2017. "Climate Impacts on Coastal Areas" web page. Accessed online at https://19januga20l7snapshot.gpa.gov/climate-impacts/climate-impacts-coastal-areas_.html. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2008. An Atlas of ShakeMaps for Selected Global Earthquakes. U.S. Geological Survey Open -File Report 2008-1236. Prepared by Allen, T.I., Wald, D.J., Hotovec, A.J., Lin, K., Earle, P.S. and Marano, K.D. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2010. PAGER —Rapid Assessment of an Earthquake's Impact. U.S. Geological Survey Fact Sheet 2010-3036. September 2010. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2014. "Global Seismographic Network." Earthquake Hazards Program. Accessed February 2017. http://earthquake.usgs.gov/monitoring/gsn/. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2017a. "Measuring Earthquakes FAQs." Accessed February 2017. htlps://www2.usgs.gov/faq/categories/9828/3357. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2018. "3.3 ShakeMap Archives." The website of USGS. Accessed 2018. http://usgs.github.io/shakemap/manual3_5/shakemap_archives.html#generatin-earthquake-scenarios U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2019. "Federal Wildland Fire Occurrence Data" USGS website accessed at: htlps://wildfire.cr.usgs.gov/firehistoDL/data.html U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP). 2009. "Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States." Thomas R. Karl, Jerry M. Melillo and Thomas C. Peterson, (eds.). Cambridge University Press. Accessed 2016. https://downloads. globalchange. gov/usimpacts/pdfs/climate-impacts-report.pdf. World Atlas. 2019. "Cities With The Most Fortune 500 Companies." Web page accessed online at https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/cities-with-the-most-compgny-headquarters.html TETRA TECH References-5 LIST OF ACRONYMS ADA—American with Disabilities Act BLM—Bureau of Land Management CDBG-DR—Community Development Block Grant Disaster Recovery CFM—Certified floodplain manager CFR—Code of Federal Regulations CPT —Core Planning Team CRS—Community Rating System CWA—Clean Water Act DFIRM—Digital Flood Insurance Rate Maps DHS—Department of Homeland Security DMA Disaster Mitigation Act EMCEmergency management coordinator EPA—U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ESA —Endangered Species Act EWP—Emergency Watershed Protection FEMAFederal Emergency Management Agency FERCFederal Energy Regulatory Commission FIRM —Flood Insurance Rate Map GBS—General Building Stock GIS—Geographic Information System GISP—Certified GIS professional Hazus—Hazards, United States HCOHSEM—Harris County Office of Homeland Security and Emergency Management HGCSD— Harris -Galveston Coastal Subsidence District IBC —International Building Code IPCC—Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change IRC—International Residential Code MM—Modified Mercalli Scale TETRA TECH Acronyms-1 Harris County Multi -Hazard Mitigation Action Plan; Volume 1—Area-Wide Elements mph —Miles per hour MRP—mean return period MWhMegawatt-hour Mw—Moment Magnitude Scale NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration NCDC—National Climatic Data Center NEHRP—National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program NFIP—National Flood Insurance Program NIMS—National Incident Management System NOAA—National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NPS—National Park Service NRCSNatural Resources Conservation Service NWS—National Weather Service PGA —Peak Ground Acceleration SFHA—Special flood hazard area TDEM—Texas Department of Emergency Management TORRO—Tornado and Storm Research Organisation USDA—U.S. Department of Agriculture USGCRP—U.S. Global Change Research Program USGS—U.S. Geological Survey Acronyms-2 TETRA TECH Harris County Multi -Hazard Mitigation Action Plan Appendix A. Public Involvement Materials STEERING COMMITTEE MEETING SUMMARIES TETRA TECH �Y Harris County Hazard Mitigation Plan -Update V LHMP Steering Committee Meeting r Thursday —October 18, 2018 10:OOam — 12:OOPM Houston TranStar I Conference Room 120A 6922 Katy Road, Houston, TX 77024 Welcome and Introductions • Group Introductions • Review Agenda The Steering Committee Role/Ground rules • SC Purpose • Schedule • SC Expectations • SC Organization • Reconfirm SC Charter Defined Planning Area for the update • TDEM directive • How this will impact this update • Cities that are in more than one County • Data mine Critical Facilities/Infrastructure Definition • Review proposed definition • Proposed changes or enhancements? • Data sources for CF/CI inventories Hazards of Concern • Hazards form the last plan • Changes, additions or deletion? • Hazard scenarios to assess Public Involvement Strategy • Public Engagement Meetings • Planning partner coordination (Bulletins) • Additional Outreach Capabilities (suggestions welcomed) o Website o Questionnaire o Press/media o Social Media Homework (before the next SC meeting) • Review the TX State Hazard Mitigation Plan (https://www.dps.texas.gov/dem/Mitigation/txHazMitPlan.pdf ) o Goals, capabilities and actions • Prior Harris County Plan o Changes or enhancements Action Items and Next Steps • Phase 1, Jurisdictional Annex process • Risk Assessment update • Confirm, Goals and Objectives for the Plan • Schedule phase 1, Public Outreach • Next Meeting Location? Adjourn 0sty h MEETING SUMMARY Date/Time of Meeting: Thursday — October 18, 2018; 10:OOam to Noon Location: Houston, TranStar, 6922 Katy Freeway Houston, Texas 77024 Subject: 111 LHMP Steering Committee Meeting Project Name: Harris County Hazard Mitigation Plan -Update In Attendance Attendees: 49 persons in attendance, see attached Core Planning Team: Brian Murray, Brian Dunaway, Ashly Schutt, Rob Flaner, Chrissie Angeletti Not Present: N/A Summary Prepared by: Courtney Tavares Quorum —Yes or No Yes Welcome and Introductions, Review Agenda • Rob Flanner opened the meeting and facilitated group introductions. • Distributed handouts included: Agenda, Steering Committee Charter, Hazards of Concern, Critical Facilities definitions. • The agenda was reviewed, and no modifications were made. The Steering Committee Role/Ground Rules • The purpose of the Steering Committee was discussed. • The Chairperson and Vice Chairperson were named as well as the roles of these positions. • Quorum was established as 9 members plus at least 1 of the co- chairs. • Alternates can be designated in the event a committee member is unable to attend. • Decision -making — process will seek consensus. If consensus cannot be reached, a decision will be confirmed by a majority vote. A dissenting opinion can be recorded upon request. • Recommendations from meetings will be recorded in meeting summaries. • Staffing will be organized by Tetra Tech and Harris County All committee members must designate the alternate within 2 weeks, by November 1, 2018 0 • Spokesperson for the committee will be Ms. Rose Tores and Ms. Hallie Frazee — all media request should go through them @ mitigation@oem.hctx.net • Meeting dates — Bi monthly meetings were set for the 3" Thursday of the month beginning with the January 2019 SC meeting • Attendance — if the committee member is unable to attend, they can send their alternate if one has been designated. Repeated no-shows, member or alternate, will be contacted by the Chair to see if they are still able to support the process • Public Involvement — all meetings are open to the public and will be advertised as such. Defined Planning Area for the Update Direction has been provided by TDEM on how to address the situation where a jurisdiction's boundaries intersect more than 1 county. There are five such cities in the Harris County planning partnership — Friendswood, Waller, Katy, Stafford and Baytown. The direction from TDEM was that in these situations, the risk assessment must extend in to those counties outside of Harris and those cities should identify and prioritize actions for those areas outside of Harris County. This represents a divergence from how this issue has been addressed by7 past planning efforts. Rob explained that each of the 5 cities will need to assist the CPT in mining the necessary data for those areas outside Harris County. Critical Facilities/Infrastructure Definition Under this segment, Rob defined the critical facilities as listed on Section 2.12 — Critical Facilities handout. These facilities include: o Government Facilities o Education Facilities o Health and Medical Facilities o Transportation Systems o Emergency Services o Environmental Areas o Historical and Cultural sites o Hazardous Material Sites o Water Control Facilities It was purposed to add an additional bullet for "Economic Impact". Hazards of Concern Under this section, Rob reviewed the hazards profiled under the last plan. It was recommended that all the same hazarded be assessed for this plan Meeting Summary Committee members to update contact info within 2 weeks, by November 1, 2018 Need to set a point of contact to obtain data info for areas outside of Harris County 0 update, with some being consolidated in to a single hazard profile. It was recommended to consolidate the following: • Mass Movement ➢ Landslides ➢ Sink Holes ➢ Subsidence • Severe Weather ➢ Extreme Heat ➢ Hail ➢ Tornadoes ➢ Severe Thunderstorms ➢ Winter Storms and Freezes • Non -Natural ➢ Toxic release/Hazardous Materials ➢ Energy Pipeline Failures All hazards are still profiled, just grouped under headings. Recommendation to group headings were approved. It was discussed to add a profile for "Active Shooter, terrorist" under non -natural. No formal decision was made on this point at this time. Public Involvement Strategy The SC was briefed on the requirement for an open public process for updating hazard mitigation plans. Rob explained that the primary means for keeping the public apprised of plan development milestones will be the HCOHSEM hazard mitigation plan website at: https://www.readyharris.org/mitigation Rob asked that all planning partners create links to this website on their individual webpages. Rob also explained that with such a large planning partnership, keeping all planning partners apprised of what is going on will be mission critical to the success of this plan update. To accomplish this, the CPT will distribute "bulletins" to all planning partners and coordinating stakeholders at various points during the planning process. At a minimum, bulletins will be distributed following each Steering Committee meeting so that those stakeholders that are not sitting on the SC, will be informed on what is going on. Other methods of outreach to be utilized during this process include: o Questionnaire o Public meetings o Press/media o Social Media Meeting Summary Committee members and planning partners to add a link on their website to Harris County Mitigation Plan CPT to distribute Bulletin # 1 0 Rob explained that the public meeting process will occur in 2 phases. Phase 1 will be early in the plan update process with the principle objective of gauging the public's perception of risk. Phase 2 will be at the end of the process to present the draft plan and to provide the public an opportunity to comment on the draft plan. Rob explained that the outreach strategy will be an agenda item for every SC meeting. Homework Before the next steering committee meeting, members are to: • Review the current state plan and familiarize themselves with current hazards. What are the goals and objectives? • Review the current Harris County Plan — Volume 1— everyone and volume 2 —jurisdictional Links to both plans will be provided via the bulletin. Meeting was adjourned at 12:00 PM There will be no meeting in December due to holiday schedules. Next meeting will be January 17, 2019. Meeting Summary 0 Attachment: Sign -in Sheet . MEETING SUMMARY HC - LMP Steering Committee Meeting October 18, 2018, 10:00 a.m. Name ce 4-1 t j Last Name Agency 0W A. 015 Email 4 <n Y - j J �. �, d. PhoneFirst Af ' V _ `6LKV ,-Vli avt cz • c `632 blt4 ij Gi a /V_ " ' -i t3- i 9710 . QV i �U5 C, �r41j5e Li,;A Cep- l+ovST� A'1��5 o tiSa l�wvs �n c� � - -o- Z 335 CD CILA 41C 6411 L�ti,-- (2 q T- 0 HC - LMP Steering Committee Meeting October 18, 2018, 10:00 a.m. Meeting Summary First Name Ci Last Name �C%V/II,, Agency l I �o li S f Email ✓IL' 16r avl.dvLlCli,�� " DieW. 4r[�— Phone � 1 � `d'�, 3� �% ve Sc fi5 c�v� �E l� i r. a i c, rn Uict. To c/&c— (-)c//OS - ! us a Tn ^ v� - ��� �o t �'g- C(o `` 1Lt�nwl Qi_O�Ii ice, L p 5ry- -vx I1 ttitiebC�i v. oGl-Y.0t4 ZbZ' S77 -51 Ply r zz7 j lsI K -rod,! �d dV— 06 r c a -7 3 31g 85,1 r� �� isf ���vvs r� far Wes 7 �1v1t�{Un MR� In Afj} o� U Wa+P,tie Q.� ardan@ 1b� ok • +.,��e, e I. 9O(- $ °13 Of, rL11 (�A li fr e ! 4a zeit Cc,rA r pasana orrr ucar�er�J��. rsc�de�u.�x.l�S -7�3-,1 ict77 X- � �c v 1, (,aT, 7 C 0A,10 &I, 9_ I s i� 0 HC - LMP Steering Committee Meeting October 18, 2018, 10:00 a.m. Meetina Summ First Name 5vllle Last Name SC VLU, f Agency kt(0 EtM Email CtshI- N -SGhuOChi-k - Phone 7 �L� 6a S7drU 6/ 0&-P s 7av Sr ck 6 Vc, 713- ff Z, M ST&(A L R- I�,A oK ASsor. S4�ue. s fl�56,.ne� i13 -7028W1l eue r n c•�� Fr.•c�.r° ,.,, / rs Fr-���s��l�z ��I 99G-333 `act ct�e- NC.'�1 A1;5/D-) � I a Q @ -PAS-f�CPC- NIf T -j ti3-'-1!5j- 0C q c U: �fD/ (-CU u d,^,v �r�c/,fr�^.,,r L� Lr. u/ Ca Q CCu k. c aw 713_ jo(.3vo V- rn JeSSe Ma( ai2S ��r�cS Cov'lt S25SQ.wIDr� CSC C !cf 71327 -3 c e ra z- y AL �Z�k k�' C� .Y� �13 �1^�21(7> —4S7G --r�... l L yJ a f!S /i a` .`�-�.r .x (n,fN • a-. �r� c�j U) F .wLul-lu UV-- L r 611- 10 Vt l j 07-&U-23 5 Z3 f u s _ S E'r�Y�t NauS�rn en+nti�cr • �. C '�. C[�M -7f o?s,z s (7tif q 03 Qr 0 HC - LMP Steering Committee Meeting October 18, 2018, 10:00 a.m. Meeting Summary Name Last Name Agency Email PhoneFirst C' �r1Y�' CGf tlirL Cr4 oic -00�� R� eC!/ $rcr�.cv%IiL. Cv✓ ��' y�1'/-� i RAY �0�1 Z t.Jai-Fs z8� •72?-s rN —t�ISO i�omu E�+��S C�wl�•�c. l�vr .T ('c: T���rS �Cc a�Zna 4J ..; $32 755-D14> 4 j.o � � l.� k � •�-� 7r - 98 - `[SS 0A— L l LL-,.,. Y, .[ zv -90 -I3W CA 4 C 0 N sf, L4 4Di IA— ki 72 0 �Y Harris County Hazard Mitigation Plan -Update 2nd LHMP Steering Committee Meeting Thursday —January 17, 2019 10:OOam—12:OOPM Houston TranStar I Conference Room 120A 6922 Katy Road, Houston, TX 77024 Welcome and Introductions • Group Introductions • Review Agenda • Review/Approve SC Meeting #1 summary • Planning Partner Status- Final Roster • Phase 1, Jurisdictional Annex Status Risk Assessment Update • Status report • Flood hazard Scenarios • Flood extent and location data • Houston -Galveston Area Council (HGAC) data for growth, employment and land use data. Is this a good data source? State and Prior Plan review (meeting #1 homework) • State Plan review o Goals- are they consistent with the Current HCHMP goals? o Hazards of Concern -What hazards did the State plan say HC was susceptible to • 2015 HCMHMP review o What do you like about it? o What do you dislike about it o Proposed changes/enhancements o Proposed Table of Contents for Volume 1 of 2019 Plan Mission Statement for the Plan • Mission statement, what is it? • Review 2015 HCMHMP Mission Statement • Changes or enhancements? • Approve the 2019 HCMHMP Mission Statement (if quorum is present) Goal Setting • Review the goals from the 2015 HCMHMP • Compare HCMHMP goals to state plan goals • Changes or enhancements? • Approve goals for the 2019 HCMHMP (if quorum is present) Introduce Objective's exercise (Homework) • What is an objective? • The 2015 HCMHMP did not identify objectives • The 2019 HCMHMP will identify objectives that will be utilized to support prioritize actions. • Linear planning components (MS, Goals, Objectives, then actions) • Homework assignment Public Involvement Strategy • Planning Partner Bulletin o Did everyone receive Bulleting #1? o Suggestions for Content/Presentation changes o Timeline for Bulleting #2 • Hazard Mitigation Survey o Do we want to do one? �Y Harris County Hazard Mitigation Plan -Update 2nd LHMP Steering Committee Meeting .r Thursday —January 17, 2019 10:OOam—12:OOPM Houston TranStar I Conference Room 120A 6922 Katy Road, Houston, TX 77024 o Review and example Survey o Suggestions for HC specific Content • Press release status on the planning Process • Website is up and running. https://www.readyharris.org/mitigation • Can the website be enhanced? • Phase 1, Public Meetings: o How Many? o Format? o Where? o When? Action Items and Next Steps • Confirm Objectives for the Plan • Phase 2, Jurisdictional Annex process • Schedule Phase 1 Public Meetings • Next Meeting Location? Adjourn MEETING SUMMARY Date/Time of Meeting: Thursday —January 17, 2019; 10:OOam to Noon Location: Houston, TranStar, 6922 Katy Freeway Houston, Texas 77024 Subject: 2nd LHMP Steering Committee Meeting Project Name: Harris County Hazard Mitigation Plan -Update In Attendance Attendees: X persons in attendance, see attached Core Planning Team: Brian Murray, Brian Dunaway, Ashly Schutt, Rob Flaner, Chrissie Angeletti Not Present: N/A Summary Prepared by: Chrissie Angeletti Quorum —Yes or No Yes Welcome and Introductions, Review Agenda • Bill Wheeler and Rob Flanner opened the meeting. • Distributed handouts included: Agenda, XXXX • The agenda was reviewed, and no modifications were made. • CRS Communities - if primary is not in attendance at one meeting that 2 members will need to attend the next meeting. • Except for a few exceptions Letters of Intent (LOI) and Annexes are for Taxing -entities only. We are seeking input as stakeholder from non -taxing entity. Phase I Annex Status • 40% of Phase I Annex, received. • Phase 1 will be incorporated into Phase 2. • If there is an issue, it will be highlighted. • If Phase I has not been submitted, then Phase 2 will be blank. Discussion of Phase 2 - Risk Assessment Process • Risk Assessment — to be performed by Carol Bauman. HMEOC coordinating with GIS lead for Risk Assessment. • 1 - A Base Map is established using LIDAR data - digital elevation modeling. • General inventory, is input including critical facilities and Infrastructure. • Data is collected from various sources including assessor records which can provide the size, value, and occupancy for a structure. • Homeland Security is another source of data for critical facilities. • Cultural Resources - consider historic buildings, historic district, Indian tribes, environmental resources can also be considered a cultural resource especially wetlands. • SC review and complete gaps in data sets. • 2 - Next step is to overlay hazards — e.g. flood, earthquake, tsunami, wind (hurricane). • HAZUS generates a damage assessment and model is created based on severity. • For example, flood is done by modeling — 5 events (10yr, 50yr, 100yr, 500yr, and Harvey based on high water data). Thus, 5 scenarios to rank for flood including riverine. • For example, Earthquake — probabilistic model driven by soil type. 'Every profile will be developed using the same methodology. Review State Plan (Previous Homework) • Lightening separate hazard of concern • Dam and Levee failure are under the umbrella of flooding. Recommendation to keep as separate categories for modeling, etc. This way an action can potentially mitigate 2 separate hazards. Additional CRS credits are also provided when they are listed separately. • Non -natural hazards - States are required to include in the State-wide HMP, due to different requirements (e.g. Threat and Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment "THIRA"). However, jurisdictions do not have to consider non -natural hazards in an HMP. Discussion of Uacomine Activities • Phase 3 — Develop the Mitigation Strategy and Actions. Including a discussion of the comprehensive range of alternatives that were considered and why they were/not selected. • A catalog of best management practices will be provided to assist with the process. • The SC will also develop a strategy for Plan Maintenance, include roles and responsibilities, action items, and the frequency of updates. • For this Update, there will be a County -wide section (Volume 1) and an additional volume for each separate jurisdiction (Volume 11) • Once FEMA states the Plan is approved -pending adoption, each jurisdiction will adopt volume I and the specific jurisdiction section under volume II. Development of Executive Summary, Goals and Mission Statement • Executive Summary will mirror the State's Plan and will summarize risk findings and actions. Mission Statement • To include, natural resources and mitigation against future conditions. • Natural Resources — goal or as a mitigation strategy • NR Addressed — as non-structural • Will use core -capabilities as supporting language Goals • For Goal 4 — remove emergency management — local government officials. Remove degrade and add "to improve the protection of natural resources." • S — improve and coordinate • 8— investigate and implement a range of nature based solutions and utilize and enhance natural resources and their ability to reduce... Survey Objectives Exercise • Survey Objectives Exercise — 30min used for public outreach to determine public's perception of risk. • Review the survey with the intent to reduce the amount of questions and focus on gauging public perception. • Different Phase II for Districts vs. Municipalities. • Involve people from different departments e.g. public works, planning, city management, someone familiar with local codes and regulations. o Ask - What goals will this objective meet? o Select 10-20 objective statements that add value to the Plan. o Mitigation actions— how many objectives does it meet? (*More points if an action meets multiple objectives). o Note, a viable action is to increase capability through updating codes and regulations. o If you say No e.g. if you have a gap in your core capabilities, then why is there a gap? what can we do to fill the gap? Discussion of Survey • Issues with questions directed specifically towards Harris County since various jurisdictions are in multiple counties. Public Outreach Public Participation in Phase 1 - Principle objective to gauge public's perception of risk. (Utilize Survey Monkey) Public Participation Phase 2 - will be at the end of the process to present the draft plan and to provide the public an opportunity to comment on the draft plan. The SC was briefed on the requirement for an open public process for updating hazard mitigation plans. • Document Type of public meeting — Location, outreach efforts, and number of meetings, etc. o Is there a fair, or a large event that has a captive audience? o planning partners create links on their individual webpages. o Link - so that survey can be completed on phone. o Recommendation to link other languages back to Harris County. • Decided that survey will be in the languages that the county is required to do for voting. Homework • Objectives exercise • Phase I Annex if not complete Phase II Annex Survey questions Meeting was adjourned at 12:00 PM Next meeting will be March 21, 2019. Attachment: Sign -in Sheet �Y Harris County Hazard Mitigation Plan -Update 3rd LHMP Steering Committee Meeting Thursday — March 21, 2019 10:00am—12:OOPM Houston Galveston Area Council 3555 Timmons Lane, Suite 120 Houston TX 77027 Welcome and Introductions • Group Introductions • Review Agenda • Review/Approve SC Meeting #2 summary • Planning Partner Contact Information -Who is not getting Bulletins? Risk Assessment Update • Status report Objective Setting • Want to identify objectives that meet multiple goals • Objective Exercise results • Review the top vote getters • Refine, define and confirm the objectives for the plan Phase 2, of the Jurisdictional Annex Process • What we are seeing so far • Let's review the phase 2 instructions • Questions, comments, concerns? Public Involvement Strategy • Planning Partner Bulletin o Did everyone receive Bulleting #2? o Suggestions for Content/Presentation changes o Timeline for Bulleting #3 • Hazard Mitigation Survey o Confirm Content for Harris County Survey o The Goal is to have the survey open before the Phase 1 Public meetings o Will need to do a press release to advertise the Survey o Will be looking for each planning partner to promote and distribute • Phase 1, Public Meetings: o We are behind schedule due to data availability o Target Dates for Phase 1 Outreach o Where? o How long? o Format? Action Items and Next Steps • Review Risk Assessment results • Core Capabilities exercise-SWOO • Schedule Phase 3, JA Workshops • Next Meeting Location? Adjourn 0sty h MEETING SUMMARY Date/Time of Meeting: Thursday, March 21, 2019; 10:00 a.m. to 10:30 a.m. Location: Houston -Galveston Area Council (H-GAC) 3555 Timmons Lane, Houston, Texas 77027 Subject: 3rd LHMP Steering Committee Meeting Project Name: Harris County Hazard Mitigation Plan -Update In Attendance Attendees: 32 persons in attendance, see attached Core Planning Team: Brian Murray and Brian Rutherford Not Present: N/A Summary Prepared by: Oscar Ortega and Brian Rutherford Quorum —Yes or No No Welcome and Introductions • Brian Murray opened the meeting and facilitated group introductions. • Brian Murray announced there were not enough planning partner jurisdictions present at the meeting to achieve a quorum. To achieve a quorum there must be 9 members plus at least one of the co-chairs. However, the group could discuss project updates and other matters not requiring a group consensus. Risk Assessment Update Brian Rutherford, with Tetra Tech, provided an update on the risk assessment activities that Tetra Tech is conducting in coordination with Harris County. A copy of the risk assessment report is attached. Jurisdictional Annex Development Brian Rutherford reported that Tetra Tech has received 21 completed phase 1 surveys so far. That represents only half of the planning partners planning partners who have not involved in the project. Planning partners who have not completed phase completed phase 1 should work to 1 templates should complete and send them to Brian Rutherford. Tetra complete it and email to Brian Tech has received 2 completed phase 2 surveys. Phase 2 surveys are due Rutherford. to Brian Rutherford on March 29th. Phase 2 templates are due to Brian Mr. Rutherford encouraged planning partners to refer to the provided Rutherford by March 29tn instructions in completing both the phase 1 and phase 2 templates. The Meetina Summa instructions provide examples to assist planning partners in completion of the templates. In addition, Mr. Rutherford asked planning partners to complete the templates as thoroughly as possible and to contact him with any questions. Mr. Rutherford invited any questions regarding the templates. Attendees at the Steering Committee had no questions at this time. Bulletins Mr. Rutherford polled attendees to see if any attendees did not received the 1st and 2nd bulletins sent out to update members on the status of the Tetra Tech will email the link for the project. No attendees indicated that they had not received the bulletins. objectives survey to planning It was suggested that the objectives survey included in the second bulletin partners. be sent to planning partners by email to increase participation. The purpose of the survey is to select the objectives members would like to see included in the plan. Next Steps Mr. Rutherford discussed the next steps for the project: • Set up next Steering Committee Meeting. • Set up dates for public meetings. • Determine objectives for the plan. • Determine questions for public survey. Homework Before the next steering committee meeting, members are to: • Complete the survey if they have not already done so. Review the example public survey and be ready for the next meeting to provide suggestions for the Harris County Mitigation public survey. Meeting was adjourned at 10:30 a.m. The date of the next meeting is May 16tn �Y Harris County Hazard Mitigation Plan -Update 4th LHMP Steering Committee Meeting r� Thursday— May 16, 2019 10:00am — 12:OOPM Houston TranStar I Conference Room 120A 6922 Katy Road, Houston, TX 77024 Welcome and Introductions • Group Introductions • Review Agenda • Review/Approve SC Meeting #3 summary • Planning Partner Jurisdictional Annex Process -Status Report Risk Assessment Update • Status report Objective Setting • Want to identify objectives that meet multiple goals • Objective Exercise results • Review the top vote getters • Refine, define and confirm the objectives for the plan Public Involvement Strategy • Hazard Mitigation Survey 1. County has approved a survey for dissemination 2. Review/Comment on the survey 3. Need to get the word out! 4. Every SC member, Planning Partner and Alternate should take the survey 5. All planning partners should try to distribute to their constituents 6. Our target is over 2000 surveys! • Phase 1, Public Meetings: 1. We are behind schedule due to data availability 2. Due to recent events, we will down scale phase 1. We will do only 1, reginal event that will be advertised to the entire planning area. 3. Time frame is mid -June 4. Open House format 5. TransStar location Phase 3, Jurisdictional Annex Workshop • To be scheduled in concert with the July SC Meeting • 3-Hour Format • One for Municipalities • Once for Districts/Universities/medical centers. • Will provide multiple options for attendance • Attendance to a phase 3 workshop is MANDATORY! Action Items and Next Steps • Review Risk Assessment results • Core Capabilities exercise-SWOO • Confirm Plan Maintenance Strategy Adjourn 1 Z6' MEETING SUMMARY Date/Time of Meeting: Thursday — May 16, 2019; 9:00am to Noon Location: Houston, TranStar, 6922 Katy Freeway Houston, Texas 77024 Subject: 41" LHMP Steering Committee Meeting Project Name: Harris County Hazard Mitigation Plan -Update In Attendance Attendees: 39 persons in attendance, see attached Core Planning Team: Brian Murray, Bryan Dunaway, Ashley Schutt, Benzon John, Brian Rutherford, Chrissie Angeletti Not Present: N/A Summary Prepared by: Chrissie Angeletti Quorum —Yes or No Yes Welcome and Introductions, Review Agenda • Brian Murray opened the meeting. • The previous meeting notes were reviewed and adopted. • CRS Communities - If primary is not in attendance at one meeting that 2 members will need to attend the next meeting in order for CRS credit to be received. Additionally, 9 CRS communities must be in attendance for a quorum to be present. CRS communities include: Baytown, Bellaire, Deer Park, Friendswood, LaPorte, Missouri City, Nassau Bay, Pasadena, Seabrook, Shoreacres, Taylor Lake Village. Phase I and II Annex Status • 65% of Phase II Annex, received. • 13% have submitted the Phase I Annex only. • 22% still need to submit Phase I and Phase II. • Phase 2 MUST be completed prior to next Steering Committee meeting on July 16, 2019 in order to participate in Phase III. Plan objectives, discussion and adoption • Reviewed results of the objectives exercise and selected objective statements that add value to the Plan. • The objectives were adopted by the steering committee and categorized under the previously adopted goals. • See Attachment for final goals and corresponding objectives. Public Survev • Public Survey was reviewed by steering committee and finalized Goal to collect over 2000 survey results Discussion regarding ways to disseminate including websites, social media (Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Nextdoor), mail -outs (newsletters and utility bills) and public events (upcoming conferences and fundraisers) Public Outreach • Public Participation in Phase 1 - Principle objective to gauge public's perception of risk. • June 20th Interactive Public Workshop at Houston Transtar 6Dm-9Dm to present results of Risk Assessment. o Due to recent events, we will have ONLY 1 Public Sorkshop for Phase 1. o Harris County to create a shareable facebook event. o Open -House Format o (Note: Public Workshop is for the general public and Steering Committee members are not required to attend). • Public Survey - All participating jurisdictions and stakeholders to disseminate via website, social media (Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Nextdoor), Mail -outs (Newsletters and Utility Bills), and public events. The SC was briefed on the requirement for an open public process for updating hazard mitigation plans. • Document Type of public outreach — Location, outreach efforts, and number of meetings, etc. Discussion of Upcoming Activities • Next Steering Committee Meeting is Tuesday, July 161h at Houston Transtar from 10am-12pm. The SC meeting will be held prior to the Phase 3 Jurisdictional Annex workshops. o Review Risk Assessment results o Core Capabilities exercise-SWOO Strengths, weaknesses, obstacles and opportunities (Mitigation catalog to identify alternatives) o Confirm Plan Maintenance Strategy - The SC will also develop a strategy for Plan Maintenance, include roles and responsibilities, action items, and the frequency of updates. • Phase 3 Jurisdictional Annex Workshop attendance is MANDATORY for participating jurisdictions! o Phase 1 and Phase 11 must be completed prior to attendance►►►►►►► o Phase 3 — Develop the Mitigation Strategy and Actions. Including a discussion of the comprehensive range of alternatives that were considered and why they were/not selected. ■ A catalog of best management practices will be provided to assist with the process. o Different workshop for Municipalities and Special Districts. o Multiple workshops offered, please sign up for only one (1) workshop. July 16, 2019 (TUESDAY) 10am-12pm STEERING COMMITTEE MEETING 1pm-4pm — Phase 3 Workshop for Municipalities July 17th, 2019 (WEDNESDAY) 9am-12pm -Phase 3 Workshop for Municipalities 1pm-4pm — Phase 3 Workshop for Special Districts July 18th, 2019 (THURSDAY) 9am-12pm — Phase 3 Workshop for Special Districts 1pm-4pm — Phase 3 Workshop for Municipalities Homework • Complete outstanding Phase 1 and Phase 11 Annex Promote Public Survey through websites, social media (Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Nextdoor), mail -outs (newsletters and utility bills) and public events (upcoming conferences and fundraisers) Promote June 20t" Interactive Public Meeting to review Risk Assessment results from 6-9pm at the Houston TranStar facility located at 6922 Katy Freeway, Houston, Texas 77024 Next meeting will be Tuesday, July 16t" at 10am. Attachment: Sign -in Sheet, Adopted Goals and Objectives Harris County Hazard Mitigation Plan Goals and Objectives Goal 1. Expand warning systems and local warning capabilities among departments and between jurisdictions. Goal 1 Obiective: • Improve and expand systems that provide warning and emergency communications to the whole community Goal 2. Improve and coordinate data collection efforts to fully maximize the intent of the efforts and to improve the mitigation capabilities of the county and all jurisdictions. Goal 2 Obiectives: • Implement wildfire mitigation and watershed protection strategies through local, state, tribal, federal and private partnerships. • Improve understanding of the locations, potential impacts, and linkages among threats, hazards, vulnerability, and measures needed to protect life safety and health. Goal 3. Enhance education strategies to improve the dissemination of information to the public regarding hazards, including the steps that can be taken to reduce their impact. Goal 3 Obiective: • Improve and expand systems that provide warning and emergency communications to the whole community. Goal 4. Improve the capabilities of local government officials to reduce or eliminate hazards that cause loss of life, inflict injuries, cause property damage and to improve the protection of natural resources. Goal 4 Objectives: • Reduce the impacts of hazards on individuals with disabilities and others with access and functional needs. • Coordinate state and local efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and implement climate adaptation strategies through hazard mitigation plans and actions. • Control access and provide buffers to maximize resource protection where possible. • Encourage all state, regional and local hazard mitigation projects and planning programs to protect the environment and promote implementation of sustainable mitigation and climate actions. • Encourage hazard mitigation measures that promote and enhance natural processes and minimize adverse impacts on the ecosystem. Goal 5. Work to improve and coordinate existing local plans, codes and regulations to reduce the impacts of natural hazards. Goal 5 Objectives: • Promote enforcement of relevant state regulations and development of local ordinances that significantly reduce life loss and injuries. • Encourage all cities, counties, special districts, Councils of Governments and tribal organizations to develop, adopt, and implement local hazard mitigation principles to be integrated with local general plan safety elements, local coastal plans, facilities master plans, and other local plan initiatives. • Implement wildfire mitigation and watershed protection strategies through local, state, tribal, federal and private partnerships. • Advance community resilience through preparation, adoption, and implementation of state, regional and local multi -hazard mitigation plans and projects. Goal 6. Implement property protection measures to reduce the effects of natural hazards throughout the county, including measures that reduce or eliminate repetitive loss occurrences. Goal 6 Objectives: • Encourage projects that simultaneously reduce risk while increasing resilience and sustainability. • Retrofit, elevate, purchase, or relocate structures in high hazard areas, especially those known to be repetitively damaged. • Support the protection of vital and essential records, and strengthening or replacement of buildings, infrastructure, and lifelines to minimize post -disaster disruption and facilitate short-term and long-term recovery. • Encourage life and property protection measures for all communities and structures located in the greater Harris County region. • Manage development in geologically hazardous areas and floodplains to protect life and property. Goal 7. Investigate and implement a range of structural projects that will reduce the effects of natural hazards on public and private property throughout the county. Goal 7 Objectives: • Support the protection of vital and essential records, and strengthening or replacement of buildings, infrastructure, and lifelines to minimize post -disaster disruption and facilitate short-term and long-term recovery. • Encourage life and property protection measures for all communities and structures located in the greater Harris County region. • Promote disaster resistant development. • Manage development in geologically hazardous areas and floodplains to protect life and property. 2 Goal 8. Investigate and implement a range of nature -based solutions and utilize and enhance natural resources and their ability to reduce the impacts from natural hazards. Goal 8 Obiective: • Encourage all state, regional and local hazard mitigation projects and planning programs to protect the environment and promote implementation of sustainable mitigation and climate actions. 3 ra R B 1 Date: M 16, 2019 HARRIS COUNTY OFFICE OF HOMELAND SECURITY & EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT 6922 Katy Road, Houston, Texas 77024 Phone: 713-881-3100 Fax: 713-881-3077 www.hcoem.org Meetine: Mitigation Steerine Committee Meeting NAME ORGANIZATION PHONE EMAIL ASK( Sc, ,c --f—f H Of6[ )f '1 B'zfz-qla-� ashy -scl ft@oew.hc+u-�e� Y ct c-lDvv cDa �13' l3f ov ff' —I brnwAv✓tacc ,4 devk. CEx_✓1F7 ien �o>L�d C�� o� uFSs� 2t 1 9z (3r�a �.15��.� .,,ss�II �t • co �G� � e Cr.J6JL 1 �l� o� 5eabr°6k 2i;� 2'' 1 •56$O l»Llc �G@ St���c°�c'fi)C. GPI �FtM£ °rsc� C ESD �2ED � 5 t�- ° �' f mac✓ 83a557359 a�Qa�o S {�r�✓�y. W a-e,J 1—rep— T MC 7c3 7?I S�3 (yq (C 1. Une sue- Cafe z c a S ezd%'e-(L o �Q 'Dj �yD litl� ,q i H&4Tc 7('� 7�T- Z<''f Gt rYor 5W-V-5- a' e W-7�v7'5' . '�5o v �� 4�5 c,pU� ,� �� \�.•o see,,, �� RABBIS COUNTY ��� OFFICE OF HOMELAND SECURITY & ��' �' EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT 6922 Katy Road, Houston, Texas 77024 Phone: 713-881-3100 Fax: 713-581-3077 '�--��� www.hcoem.org Date: May 16, 2019 Meeting: Mifigation Steering Committee Meeting NAME ORGANIZATION PHONE EMAIL TN� ,, z Hs�M Saa- 6 -s o � � ,� ,n . . „� - ,� �. Sw..; Terms � a� � Nos •� 3�- a -sg a.��;� � ��: IdJ�s. o �((D �i /�n-� �Ci'/i L%2rJ Ho ��To.1 Cp.�,,,..o,.,T CD � �3 - 7i8- �s lzvb e,� , ,arr «.Q.g� qJ � bf GG.S � e d � �1A�4K�.F UW ��'Jt �s %-�2 0� 713-(q9�a •3I42 Jowa�a.bi�he�e--f'e�C,gs • d�'9 Sfi2ue.-� �.� r�ohs �'•' � c� E' r'�.���4.,,, ��b� - 996.53� S.'.K.-��s � ��.�.e.,.Ps��o , c�--- �N� „ l c � � r,,..L ��vs .e-n �,,.-. � r 3 4 � �' Sip rS' 'rtii�.,,. �.. � Cz . � yh-n-+^ , T�.,� � h/I,//� ��ll F� �/�.. Yam- �y �. l/� C �.%/ ;� e . �2r��i'�'1 � F.Y���YI S OU Ct.+'lt2 S<c�cQ-, M �Y�Y��vt S @ �0.rLr�J[arc,�,, �/�Ps� ��/n,� �'�PI\���-� 'l� }-�vz- -�� �Z CS��PSo�/� ��Il�,�fe-t��g�vli G�1�Von�^e r..cu,I S /c, H-Pu� Jta2 E L l• - � al.Yi `,�.s oJF1?f°�1. �Ecf� JC)'�UCv� A�10. Q'��0�n liii-v) V�aa't^k-�Qti— �I�i. � 14• `Y4'4'Z �ard�... � h�youc:i,.� w�.��u.,pu.or-� Date: Mav 16.2019 RABBIS COUNTY OFFICE OF HOMELAND SECURTTY & EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT 6922 lcaty Road, Houston, Texas 77024 Phone: 713-881-3100 Fax: 713-881�077 www.hcoem.org Meeting: Mitigation Steerin¢ Committee Meeting N�A}I{V'IE ORGAN¢/I/�Z� ATION PHONE`S EMAIL ///�, � � `^��1� Ql(CK/4 l (/�t/� ��� q ���7a07 ���'/ / �y�. P,� !/t!J �t UyJ ... a✓ ��vi"KJ —dzD —ram � �l-�te�--�z� hrra�, fi7 � � Clv�.�''pp� i.�/Y�xTn. �t�:�'�/��C ,�C l—�/—S%�/J Qlytaw �S�l��.c��CL�- 4 Ou (�l ►7Eti7� �i���'1-DSux�s9 �'`7��itrb �(j�'S��,�35�5 NgE�t,DErt FR(E��/oe9,CJG/`� � 1 / �N�-I`� �G � � � 713 3�G �i8 59 IoB�, �a..�F � {(GrcD. H cTrC. NET gn�� Qwosa-h� ACC �713-7�8-25q� bludo �h •owoser.�l 1�ccr• e�Qu �c� k 5.�' =*� 1(��aS 9�a-wn v�iw ?i 3 �� v3� 1 Qsw�'�a <<. �kssd�•a . �f-K _ uS ze(I Gc�,�-e.,r P�tsk��w DErr� �113-Y15-`•�88 c�c�,.��cr lJ c�. a . ��� M,�O6VT(- ylj�iTiDtr� b�M ZSI-2bl-3gR3 amer'charr�p�gf-a�ardl�- C� r � � � rr/�, �as4�� �/3'�S� �3 n��� C� �s�c ,� � ��- r � � � �s y��e�sr` 7�3 fly � ��' cS u�/ �� �gl-4��11 ��d � �tc,�. �Y Harris County Hazard Mitigation Plan -Update 5th LHMP Steering Committee Meeting Tuesday —July 16, 2019 10:OOam—12:OOPM Houston TranStar I Conference Room 120A 6922 Katy Road, Houston, TX 77024 Welcome and Introductions • Group Introductions • Review Agenda • Review/Approve SC Meeting #4 summary • Phase 1/2 Jurisdictional Annex Status • Review Final Mission, Goals/Objectives Risk Assessment Update • Review R/A results Phase 1 Public Meeting Recap • Was held on 6/20/2019 • Attendance • What we learned? Public Involvement Strategy • Hazard Mitigation Survey 1. Currently over 1350 survey's 2. We still want to exceed 2000, se please keep promoting 3. Review preliminary results • What's next? The Phase 2 process Capability Exercise • Why are we doing this? • Dot exercise on the capability posters • Green dot = a core capability that is a strength within the Planning Area • Red dot= a core capability that is a weakness within the planning area Plan Maintenance Strategy • What is required, DMA and CRS • Annual Progress reporting o BATool Demonstration • Review example strategy • Confirm Plan Maintenance Strategy Action Items and Next Steps • Internal review Draft of the plan • Phase 2 Public Outreach strategy • Plan submittal protocol • This should be our last meeting for this update process! Adjourn L■37 MEETING SUMMARY Date/Time of Meeting: Tuesday —July 16, 2019; 10:00am to Noon Location: Houston, TranStar, 6922 Katy Freeway Houston, Texas 77024 Subject: 51" LHMP Steering Committee Meeting Project Name: Harris County Hazard Mitigation Plan -Update In Attendance Attendees: 52 persons in attendance, see attached Core Planning Team: Brian Murray, Bryan Dunaway, Ashley Schutt, Benzon John, Rob Flaner, Brian Rutherford, Chrissie Angeletti Not Present: N/A Summary Prepared by: Chrissie Angeletti Quorum —Yes or No Yes Welcome and Introductions, Review Agenda • Brian Murray opened the meeting. • The previous meeting notes were reviewed and adopted. Phase I and II Annex Status • 90% of Phase I and II Annex's Completed. • Participation in Phase III Workshop is mandatory. If a jurisdiction does not attend, they are not able to participate in the Plan. • If you are not participating in the Plan, you can still participate through the linkage process. • Phase 2 MUST be completed prior to comdetine Phase III. Plan objectives, discussion and adoption 0 See Attachment forfinal goals and corresponding objectives. • Mission/Goals/Objectives — Objectives to be utilized to prioritize actions (8 Goals/15 objectives). Objectives are referenced in a grant application to support a project's eligibility. Risk Assessment Results • Data collected will be available through Harris County. • Every Participant will receive a Toolkit. • Tetra Tech ran a Hazus — Level II User -Defined Model. Over 136,000 facilities were modeled with 15 data points, such as occupancy and content value. The model evaluates the value when the structure encounters a hazard to determine loss value. • Critical facilities —additional value —functional downtime. • Results by occupancy class. • Without spatial data, hazards are evaluated on a qualitative/subjective level — e.g. Landslide, Tsunami • Severe Weather — Discussed in terms of net effect since it cannot be analyzed on a spatial map. • Benefits of data include: a. Assist with determining at what level of event a structure will flood and to what degree. b. Grant Applications - Estimating damages/loss - Use the toolkit to determine historic and expected damages. c. Table top exercise — utilized data to develop scenarios. d. Question regarding Hazardous Materials — Response: Damage functions cannot be adjusted on that level. However, it will tell you that a facility with hazardous materials gets 3ft of flood depth. Can raise a red flag. e. Repetitive Loss —Assist with determining how much a structure should be elevated. Public Survey • Have received over 1,5000 surveys so far • Goal to collect over 2000 survey results. Available through September. • Discussion regarding ways to disseminate including websites, social media (Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Nextdoor), mail -outs (newsletters and utility bills) and public events (upcoming conferences and fundraisers) Public Outreach • Public Participation in Phase 1 - Principle objective to gauge public's perception of risk. • June 201h Interactive Public Workshop at Houston TranStar 6Dm-9Dm to present results of Risk Assessment. o Due to recent events, we will have ONLY 1 Public Sorkshop for Phase 1. o Harris County to create a shareable facebook event. o Open -House Format o (Note: Public Workshop is for the general public and Steering Committee members are not required to attend). • Public Survey - All participating jurisdictions and stakeholders to disseminate via website, social media (Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Nextdoor), Mail -outs (Newsletters and Utility Bills), and public events. The SC was briefed on the requirement for an open public process for updating hazard mitigation plans. • Document Type of public outreach — Location, outreach efforts, and number of meetings, etc. • Data analytics from the survey on your jurisdiction are available upon request. Core Capability Exercise • Dot exercise was performed on capability posters. • Develop a dot matrix to identify strengths and weaknesses and show FEMA how a comprehensive list of alternatives was developed. Plan Maintenance Strategy • DMA requirements: a. Must have strategy for continuous public involvement over the next five years. b. Description of how Plan will be maintained. • CRS Requirements: a. Public Involvement. b. Annual Progress Reporting. Get additional credit if you review twice a year. • Strategy Must Identify: Reporting format, reporting period, Plan implementation, and what will trigger an update. a. E.g. The Report will be web -based and results will be posted to the County's website. Once a year representatives from the SC will meet evaluate and review the report and overarching progress of the Plan. A presidentially declared disaster will trigger an update. • Reporting makes the Plan dynamic — a jurisdiction may add or remove actions through a progress report, and allows for uncorporation of other Planning Mechanisms and studies. • BATool Demonstration • Review/Confirmed Plan Maintenance Strategy Discussion of Upcoming Activities • Next Meeting— September 19, 2019 at 10am at Houston TranStar. • Internal Draft Plan will be presented and reviewed at the next Steering Committee meeting. • 2-week Public Comment Period and corresponding Public Meeting to be advertised via press -release on websites, social media, public events, etc. • Finalization of Draft Plan: After public comment period ends and edits have been made, the Draft Plan will go to TDEM for review. After TDEM's comments have been addressed it will go to FEMA for "Approval Pending Adoption." Once APA is received by FEMA, a council briefing packet and power point presentation will go to each participating jurisdiction to present to each jurisdiction's respective City Council for adoption. FEMA will issue final approval on the date FEMA gets the first resolution. Homework • Complete outstanding Annex's by August 2311 Promote Public Survey through websites, social media (Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Nextdoor), mail -outs (newsletters and utility bills) and public events (upcoming conferences and fundraisers) Attachment: Sign -in Sheet Harris County All Hazards Mitigation Plan Update Steering Committee Meeting July 16, 2019 / 1000 - 1200 COMMITTEE MEMBERS SIGN -IN NAME CITY/JURISDICTION ORGANIZATION PHONE EMAIL Yxr,q I C Oh �P-?e s/0- c'01(e caltelo /�/cam 1 �' 1°�rri< D'�E'� Pafel< Z31- �(Z �,- 72�� b,��c�Qcl�e.^ . -rRa t)� t so .VC--s $(• .a r�`nU5 Nic L I - 1 -535 V 1,C-L (L Pi 5,4,00LJ , DMZ G9 3 Ce 2(,- ° � �non o RsM S C t4CORSV4 P3Z-1' r-?- :4(0-13 asi% -s'c oern.hck.lief fv—�,N16 6.11m-t! 7/3 7 t�7� ��J�p TV)a+u��t—�� f4Sisnt�.nT6. (teams 51a. '�t o35ke. S-�v- a V lea �{COHS>:I✓l 913 3I00 br w�.G�vuama Goe.kc`�x•�pr� < co N � / T�s Cam; r os i I s CIn.2 Lr eyLs Ry ye q3�- 'D4- SS�9 c1�sw.`X��+ s�(�ala��•s. rmn c do"Ax &)-4— oLf� Q P�Q ltf 7t 3 74 i ggY3 to Al it,e I*a qk .fit \ 2 �2-� � L� n C� v� a.0,s Q", ` oy,«c I ' it I P i) ZM- ( - a-1 "1 1 S d , +r ck Mort,, Qro "t- tr co OLSoh �rf (.�/t�S�c✓ RI -A 28 3(� 3��1 i�^'� e.s wtv (�v • C�� /�M T-10l � L ,\, o AA 3 o --Fs-,2 z —2--'-7 4- "C3rat e s va- .�Z �(L) 13 L r),\ a,, V.SrJf) �,PCt4 7C2 /�S* OAY Page / _ is co pND Sp j ANC' rE As Harris County All Hazards Mitigation Plan Update Steering Committee Meeting July 16, 2019 / 1000 - 1200 COMMITTEE MEMBERS SIGN -IN NAME CITY/JURISDICTION ORGANIZATION PHONE EMAIL CAt rltw Sru�ro�� (j �—`"` � j �9� S7 00 u11ve rywe seodt-odicry" `61 a✓ Rr S No.zc� D l Z '-(65'- 14%S - e N 1-8 T,,J--L�4 Q c",f-eL-6vc- jan10-6 QKro la des Co. ttarris Cie, 7 p+, Q� 713 - 69lo- 3 14 0vv•0lo-61 @ hede-fevas, or yDLf fIN 50&JLYt- al" 01= wek5 'vt 013^ ZQ,)- 31G-J73o oP3 �.�ce�Q velar�c��c� ecs�— �I eJ -77 3 - 2.S Z --2y 217 c- AW (iousfm WVVWrii (ON? l- 3)3 718 2sNj aluda ih-owwv`I @ ka-S.e4/u F/��� Q i3 .ur" �.Q.P ��+ .� � .� f. 0� r1<.[. /r� al��'�9d-3�L � / 'f.P�� f/,�i99 o"�Ef/i'%t'•Fo� �K.1�1r� .`/'�{"'l4/-1 \ �. � � �/. .kkd•�1..[iiY/ I v� � � � f- �'' / /` 3 3� � �i�.•'.1 4vI SRC l /• -G.Y oc2✓' i'e R.� AShI MefG�a (`` oP�iard DEM 2�1-Zlvl-tR� �t;F am�rchav�t/��dty�•org, U✓I'c°// /ahh J (,i//is ��n! - /Ct%� t l� %lP/.+ri% c 713-Z%`�-377` hu�i� �. Li5 7/ 3 7/ 8 75 ZaTirn a�Z9 S �\ r' � Cky-K-F U Si �13 S2�.3�1C1 Pal9ePC4traItavuevwL,(StGr,-or e�v tn���J��.Frp„ o f jt3--713- 2�'�I ., trlW Zt/ G (> ?13 -GGa - 5"�3r¢ a 1..� .,//���f r. 0 D L'/='I 6- -fs o � a { �4 c& • +, �� -V0n 541A 1 C, k-) 0� h6V',--� 'j(3- (slot - C S�n(�ii;, 'Ule Page_/_ Harris County All Hazards Mitigation Plan Update Steering Committee Meeting July 16, 2019 / 1000 - 1200 COMMITTEE MEMBERS SIGN -IN NAME CITY/JURISDICTION ORGANIZATION PHONE EMAIL -3 3 3 - -+5,� 3 &RM , n�c �Q s tic 2- 2-- MY ' ./� ..� u% t� Jt�lnn�anT 0 C M T DC� 5 o - V�.kATAAVZ- . 01 an� p( pS, x✓i . ov rf .h (act u u �,✓ CAJ Of- [A' pfy 2v1- q-i o - 0000ff au./W ere @ I afwi-Af v. ov � !(Z� , ,e% odd li✓Q'Pl� If�r-L�� ��3 316 ��SSSS j�o��S.W-rdt Her=t-p. 1401c. N ass �� SC S 16) a� K� In o . 6!' ?�,e) 0,1 CD f�e�lA,� �13_��z d ��1�1 e /�f/a,,ce4K. bv 0, M to, . atwsc- ,C koudbn�V. D Ar;2t-< 7E�TC:.UII-...IZ Wll�rE��k SAYQq -il? 70Z 8ql1 94,kc'SC2•0asl M Page_/_ )s cot'. Harris County All Hazards Mitigation Plan Update Steering Committee Meeting July 16, 2019 / 1000 - 1200 PUBLIC SIGN -IN NAME CITY/JURISDICTION ORGANIZATION PHONE 2- -2 - 2-,-� EMAIL A-D Page �Y Harris County Hazard Mitigation Plan -Update 6th LHMP Steering Committee Meeting Thursday —October 24, 2019 10:OOam—12:OOPM Houston TranStar I Conference Room 120A 6922 Katy Road, Houston, TX 77024 Welcome and Introductions • Group Introductions • Review Agenda • Review/Approve SC Meeting #5 summary • Phase 3 Jurisdictional Annex Status • CDBG-MIT nexus • Hazard mitigation Survey Status-1, 624 and counting! Capability Exercise results • The results were presented in the Bulletin • What did we learn? • How can we address gaps? Plan Maintenance Strategy • Review proposed Draft Strategy • Annual Progress reporting o BATool Demonstration • Confirm Plan Maintenance Strategy Internal review Draft of the Plan • The complete draft of the plan is not quite ready • Both Volumes are at approximately 90% complete • Planning team will distribute internal review drafts to all SC members by 10/25/2019 • Phase 2 Public meeting will be 11/7/2019 at Transtar. • We are still targeting a 2-week public comment period, beginning on 11/7 • SC members and stakeholders can still provide comment during public comment period Action Items and Next Steps • Internal review Draft of the plan • Phase 2 Public Outreach strategy during Public Comment period • Target date for plan submittal to TDEM is 11/29/2019 Adjourn MEETING SUMMARY Date/Time of Meeting: Thursday — October 24, 2019; 10:OOam to Noon Location: Houston, TranStar, 6922 Katy Freeway Houston, Texas 77024 Subject: 61" LHMP Steering Committee Meeting Project Name: Harris County Hazard Mitigation Plan -Update In Attendance Attendees: 42 persons in attendance, see attached Core Planning Team: Brian Murray, Bryan Dunaway, Ashley Schutt, Benzon John, Rob Flaner, Brian Rutherford, Chrissie Angeletti Not Present: N/A Summary Prepared by: Chrissie Angeletti Quorum —Yes or No Yes Welcome and Introductions, Review Agenda • Brian Murray opened the meeting. • The previous meeting notes were reviewed and adopted. Phase III Annex Update • Brian Rutherford provided update on Phase III Annex Completion. • A corrected form was sent out, however some still used older form. Tetra Tech is working with individual jurisdictions to update any carry over items. • Jurisdictions to review their Annex in the Internal Draft of the HMP for edits and feedback. Public Survey • Have received over 1,627 surveys total. Public Survey period is closed. CDBG-MIT • State is currently working on Action Plan, currently due in February. • Harris County All Hazards Mitigation Plan Update to continue per the original scope. Any additional requirements to be accounted for in an amendment to the Plan. Capabilities Exercise Results • Discussion regarding highest and lowest ranked selections. • Comments included: o Results potentially skewed due to participants positions and job functions. o Fostering partnerships especially with Non -profits. Benefits of partnerships include additional funding sources and increased public outreach opportunities and resources. o Increase support to smaller jurisdictions that are lacking in resources. o Increase public outreach: ■ Utilize professional marketing companies. ■ Utilize additional media outlets including news stations, radio, home owners associations, and educational institutions. Increase frequency of communication — bring the message into the common conversation. Share lessons learned and success stories. o Utilize data to show the damages prevented after mitigation. E.g. Damages prior and post mitigation action. o Real Estate Purchases — Unsure if flood risk and affordable flood insurance is being communicated especially for those with lower economic status. Discussed how flood risk is a reflected in development, especially for City's with Master Plans vs. those homes that are not in an area with planned development or zoning restrictions. Discussed the presence/removal of flood gauges. Maapnext.org — Online tool developed to map flood risk. Plan Maintenance Strategy • DMA requirements: o Must have strategy for continuous public involvement over the next five years. o Description of how Plan will be maintained. • CRS Requirements for Re -Certification: o Public Involvement. o Annual Progress Reporting. Get additional credit if you review twice a year. o Each jurisdiction seeking CRS credit is scored separately — each jurisdiction is required to submit a progress report for their own community to maintain certification. • Strategy Must Identify: Reporting format, reporting period, Plan implementation, and what will trigger an update. o The Report will be web based and results will be posted to the County's website. o Representatives from the SC will meet semi-annually to evaluate and review the report and overarching progress of the Plan. A presidentially declared disaster will trigger an update. o Reporting will take place at least once a year in March. An additional mid -year report is optional for participating jurisdictions. • Reporting makes the Plan dynamic — a jurisdiction may add or remove actions through a progress report (do not need to re -adopt the Plan) and allows for incorporation of other Planning Mechanisms and studies. • BATool Demonstration o Web -based software program designed to assist with assessing and reporting on the status of mitigation actions. Subscription to the tool is required. Harris County and participating jurisdictions will receive the tool for free for 1 year. o BATool effective 1 year from final approval date of the Harris County All Hazards Mitigation Plan. • Review/Confirmed Plan Maintenance Strategy Internal Review of Draft Plan • Volume I is applicable to all jurisdictions. • Volume II is jurisdiction specific. • Maps are included as separate pdf (to be formatted into "PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT") • All tables are in pdf versions of vol. I and 11. Instructions Time Line o Please make comments and track changes (review tab in Microsoft) in the Microsoft word version ("docx.") and email to Chrissie.Angeletti@tetratech.com at your earliest convenience. o Once the internal review comments are received, the team will generate a PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT with corresponding links and press release. Please note, comments can still be received by participating jurisdictions and stakeholders through the end of the public comment period. o Now— November 5th Internal Comment Period: Receive comments from steering committee on INTERNAL DRAFT. o November 6th —Generate PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT. o November 7th-215Y Public Comment Period: Issue PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT and Press Release, receive comments from the general public. o November 14th — Public Workshop to review PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT, Invitation to be distributed, Steering Committee to assist with outreach, Steering Committee does not need to attend. o November 29th — FINAL DRAFT submitted to TDEM for review. o June 2020 (Estimated) — FEMA Approved Pending Adoption Next Steps • Review and send comments on INTERNAL DRAFT. • Promote PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT on websites, social media, etc. o Link to view AHMP ■ https://bit.ly/2qua6jK o Link to provide public comment: ■ https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/HarrisCounty_Public_Comment • Promote Public Workshop to review PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT on November 14t" from 6pm-9pm in Room 120A at Houston TranStar located at 6922 Katy Rd, Houston, TX 77024. • Document Type of public outreach — Location, outreach efforts, and number of meetings, etc. and email them to Chrissie.Angeletti@tetratech.com. • Data analytics from the survey on your jurisdiction are available upon request. Attachment: Sign -in Sheet rexX0, Harris County All Hazards Mitigation Plan Update Steering Committee Meeting Oct 24, 2019 / 1000 - 1200 COMMITTEE MEMBERS SIGN -IN NAME CITY/JURISDICTION ORGANIZATION PHONE EMAIL l� h', r7'C9 (> G �4 l')CD y 4 th ��/ �aa //a9 o�.P• ll r�w�.C)- W ICI N�E� i -f uCF Fit(C 4ilaoc9 �ifrEcniwoo9 �sl - - �335 1gEc t��2 Q�>Cr.fvP1c-CbSub.0.7x.v 6 vtc Sw�c� Lc r~: L"p PAvir�N�, 713 —k7S_ `f46-7.7 esw e'A Q P,S«dl•,, AJ4C_J PoA-r&A (MG AMC 7(3 71/ 9?Y3 ,lli` Lr,�'s` a4� LPl F C ail- d%0 ` 36 6 -7 E�i�el! o4Qi1,s � o.�r's�e.,EQ�'✓ CPGw �cz.�Ea%/frcz.E, Nor r�L1i V4 � Its 7 % 7 z - �o�� ( �(� Gl, l lo-r ( G 3 2-!'Z 3 Y 77- t IU ` uS (V1, I1YlC �t p h o�-o v c�nl Me�rha f%�d D 2�1-2W .- ffl�� a1M�fr�naY� 5 of rd h�, w 715 Plrnr �� MTV TQp� ae� �`'v��1 T.S ,S 1 3'q-,y&0 Page _ / FP X N5 Harris County All Hazards Mitigation Plan Update Steering Committee Meeting Oct 24, 2019 / 1000 - 1200 COMMITTEE MEMBERS SIGN -IN NAME CITY/JURISDICTION ORGANIZATION PHONE EMAIL Cku mks -S. S;,e 6 rao 1C F/' 1 2� / a q� S- 7 e) s u 11t f r•�- @ 5L ,.wj „v�le 1V -6% V Kle—L I�Of'1� CvJSF l 5eA 61'Xi 1L 7�d C NJll�ih 1 �06f� 2VI r 2� 15638 �IG� SQ.A VN06 IC�%� OV e Cep �� t k I Inc, 1 a . ( 13 AVM ;5%e . Avl e ce f-A, e 7PA-, �rti K �C a -• -k -. r� ! s ►4 A a---�4 U` �'^--� �l �i �E �S � �" �1a a �1 t"C- AjwtleV(1(1 -76- 46 �s Y, I,i b n Lea iv I w 0!✓" 2 $ I -416 -000q 0�/ 6�A+�k S'T6UrlZ e,la 1Tt s A K QtJ �A n S<7C,AT1pN „ -713 -702 8•UI1 ��euesr A--AVL PA,,JA IA/ /-AOcC- r�CFC�J) 64 - 4- C'A. 4al1nah AL Zl l� �C ED L � � %/7 1'f y - 37J 6 �a ��e � ` 11in Ac . ✓, o nf'fe r $1-F o F a 1a �v�t,,,r\ CDle: N\, 3 - 4 3 - 2 �''E 1 I<r bo Sew C5 mil^ �n -ems( ibn tY- 1�od" C.. F� 5 i u� If 713- %`�`f' L �L ��1r . Q�,(. @esc� 1.1n15_ q>^ "! 13 - (oce 2 • ?z f-1-k e ,� GG i"Jj l 70 S , 713 - 63'r / 1(7 � f �f � 66 (wf (1w, WQ4R Q Kw a ca t' — —�- �I S2 Col �;_ x 40e 3 MMMKO en cQ o r j� /y�7�T �/— Lf/L�-.__.67ZI f ! �frfo'1,t"1e__A7<"1_(V��=/� Page _ / AEI =R IS cotl G� T J j �f�EM1tYtMNp� Harris County All Hazards Mitigation Plan Update Steering Committee Meeting Oct 24, 2019 / 1000 - 1200 PUBLIC SIGN -IN NAME ORGANIZATION PHONE EMAIL \\ ICITAY/JURISDICTION o C ! c .�. l ik \ s%j�b�J��/)7�120(-]1o2c� `6C Ct' o�n s/j31� o d�,A\/.w,j, . 4r1S/�/o \ �0.r 13 1+2 2�s-,:30 1 j 5�t j ® ko' �ai� �CC C�UyO�abi 1'a1�-Cs 6- -pot. -713 3142 `71�lgq �c)%S K, cc . ed Page PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD MEETING SIGN -IN SHEET TETRA TECH PUBLIC SIGN -IN Harris County Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan -Public Workshop Thursday. November 14 2019 First Name Last Name Phone (optional) Email (optional) ' / � r s.5 SIC - �a - a �a'40 71'3 8,3 l — 3/o O - 'xi djl -7!3 — 21 ltc�A r— -Shc � 3l00 gry /3 BB 1 - i o o �Q- 41� /7 f IQRZEF Q7 l> ^ D I - ,? - 3 0o x. Page _I ,.` PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD IN -PERSON REVIEW OF DRAFT HMP TETRA TECH PUBLIC SIGN -IN IN-PESON REVIEW: Harris County Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan Houston TranStar, 6922 Katy Road, Houston, TX 77024 First Name Last Name Date Time -In Time -Out Phone (optional) Email (optional) �j�., v c�4c•t I� K 15 2�9 �3 �bz 3 J 1- Rev eK ez.m(4C�orn LcF=T TM Page Harris County Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan Public Comment Card Date: I%t1gI14 Name: Phone (optional): 7.21�35�0�5243 Email (optional): d KRV EF, c.ai- eBYA (ls",tl r9iG.b1�5�'/'�lsi �" 4 r�1.. ._s n. n...f uv 4 AL,. �, . 4r G� �u Nt a. ►�iG j� 7 (continue on back if more space is needed) Harris County Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan Public Comment Card Date: Name: Phone (optional): J Email (optional): CA. 1�c c \1a (p a%e 4 S i��nw G, E�6 (continue on back if more space is needed) Harris County Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan Public Comment Card Date: Phone (optional): Name: Email (optional): w u o ai 1" 11 ct l LK.e -e e t 71 h� U� o1 v✓1�"�1 Girerc S jAU D �a L2 1'0 (continue on back if more space is needed) PUBLIC INFORMATION BULLETINS TETRA TECH V t • 1 -I Informational Bulletin Important Note for All Planning Partners: Please track the number of November 2018 hours that you or your staff members spend working on this project. These hours can be applied toward the in -kind contribution needed for our grant requirements. Partners will be asked to report these hours after Core Planning Team I turning in their completed annex. Chairperson Brian Murray Brian.Murray@oem.hctx.net Upcoming Deliverables Vice -Chairperson ♦ Please submit a "Letter of Intent to Participate" by December 1, 2018 to Brian Bryan Dunaway Murray at Brian.Murray@oem.hctx.net. You must submit a new L01 even if you Ashley Schutt were a participant in the 2015 HMP. Ashley.Schutt@oem.hctx.net ♦ Designate a Primary and Alternate point of Contact. E-mail you response to Project Manager Chrissie Angeletti at Chrissie.Angeletti@tetratech.com Rob Flaner, CFM rob.flaner@tetratech.com ♦ Review the 2013 State of Texas Hazard Mitigation Plan. Become familiar with the current hazards, goals and objectives. Lead Planner Brian Rutherford ♦ Review the 2015 Harris County Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan Brian.Rutherford@tetratech.com Volume 1 - Harris County and Volume 2 - Jurisdiction Specific Outreach Coordinator Chrissie Angeletti, JD ♦ Phase 1 Annex Template to be sent November 26, 2018 via e-mail to the prima- Chrissie.angeletti@tetratech.com ry and alternate contact. Each jurisdiction will have 30 days to complete. Please note, the format for the HMP is changing, thus the templates will differ from the Media Relations 2015 Plan. Please email completed templates to Brian Rutherford at mitigation@oem.hctx.net Brian.Rutherford@tetratech.com Next Steering We understand this is a busy time of year and the first time many of you have Committee Meeting been involved in a hazard mitigation planning process. We hope you are making January, 17 2019 progress on completing these deliverables, and know that some of you may have 10:00amto12:0questions. Please contact a member of the Core Planning Team for assistance 0pm with any issue, we can work with you to finished the required deliverables! October 18, 2018 Steering Committee Meeting Re -cap On October 18, 2018, the Core Planning Team hosted the 1st Steering Committee Meeting for the Harris County All Hazards Mitigation Plan with forty-nine persons in attendance. The Steering Com- mittee established the following: ♦ Ground rules for future meetings and overall planning process ♦ Bi-monthly meetings set for the 3,d Thursday of the month beginning with the January 2019 SC meeting ♦ Identified hazards of concern ♦ Definition of Critical Facilities presented and discussed ♦ Public Involvement Strategy presented and discussed ♦ Planning area extends to jurisdictional boundaries effecting the cities of Friendswood, Waller, Katy, Stafford and Baytown Committee Spokesperson Direct All Media Requests to Rosio Torres and Hallie Frazee mitigation@oem.hctx.net ♦ Committee members and planning partners add a link on their website as part of the public out reach strategy for the Harris County Mitigation Planning Process WISHING YOU A &46� HAPPY AND SAFE HOLIDAY Harris County Harris County is committed to creating and sustaining communities that are Office of Homeland Security more resilient to disasters. To fulfill this pledge, Harris County Office of Home - and Emergency Management land Security and Emergency Management (HCOHSEM) is in the process of updating the All Hazards Mitigation Plan (HMP) in partnership with cities and 6922 Old Katy Rd. special purpose districts throughout the County. Federal rules require this plan Houston, TX 77024 be updated every five years. or it, Informational Bulletin June 5, 2019 Important Note for All Planning Partners: Please track the number of hours that you or your staff members spend working on this project. These hours can be applied toward the in -kind contribution needed for our grant requirements. Partners will be asked to report Core Planning Team these hours after turning in their completed annex. Chairperson Brian Murray Brian.Murray@oem.hctx.net Vice -Chairperson Bryan Dunaway Brvan.Dunawav@oem.hctx.net Ashley Schutt Ashley.Schutt@oem.hctx.net Project Manager Rob Flaner, CFM rob.flaner@tetratech.com Lead Planner Brian Rutherford Brian.Rutherford@tetratech.com Outreach Coordinator Chrissie Angeletti, JD Chrissie.angeletti@tetratech.com Media Relations mitigation@oem.hctx.net Next Steering Committee Meeting July 16, 2019 10am-12:00 pm Houston TranStar 6922 Katy Rd. Houston, TX 77024 Upcoming Deliverables ♦ Promote June 201" Interactive Public Workshop to review results of Risk Assessment 0 6-9pm at Houston TranStar, 6922 Katy Freeway, Houston, Texas 77024. ♦ Promote Public Survey. Our goal is to receive over 2000 surveys! 0 Websites 0 Social Media: Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and Nextdoor 0 Mail -outs: Newsletters and utility bills 0 Public Events: Conferences and fundraisers https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/ReadyHarris Phase III Jurisdictional Annex Workshop Attendance is Mandatory. Phase I and II must be completed prior to attendance! Phase III Annex Workshop —Develop the Mitigation Strategy and Actions. Different workshop for Municipalities and Special Districts. Multiple workshops offered, please sign up for only one (1) workshop. Email RSVP to Chrissie.angeletti@tetratech.com. July 16, 2019 (TUESDAY) 10am-12pm STEERING COMMITTEE MEETING 1pm-4pm — Phase 3 Workshop for Municipalities July 17t", 2019 (WEDNESDAY) 9am-12pm -Phase 3 Workshop for Municipalities 1pm-4pm — Phase 3 Workshop for Special Districts July 18`", 2019 (THURSDAY) 9am-12pm —Phase 3 Workshop for Special Districts 1pm-4pm — Phase 3 Workshop for Municipalities Please contact a member of the Core Planning Team for assistance with any issue. We can work with you to finish the required deliverables! I May 16, 2019 Steering Committee Meeting Re -cad On May 16, 2019, the Core Planning Team hosted the 4th Steering Committee Meeting for the Harris County All Hazards Mitigation Plan with 39 persons in attendance. The Steering Committee established the following: ♦ An update was presented on the status of completed and received Phase I and II Annexes. ♦ Reviewed results of the objectives exercise and adopted objective statements that add value to the Plan. Public Outreach Committee Spokesperson Direct All Media Requests to Rosio Torres and Hallie Frazee mitigation@oem.hctx.net ♦ June 20th Public Workshop to present results of Risk Assessment, 6pm-9pm at Houston Transtar. Open - House Format (Steering Committee members are not required to attend). ♦ Public Survey was reviewed by steering committee and finalized. Goal to collect over 2000 survey results. Disseminate including websites, social media (Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Nextdoor), mail -outs (newsletters and utility bills), and public events (upcoming conferences and fundraisers) ♦ Document Type of public outreach — Location, outreach efforts, and number of meetings, etc. Next Steering Committee Meeting is Tuesday, July 161h at Houston Transtar from 10am-12pm. ♦ The SC meeting will be held prior to the Phase III Jurisdictional Annex workshops. We will review Risk As- sessment results, conduct the Core Capabilities exercise, and confirm the Plan Maintenance Strategy. Phase III Jurisdictional Annex Workshops ♦ Attendance is MANDATORY. Phase I and II must be complete prior to attendance. ♦ Different workshop for Municipalities and Special Districts. Multiple workshops offered, please sign up for only one (1) workshop. Harris County Harris County is committed to creating and sustaining communities that are Office of Homeland Security more resilient to disasters. To fulfill this pledge, Harris County Office of Home - and Emergency Management land Security and Emergency Management (HCOHSEM) is in the process of updating the All Hazards Mitigation Plan (HMP) in partnership with cities and 6922 Old Katy Rd. special purpose districts throughout the County. Federal rules require this plan Houston, TX 77024 be updated every five years. GNU SFO Representatives from different cities, schools, fire districts, hospitals and utility 2 districts are collaborating with HCOHSEM and Tetra Tech Incorporated - the contractor leading the hazard assessment and plan development. Decisions `k regarding plan elements, such as specific hazards to include, are made by a steering committee whose members include representatives from government, private business, non -profits, general public, and academia. TETRA TECH https://www.readyharris.org/mitigation V Informational Bulletin August 2, 2019 Core Planning Team Chairperson Brian Murray Brian.Murray@oem.hctx.net Vice -Chairperson Bryan Dunaway Bryan.Dunawav@oem.hctx.net Ashley Schutt Ashley.Schutt@oem.hctx.net 0 .. >l - -_ t • 1 Important Note for All Planning Partners: Please track the number of hours that you or your staff members spend working on this project. These hours can be applied toward the in -kind contribution needed for our grant requirements. Partners will be asked to report these hours after turning in their completed annex. J Upcoming Deliverables ♦ Promote Public Survey. Our goal is to receive over 2000 surveys! 0 Websites 0 Social Media: Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and Nextdoor 0 Mail -outs: Newsletters and utility bills 0 Public Events: Conferences and fundraisers https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/ReadVHarris Phase III Jurisdictional Annex Due August 23rd Project Manager ♦ Deadline to complete Phase 1-III Annex moved to COB Friday August 23, 2019. Rob Flaner, CFM 0 Critical Facility information to be emailed on August 9, 2019. rob.flaner@tetratech.com 0 Note, Coastal Erosion and Subsidence/Mass Movement are ranked subjectively. 0 Revised risk ranking tables will be distributed Friday, August 2. Lead Planner Brian Rutherford ♦ A jurisdiction unable to participate in the current planning process, may join the Harris Brian.Rutherford@tetratech.com County All Hazards Mitigation Plan through the Linkage process. Please contact a member of the Core Planning Team for assistance with any issue. We can Outreach Coordinator work with you to finish the required deliverables! Chrissie Angeletti, JD Chrissie.angeletti@tetratech.com July16, 2019 Steering Committee Meeting Re -cap Media Relations mitigation@oem.hctx.net Next Steering Committee Meeting September 19, 2019 10am-12:00 pm Houston TranStar 6922 Katy Rd. Houston, TX 77024 On July 16, 2019, the Core Planning Team hosted the 5th Steering Committee Meeting for the Harris County All Hazards Mitigation Plan with 52 persons in attendance. The Steering Committee established the following: ♦ Status of completed received Phase 1-II Annexes. ♦ Presented Results of Risk Assessment ♦ Conducted Core Capability Exercise ♦ Confirmed Plan Maintenance Strategy Committee Spokesperson Direct All Media Requests to Rosio Torres and Hallie Frazee mitigation@oem.hctx.net Results of July 16, 2019 Core Capabilities Exercise Current land uses within identified hazard areas are appropriate for the risk posed by each hazard? 100% 0% Planning Partnership staff are knowledgeable about hazards and their impacts and are willing to share that knowledge with the public? 100% 0% Planning Partinership Staff members with emergency management functions are adequately t rained? 96% 4% Appropriate and timely warning systems are in place? 96% 4% Emergency management is provided by a unified authority or program? 90% 10% Emergency response functions for the County are clearly defined and are effective? 88% 12% Strong collaboration and coordination exists between the City, neighboring jurisdictions, the County and state and federal agency partners? 871% 19% There Is a good understanding of the risk posed 'by the hazards Gem County is susceptible to? 78% 22% Harris County Citizens have a good understanding of natural hazard exposure and risk? 76% 24% The capability to assess and mitigate risk from natural hazards is high? 75% 25% There is strong public support for risk reduction within Harris County? 75% 25% There is political support for risk management within the City/County? 62% 38% The Planning Partnership currently has a variety of regulatory and non -regulatory strategies to reduce risk? 56% 44% Members of the public know where to find information about hazards and risk? 55% 45% Information on flood insurance is readily available within the County? 54% 46% The enforcement opf Codes and Standards within the planningarea is strong? 52% 48% Roles and responsibilities for emergency management within Harris County are clearly defined? 52% 48% Existing flood control systems are effective and well maintained? 34% 66% The Planning Partnership risk management programs are fair and equitable? 30% 70% Risk from natural hazards within Harris County is adequately mapped and regulated ? 26% 74% Coordinated public outreach regarding risk from all hazards convey clear, consistent messaging to the public? 24% 76% As a citizen of Harris County, I feel confident that i am prepared for the impacts from any natural hazard that my impact my property? 19% 81% The Planning Partrnership currnntly has adopted policies that encourage development to be located outside of high risk areas? 8% 92% All relevant stakeholders are engaged in the City/County's risk management efforts? 8% 92% There is a coordinated program to maintain drainage sytems free of debris? 5% 95% The Planning Partners development regulations for new development within identified hazards zones are adequate to address that risk? 4% 96% Real Estate professionals adequately disclose risk exposure from natural hazards at the time of sale of real property? 4% 96% The funding to support risk reduction within Harris County is adequate? 4% 96% The Planning Partnership is prepared for the probable impacts on natural hazards due to the impacts from a changing climate? 4% 96% Areas that provide natural resource protection are identified and protected within the County? 0% 100% >unty Office of Homeland Security and Emergency Management 6922 Old Katy Rd. I Houston, TX 77024 ;://www.readvharris.org/mitigation OTETRATECH " Is km it, Informational Bulletin November 7, 2019 Important Note for All Planning Partners: Please track the number of hours that you or your staff members spend working on this project. These hours can be applied toward the in -kind contribution needed for our grant requirements. Partners will be asked to report Core Planning Team these hours after turning in their completed annex. Chairperson Brian Murray Brian.Murray@oem.hctx.net Thank you for your participation updating the 2020 Harris County All Hazards Mitigation Plan - Vice -Chairperson Bryan Dunaway Bryan.Dunaway@oem.hctx.net Promote Public Comment Period for the Draft Harris County All Hazards Mitigation Plan Update —Nov. 7-21, 2019 Ashley Schutt Ashley.Schutt@oem.hctx.net ♦ Public Workshop to provide public comment on AHMP Draft Project Manager 0 Thursday Nov. 14, 6:OOpm-9:OOpm Rob Flaner, CFM Houston TranStar rob.flaner@tetratech.com 6922 Katy Rd, Houston, TX 77024 Lead Planner Brian Rutherford ♦ Online Public View/Comment of AHMP Draft Brian.Rutherford@tetratech.com 0 Link to view AHMP Public Comment Draft: https://bit.ly/2qua6jK Outreach Coordinator Chrissie Angeletti, JD 0 Link to provide Public Comment: Chrissie.angeletti@tetratech.com https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/HarrisCounty_PubIic_Comment Media Relations Please utilize the following resources to promote public comment: mitigation@oem.hctx.net ♦ Websites ♦ Social Media: Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and Nextdoor ♦ Mail -outs: Newsletters and utility bills ♦ Public Events: Conferences and fundraisers October 24, 2019 Steering Committee Meeting Re -cap On October 24, 2019, the Core Planning Team hosted the 6th Steering Committee Meeting for the Harris Coun- ty All Hazards Mitigation Plan with 42 persons in attendance. The Steering Committee established the following: ♦ An update was presented on the status of completed and received Phase III Annexes, ♦ Have received over 1,627 surveys total. Public Survey period is closed. ♦ CDBG-MIT—State working on Action Plan. Harris County All Hazards Mitigation Plan Update to continue per the original scope. Additional requirements to be accounted for in an amendment to the Plan. ♦ Reviewed and discussed results of the Capabilities Exercise. Committee Spokesperson Direct All Media Requests to Rosio Torres and Hallie Frazee mitigation@oem.hctx.net ♦ Reviewed and confirmed the Plan Maintenance Strategy including a discussion of DMA and CRS require- ments. ♦ BATool Demonstration provided. BATool is a web -based software program designed to assist with as- sessing and reporting on the status of mitigation actions. ♦ Discussed layout of the Plan and timeline for internal and public review of the Plan: 0 November 5th Internal Comment Period Ends: Receive comments from steering committee on INTERNAL DRAFT. 0 November 6th — Generate PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT. 0 November 7th-21st Public Comment Period: Issue PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT and Press Release, receive comments from the general public. 0 November 14th — Public Workshop to review PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT, Invitation to be distributed, Steering Com- mittee to assist with outreach, Steering Committee does not need to attend. 0 November 29th — FINAL DRAFT submitted to TDEM for review. 0 June 2020 (Estimated) — FEMA Approved Pending Adoption Harris County Harris County is committed to creating and sustaining communities that are 7 Office of Homeland Security more resilient to disasters. To fulfill this pledge, Harris County Office of Home - and Emergency Management land Security and Emergency Management (HCOHSEM) is in the process of updating the All Hazards Mitigation Plan (HMP) in partnership with cities and 6922 Old Katy Rd. special purpose districts throughout the County. Federal rules require this plan Houston, TX 77024 be updated every five years. GNU SFO Representatives from different cities, schools, fire districts, hospitals and utility 2 districts are collaborating with HCOHSEM and Tetra Tech Incorporated - the contractor leading the hazard assessment and plan development. Decisions `k regarding plan elements, such as specific hazards to include, are made by a steering committee whose members include representatives from government, private business, non -profits, general public, and academia. TETRA TECH https://www.readyharris.org/mitigation SURVEY RESULTS TETRA TECH Harris County Hazard Mitigation Plan Survey Q1 Which of the following natural hazard events have you, your place of employment, your school, or anyone in your household experienced within the past 20 years in the Greater Harris County Region? (Check all that apply) Answered: 1,616 Skipped: 11 Dam/Levee Failure Drought Earthquake Energy Pipeline... Flood Hurricane Landslide &' Mass Movemen... Severe Weather (high wind,... Tornado's Wildfire' Oil)'Chemical. Fire Active Shooter. Terrorism None Other (please specify) 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES 1 / 37 Harris County Hazard Mitigation Plan Survey Dam/Levee Failure 9.47% 153 Drought 42.39% 685 Earthquake 0.56% 9 Energy Pipeline Failures 4.21 % 68 Flood 81.06% 1,310 Hurricane 90.66% 1,465 Landslide & Mass Movements (sinkholes, subsidence, geologic hazards) 4.21 % 68 Severe Weather (high wind, heavy rain, lightning, etc.) 84.34% 1,363 Tornado's 20.11 % 325 Wildfire 3.59% 58 Oil/Chemical Fire 21.60% 349 Active Shooter 6.25% 101 Terrorism 1.55% 25 None 1.30% 21 Other (please specify) 4.46% 72 Total Respondents: 1,616 2/37 Harris County Hazard Mitigation Plan Survey Q2 How concerned are you about the following natural hazards in the Greater Harris County Region? (Please check one for each hazard) Dam/Levee Failure Drought I Earthquake i ■ Flooding Answered:1,620 Skipped:7 W 3/37 Harris County Hazard Mitigation Plan Survey Hurricanes and Coastal Storms Landslide & Other Earth... Severe Weather (wind,... ■ Tornado 4/37 Harris County Hazard Mitigation Plan Survey Tsunami Wildfire Other Natural Hazard Toxic release/ Hazardous... 5/37 Harris County Hazard Mitigation Plan Survey Active Shooter Terrorism 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% ■ Not concerned ■ Somewhat concerned Concerned Very concerned Extremely concerned NOT SOMEWHAT CONCERNED CONCERNED Dam/Levee Failure 28.43% 21.70% 448 342 Drought 23.44% 32.97% 369 519 Earthquake 83.15% 11.13% 1,278 171 Flooding 1.12% 5.90% 18 95 Hurricanes and Coastal 1.00% 4.61% Storms 16 74 Landslide & Other Earth 45.89% 25.29% Movements 715 394 (sinkholes, subsidence and other geologic hazards) Severe Weather (wind, 3.62% 12.29% lightning, Hail, heavy 58 197 rains, solarflare, etc.) CONCERNED VERY EXTREMELY TOTAL WEIGHTED CONCERNED CONCERNED AVERAGE 21.26% 13.52% 15.10% 335 213 238 1,576 2.65 27.57% 11.69% 4.32% 434 184 68 1,574 2.40 3.64% 0.72% 1.37% 56 11 21 1,537 1.26 10.86% 24.58% 57.54% 175 396 927 1,611 4.32 14.20% 27.83% 52.37% 228 447 841 1,606 4.26 19.83% 5.71 % 3.27% 309 89 51 1,558 1.95 23.52% 29.69% 30.88% 377 476 495 1,603 3.72 6/37 Harris County Hazard Mitigation Plan Survey Tornado 10.08% 24.79% 32.21 % 19.91 % 159 391 508 314 Tsunami 80.86% 10.97% 4.54% 1.30% 1,246 169 70 20 Wildfire 55.21 % 24.84% 13.38% 3.41 % 858 386 208 53 Other Natural Hazard 44.10% 24.32% 21.32% 5.26% 662 365 320 79 Toxic release/ 10.01 % 18.18% 25.84% 19.25% Hazardous Materials 158 287 408 304 (HAZMAT) Active Shooter 12.12% 21.64% 25.70% 19.16% 191 341 405 302 Terrorism 17.20% 25.64% 24.55% 17.20% 269 401 384 269 13.00% 205 1,577 3.01 2.34% 36 1,541 1.33 3.15% 49 1,554 1.74 5.00% 75 1,501 2.03 26.73% 422 1,579 3.35 21.38% 337 1,576 3.16 15.41 % 241 1,564 2.88 7/37 Harris County Hazard Mitigation Plan Survey Q3 The Harris County Office of Homeland Security & Emergency Management website, readyharris.org , provides important information on how to prepare you and your family in the event of a disaster.How prepared is your household for a hazard event? (Check one) Not at all Prepared Somewhat Prepared Adequately Prepared Well Prepared Very Well Prepared ANSWER CHOICES Not at all Prepared Somewhat Prepared Adequately Prepared Well Prepared Very Well Prepared TOTAL Answered: 1,610 Skipped: 17 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% RESPONSES 5.90% 95 45.96% 740 31.49% 507 12.17% 196 4.47% 72 1,610 8/37 Harris County Hazard Mitigation Plan Survey Q4 How would you expect to be notified in case of an immediate threat caused by a hazard -Select all that apply. Answered:1,616 Skipped:11 Television Radio Facebook Twitter Nextdoor "Ready Harris Alerts" Harris County Office of... Police/Fire/EMS Audible notification... Other (please specify) 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% ANSWER CHOICES Television Radio Facebook Twitter Nextdoor "Ready Harris Alerts" Harris County Office of Homeland Security & Emergency Management website: readyharris.org Police/Fire/EMS Audible notification system (s) Other (please specify) RESPONSES 83.85% 1,355 67.82% 1,096 43.87% 709 24.32% 393 50.06% 809 53.65% 867 42.82% 692 48.27% 780 46.60% 753 16.34% 264 9/37 Total Respondents: 1,616 Harris County Hazard Mitigation Plan Survey 10/37 Harris County Hazard Mitigation Plan Survey Q5 The Harris County Office of Homeland Security & Emergency Management recommends that households have at least 7 days of food, water, and vital supplies (e.g. medications) in hand in the event of a disaster. How many days of food, water, and vital supplies does your household have on hand in the event of a disaster? Answered:1,608 Skipped:19 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 More than 10 - None I 0% 10% ANSWER CHOICES 1 2 3 4 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% RESPONSES 2.05% 5.60% 17.16% 12.50% 33 90 276 201 11 / 37 Harris County Hazard Mitigation Plan Survey 5 17.79% 6 2.30% 7 16.17% 8 2.36% 9 1.00% 10 6.09% More than 10 15.55% None 1.43% TOTAL 286 37 260 38 16 98 250 23 1,608 12/37 Harris County Hazard Mitigation Plan Survey Q6 How prepared is your household to get along without electricity or natural gas for one to five days? Answered: 1,613 Skipped: 14 Not at all prepared ML Somewhat prepared Very prepared ANSWER CHOICES Not at all prepared Somewhat prepared Very prepared TOTAL 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% RESPONSES 23.19% 58.77% 18.04% 374 948 291 1,613 13/37 Harris County Hazard Mitigation Plan Survey Q7 Where would you expect to find useful information to help you be prepared?Select all that apply. Television M Internet = Social Media Newspaper/magaz ine Public government... Schools/a s c institutions HCOHSEM website:... Police/Fire/EMS Other (please ■ specify) 0% 10% ANSWER CHOICES Television Internet Social Media Newspaper/magazine Public government meetings Schools/academic institutions HCOHSEM website: readyharris.org Police/Fire/EMS Other (please specify) Total Respondents: 1,615 Answered: 1,615 Skipped: 12 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% RESPONSES 67.99% 1,098 82.04% 1,325 48.61 % 785 30.96% 500 26.69% 431 17.52% 283 50.46% 815 40.99% 662 7.86% 127 14/37 Harris County Hazard Mitigation Plan Survey Q8 Which of the following steps has your household already undertaken to prepare for a disaster?Select all that apply. Answered: 1,593 Skipped: 34 Received first aid/CPR... Made a fire escape plan Designated a meeting place Identified utility... Community Emergency... Prepared a disaster sup... Installed smoke detect... Stored food and water Stored flashlights ... Stored a battery-powe... Stored a fire extinguisher Stored medical supplies (fi... Other (please specify) 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% ANSWER CHOICES Received first aid/CPR training Made a fire escape plan Designated a meeting place Identified utility shutoffs Community Emergency Response Training (CERT) RESPONSES 45.51 % 725 37.79% 602 29.94% 477 52.17% 831 7.47% 119 15/37 Harris County Hazard Mitigation Plan Survey Prepared a disaster supply kit 35.66% 568 Installed smoke detectors on each level of the house 85.19% 1,357 Stored food and water 69.18% 1,102 Stored flashlights and batteries 87.32% 1,391 Stored a battery -powered radio 50.09% 798 Stored a fire extinguisher 67.04% 1,068 Stored medical supplies (first aid kit, medications) 73.82% 1,176 Other (please specify) 6.15% 98 Total Respondents: 1,593 16/37 Harris County Hazard Mitigation Plan Survey City of Baytown City of Bellaire City of Bunker Hill Village City of Deer Park City of El Lago City of Friendswood City of Galena Park Harris County (unincorpora... City of Hedwig Village City of I Hilshire... City of Houston. City of Humble 1 City of Hunters Cree... City of Jacinto City City of Jersey Village City of Katy City of La Porte City of Missouri City City of Morgan Pnint Q9 Where do you live? Answered:1,613 Skipped:14 17/37 Harris County Hazard Mitigation Plan Survey . _...- I City of Nassau I Bay City of Pasadena City of Piney Point Village City of Seabrook City of Shoreacres City of Southside Place City of Spring, Valley City of Stafford City of Taylor Lake Village City of Tomball City of Webster City of West I University... I do not live, in Harris... 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES City of Baytown 2.11 % 34 City of Bellaire 0.19% 3 City of Bunker Hill Village 1.55% 25 City of Deer Park 0.43% 7 City of El Lago 0.68% 11 City of Friendswood 3.53% 57 City of Galena Park 0.19% 3 Harris County (unincorporated areas) 20.09% 324 City of Hedwig Village 0.99% 16 18/37 Harris County Hazard Mitigation Plan Survey City of Hilshire Village City of Houston City of Humble City of Hunters Creek Village City of Jacinto City City of Jersey Village City of Katy City of La Porte City of Missouri City City of Morgan Point City of Nassau Bay City of Pasadena City of Piney Point Village City of Seabrook City of Shoreacres City of Southside Place City of Spring Valley City of Stafford City of Taylor Lake Village City of Tomball City of Webster City of West University Place I do not live in Harris County (work only). TOTAL 2.17% 35 36.33% 586 2.60% 42 0.25% 4 0.00% 0 1.12% 18 6.57% 106 1.98% 32 0.12% 2 0.50% 8 1.12% 18 1.80% 29 0.25% 4 0.56% 9 0.50% 8 0.00% 0 4.59% 74 0.06% 1 0.06% 1 2.23% 36 1.67% 27 0.56% 9 5.21 % 84 1,613 19/37 Harris County Hazard Mitigation Plan Survey Q10 Where do you work? Answered:1,589 Skipped:38 I live in Harris Count... I live outside of Harris... I do not live or work in t... LW Other (please specify) 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES I live in Harris County and Work in Harris County 68.28% 1,085 1 live outside of Harris County, but work within the Greater Harris County Region 6.61 % 105 1 do not live or work in the Greater Harris County Region 2.01 % 32 Other (please specify) 23.10% 367 TOTAL 1,589 20 / 37 Harris County Hazard Mitigation Plan Survey ANSWER CHOICES Own Rent TOTAL Q11 Do you own or rent your place of residence? Answered:1,483 Skipped:144 Own Rent 0 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% RESPONSES 88.94% 11.06% r 1,319 164 1,483 21 / 37 Harris County Hazard Mitigation Plan Survey Q12 If you own your home, what is the approximate value of your home? Answered:1,458 Skipped:169 $25, 000 to $50,000 $50,000 to $75,000 $75,000 to $100,000 $100,000 to $150,000 $150,000 to $200,000 $200,000 and higher I choose to not disclose Not applicable.... 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES $25, 000 to $50,000 0.55% 8 $50,000 to $75,000 1.30% 19 $75,000 to $100,000 3.50% 51 $100,000 to $150,000 8.30% 121 $150,000 to $200,000 15.91 % 232 $200,000 and higher 52.13% 760 1 choose to not disclose 10.49% 153 Not applicable. I do not own my home 7.82% 114 TOTAL 1,458 22 / 37 Harris County Hazard Mitigation Plan Survey Q13 How long have you lived in at your current residence? Answered:1,491 Skipped:136 Less than a ■ year 1 - 2 years m 3 - 5 years 6 -10 years 11 -15 years 16 - 20 years More than 20 years I don't live in Harris... 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% ANSWER CHOICES Less than a year 1 — 2 years 3 — 5 years 6 — 10 years 11 — 15 years 16 — 20 years More than 20 years I don't live in Harris County TOTAL RESPONSES 6.24% 9.86% 15.29% 13.82% 15.09% 10.87% 28.77% 0.07% 93 147 228 206 225 162 429 1 1,491 23 / 37 Harris County Hazard Mitigation Plan Survey Q14 When you moved into your home, did you consider the impact a disaster could have on your home? Yes No ANSWER CHOICES Yes No TOTAL Answered:1,489 Skipped:138 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% RESPONSES 59.37% 884 40.63% 605 1,489 24/37 Harris County Hazard Mitigation Plan Survey Q15 Was the presence of a natural hazard risk zone (e.g., dam failure zone, flood zone, landslide hazard area, high fire risk area) disclosed to you by a real estate agent, seller, or landlord before you purchased or moved into your home? Answered:1,480 Skipped:147 Yes No 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES Yes 23.45% No 76.35% TOTAL 347 1,130 1,480 25/37 Harris County Hazard Mitigation Plan Survey Q16 Is your residence located in or near a FEMA designated floodplain? Answered:1,486 Skipped:141 Yes No Not Sure 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES Yes 34.32% 510 No 39.10% 581 Not Sure 26.58% 395 TOTAL 1,486 26 / 37 Harris County Hazard Mitigation Plan Survey Q17 Is your residence located in a dam failure zone? Yes No Not sure ON 0% 10% 20% Answered:1,489 Skipped:138 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES Yes 4.90% 73 No 69.85% 1,040 Not sure 25.25% 376 TOTAL 1,489 27 / 37 Harris County Hazard Mitigation Plan Survey Yes No Not Sure ANSWER CHOICES Yes No Not Sure TOTAL Q18 Do you have flood insurance? Answered:1,486 Skipped:141 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% RESPONSES 62.31 % 34.45% 3.23% 926 512 48 1,486 28/37 Harris County Hazard Mitigation Plan Survey Q19 Is your property located in an area at risk for wildfires? Yes No Not Sure Answered:1,487 Skipped:140 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES Yes 3.77% 56 No 74.51% 1,108 Not Sure 21.72% 323 TOTAL 1,487 29 / 37 Harris County Hazard Mitigation Plan Survey Q20 Is your property located in an area at risk for subsidence, sinkholes, or other geologic hazards? Answered:1,487 Skipped:140 Yes No Not Sure ANSWER CHOICES Yes No Not Sure TOTAL 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% RESPONSES 8.07% 43.98% 47.95% 9 120 654 713 1,487 30 / 37 Harris County Hazard Mitigation Plan Survey Q21 Have you ever had problems securing homeowners or renters insurance due to risks from hazards? Yes No Answered:1,486 Skipped:141 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES Yes 4.58% 68 No 95.42% 1,418 TOTAL 1,486 31 / 37 Harris County Hazard Mitigation Plan Survey Q22 Do you support policies and/or regulations that prohibit or restrict development in identified hazard zones? Yes No Not sure ANSWER CHOICES Yes No Not sure TOTAL Answered:1,491 Skipped:136 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% RESPONSES 85.98% 1,282 3.02% 45 11.00% 164 1,491 32 / 37 Harris County Hazard Mitigation Plan Survey Q23 How much is your gross household income? Answered:1,434 Skipped:193 $35,000 or less ■ $35,001to $69,999 $70,000to $114,999 $115,000 to $179,999 $180,000 or more ANSWER CHOICES $35,000 or less $35,001 to $69,999 $70,000 to $114,999 $115,000 to $179,999 $180,000 or more TOTAL 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% RESPONSES 9.21 % 19.04% 28.66% 19.11% 23.99% 132 273 411 274 344 1,434 33 / 37 Harris County Hazard Mitigation Plan Survey Q24 Please indicate the primary language spoken in your household. Answered:1,540 Skipped:87 English' Spanish/Spanish Creole Chinese Vietnamese Tagalog Korean Other Asian and Pacific... Slavic Languages French German/West Germanic... Other (please specify) 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES English 96.10% 1,480 Spanish/Spanish Creole 2.27% 35 Chinese 0.26% 4 Vietnamese 0.13% 2 Tagalog 0.19% 3 Korean 0.06% 1 Other Asian and Pacific Island Languages 0.06% 1 Slavic Languages 0.06% 1 French 0.26% 4 German/West Germanic Languages 0.13% 2 34/37 Harris County Hazard Mitigation Plan Survey Other (please specify) TOTAL 0.45% 1,540 35 / 37 Harris County Hazard Mitigation Plan Survey Q25 Please provide any additional comments you would like to share with the LHMP Steering Committee. Answered:315 Skipped:1,312 36 / 37 Harris County Hazard Mitigation Plan Survey Q26 If you would like to receive information regarding upcoming public events, other participatory opportunities regarding hazard mitigation, or general preparedness information, please provide your email address below. Answered:505 Skipped:1,122 37 / 37 Harris County Multi -Hazard Mitigation Action Plan Appendix B. Summary of Federal and State Agencies, Programs and Regulations B. SUMMARY OF FEDERAL AND STATE AGENCIES, PROGRAMS AND REGULATIONS Existing laws, ordinances, plans and programs at the federal and state level can support or impact hazard mitigation actions identified in this plan. Hazard mitigation plans are required to include a review and incorporation, if appropriate, of existing plans, studies, reports, and technical information as part of the planning process (44 CFR, Section 201.6(b)(3)). The following federal and state programs have been identified as programs that may interface with the actions identified in this plan. Each program enhances capabilities to implement mitigation actions or has a nexus with a mitigation action in this plan. Information presented in this section can be used to review local capabilities to implement the actions found in the jurisdictional annexes of Volume 2. Each planning partner has individually reviewed existing local plans, studies, reports, and technical information in its jurisdictional annex, presented in Volume 2. FEDERAL Americans with Disabilities Act The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) seeks to prevent discrimination against people with disabilities in employment, transportation, public accommodation, communications, and government activities. Title II of the ADA deals with compliance with the Act in emergency management and disaster -related programs, services, and activities. It applies to state and local governments as well as third parties, including religious entities and private nonprofit organizations. The ADA has implications for sheltering requirements and public notifications. During an emergency alert, officials must use a combination of warning methods to ensure that all residents have all necessary information. Those with hearing impairments may not hear radio, television, sirens, or other audible alerts, while those with visual impairments may not see flashing lights or other visual alerts. Two technical documents for shelter operators address physical accessibility needs of people with disabilities, as well as medical needs and service animals. The ADA intersects with disaster preparedness programs in regards to transportation, social services, temporary housing, and rebuilding. Persons with disabilities may require additional assistance in evacuation and transit (e.g., vehicles with wheelchair lifts or paratransit buses). Evacuation and other response plans should address the unique needs of residents. Local governments may be interested in implementing a special -needs registry to identify the home addresses, contact information, and needs for residents who may require more assistance. FEMA hazard mitigation project grant applications require full compliance with applicable federal acts. Any action identified in this plan that falls within the scope of this act will need to meet its requirements. Bureau of Land Management The U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) funds and coordinates wildfire management programs and structural fire management and prevention on BLM lands. BLM works closely with the Forest Service and state TETRA TECH B-1 Harris County Multi -Hazard Mitigation Action Plan; Volume 1—Area-Wide Elements and local governments to coordinate fire safety activities. The Interagency Fire Coordination Center in Boise, Idaho serves as the center for this effort. Civil Rights Act of 1964 The Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex or nation origin and requires equal access to public places and employment. The Act is relevant to emergency management and hazard mitigation in that it prohibits local governments from favoring the needs of one population group over another. Local government and emergency response must ensure the continued safety and well-being of all residents equally, to the extent possible. FEMA hazard mitigation project grant applications require full compliance with applicable federal acts. Any action identified in this plan that falls within the scope of this act will need to meet its requirements. Clean Water Act The federal Clean Water Act (CWA) employs regulatory and non -regulatory tools to reduce direct pollutant discharges into waterways, finance municipal wastewater treatment facilities, and manage polluted runoff. These tools are employed to achieve the broader goal of restoring and maintaining the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation's surface waters so that they can support "the protection and propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife and recreation in and on the water." Evolution of CWA programs over the last decade has included a shift from a program -by -program, source -by - source, and pollutant -by -pollutant approach to more holistic watershed -based strategies. Under the watershed approach, equal emphasis is placed on protecting healthy waters and restoring impaired ones. Numerous issues are addressed, not just those subject to CWA regulatory authority. Involvement of stakeholder groups in the development and implementation of strategies for achieving and maintaining water quality and other environmental goals is a hallmark of this approach. The CWA is important to hazard mitigation in several ways. There are often permitting requirements for any construction within 200 feet of water of the United States, which may have implications for mitigation projects identified by a local jurisdiction. Additionally, CWA requirements apply to wetlands, which serve important functions related to preserving and protecting the natural and beneficial functions of floodplains and are linked with a community's floodplain management program. Finally, the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System is part of the CWA and addresses local stormwater management programs. Stormwater management plays a critical role in hazard mitigation by addressing urban drainage or localized flooding issues within jurisdictions. FEMA hazard mitigation project grant applications require full compliance with applicable federal acts. Any action identified in this plan that falls within the scope of this act will need to meet its requirements. Community Development Block Grant Disaster Resilience Program In response to disasters, Congress may appropriate additional funding for the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Community Development Block Grant programs to be distributed as Disaster Recovery grants (CDBG-DR). These grants can be used to rebuild affected areas and provide seed money to start the recovery process. CDBG-DR assistance may fund a broad range of recovery activities, helping communities and neighborhoods that otherwise might not recover due to limited resources. CDBG-DR grants often supplement disaster programs of FEMA, the Small Business Administration, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Housing and Urban Development generally awards noncompetitive, nonrecurring CDBG-DR grants by a formula that considers disaster recovery needs unmet by other federal disaster assistance programs. To be eligible for CDBG- DR funds, projects must meet the following criteria: B-2 TETRA TECH Appendix B. Summary of Federal and State Agencies, Programs and Regulations Address a disaster -related impact (direct or indirect) in a presidentially declared county for the covered disaster • Be a CDBG-eligible activity (according to regulations and waivers) • Meet a national objective. Incorporating preparedness and mitigation into these actions is encouraged, as the goal is to rebuild in ways that are safer and stronger. CDBG-DR funding is a potential alternative source of funding for actions identified in this plan. Community Rating System The CRS is a voluntary program within the NFIP that encourages floodplain management activities that exceed the minimum NFIP requirements. Flood insurance premiums are discounted to reflect the reduced flood risk resulting from community actions meeting the following three goals of the CRS: • Reduce flood losses. Facilitate accurate insurance rating. Promote awareness of flood insurance. For participating communities, flood insurance premium rates are discounted in increments of 5 percent. For example, a Class 1 community would receive a 45 percent premium discount, and a Class 9 community would receive a 5 percent discount. (Class 10 communities are those that do not participate in the CRS; they receive no discount.) The discount partially depends on location of the property. Properties outside the SFHA receive smaller discounts: a 10-percent discount if the community is at Class 1 to 6 and a 5-percent discount if the community is at Class 7 to 9. The CRS classes for local communities are based on 18 creditable activities in the following categories: • Public information • Mapping and regulations • Flood damage reduction • Flood preparedness. CRS activities can help to save lives and reduce property damage. Communities participating in the CRS represent a significant portion of the nation's flood risk; over 66 percent of the NFIP's policy base is located in these communities. Communities receiving premium discounts through the CRS range from small to large and represent a broad mixture of flood risks, including both coastal and riverine flood risks. Disaster Mitigation Act The DMA is the current federal legislation addressing hazard mitigation planning. It emphasizes planning for disasters before they occur. It specifically addresses planning at the local level, requiring plans to be in place before Hazard Mitigation Assistance grant funds are available to communities. This plan is designed to meet the requirements of DMA, improving eligibility for future hazard mitigation funds. Emergency Relief for Federally Owned Roads Program The U.S. Forest Service's Emergency Relief for Federally Owned Roads Program was established to assist federal agencies with repair or reconstruction of tribal transportation facilities, federal lands transportation facilities, and other federally owned roads that are open to public travel and have suffered serious damage by a natural disaster over a wide area or by a catastrophic failure. The program funds both emergency and permanent repairs (Office of TETRA TECH B-3 Harris County Multi -Hazard Mitigation Action Plan; Volume 1—Area-Wide Elements Federal Lands Highway, 2016). Eligible activities under this program meet some of the goals and objectives for this plan and the program is a possible funding source for actions identified in this plan. Emergency Watershed Program The USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (MRCS) administers the Emergency Watershed Protection (EWP) Program, which responds to emergencies created by natural disasters. Eligibility for assistance is not dependent on a national emergency declaration. The program is designed to help people and conserve natural resources by relieving imminent hazards to life and property caused by floods, fires, windstorms, and other natural occurrences. EWP is an emergency recovery program. Financial and technical assistance are available for the following activities (Natural Resources Conservation Service, 2016): • Remove debris from stream channels, road culverts, and bridges • Reshape and protect eroded banks • Correct damaged drainage facilities • Establish cover on critically eroding lands • Repair levees and structures • Repair conservation practices. This federal program could be a possible funding source for actions identified in this plan. Endangered Species Act The federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) was enacted in 1973 to conserve species facing depletion or extinction and the ecosystems that support them. The act sets forth a process for determining which species are threatened and endangered and requires the conservation of the critical habitat in which those species live. The ESA provides broad protection for species of fish, wildlife and plants that are listed as threatened or endangered. Provisions are made for listing species, as well as for recovery plans and the designation of critical habitat for listed species. The ESA outlines procedures for federal agencies to follow when taking actions that may jeopardize listed species and contains exceptions and exemptions. It is the enabling legislation for the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora. Criminal and civil penalties are provided for violations of the ESA and the Convention. Federal agencies must seek to conserve endangered and threatened species and use their authorities in furtherance of the ESA's purposes. The ESA defines three fundamental terms: Endangered means that a species of fish, animal or plant is "in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range." (For salmon and other vertebrate species, this may include subspecies and distinct population segments.) Threatened means that a species "is likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future." Regulations may be less restrictive for threatened species than for endangered species. Critical habitat means "specific geographical areas that are... essential for the conservation and management of a listed species, whether occupied by the species or not." Five sections of the ESA are of critical importance to understanding it: • Section 4: Listing of a Species —The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Fisheries Service (NOAA Fisheries) is responsible for listing marine species; the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is responsible for listing terrestrial and freshwater aquatic species. The agencies may initiate reviews for listings, or citizens may petition for them. A listing must be made "solely on the basis of the best scientific and commercial data available." After a listing has been proposed, agencies receive comment B-4 TETRA TECH Appendix B. Summary of Federal and State Agencies, Programs and Regulations and conduct further scientific reviews for 12 to 18 months, after which they must decide if the listing is warranted. Economic impacts cannot be considered in this decision, but it may include an evaluation of the adequacy of local and state protections. Critical habitat for the species may be designated at the time of listing. • Section 7: Consultation —Federal agencies must ensure that any action they authorize, fund, or carry out is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a listed or proposed species or adversely modify its critical habitat. This includes private and public actions that require a federal permit. Once a final listing is made, non-federal actions are subject to the same review, termed a "consultation." If the listing agency finds that an action will "take" a species, it must propose mitigations or "reasonable and prudent" alternatives to the action; if the proponent rejects these, the action cannot proceed. • Section 9: Prohibition of TakeIt is unlawful to "take" an endangered species, including killing or injuring it or modifying its habitat in a way that interferes with essential behavioral patterns, including breeding, feeding or sheltering. • Section 10: Permitted Take —Through voluntary agreements with the federal government that provide protections to an endangered species, a non-federal applicant may commit a take that would otherwise be prohibited as long as it is incidental to an otherwise lawful activity (such as developing land or building a road). These agreements often take the form of a "Habitat Conservation Plan." • Section 11: Citizen Lawsuits —Civil actions initiated by any citizen can require the listing agency to enforce the ESA's prohibition of taking or to meet the requirements of the consultation process. FEMA hazard mitigation project grant applications require full compliance with applicable federal acts. Any action identified in this plan that falls within the scope of this act will need to meet its requirements. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Dam Safety Program The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) cooperates with a large number of federal and state agencies to ensure and promote dam safety. More than 3,000 dams are part of regulated hydroelectric projects in the FERC program. Two-thirds of these are more than 50 years old. As dams age, concern about their safety and integrity grows, so oversight and regular inspection are important. FERC inspects hydroelectric projects on an unscheduled basis to investigate the following: • Potential dam safety problems • Complaints about constructing and operating a project • Safety concerns related to natural disasters • Issues concerning compliance with the terms and conditions of a license. Every five years, an independent engineer approved by the FERC must inspect and evaluate projects with dams higher than 32.8 feet (10 meters), or with a total storage capacity of more than 2,000 acre-feet. FERC monitors seismic research and applies it in performing structural analyses of hydroelectric projects. FERC also evaluates the effects of potential and actual large floods on the safety of dams. During and following floods, FERC visits dams and licensed projects, determines the extent of damage, if any, and directs any necessary studies or remedial measures the licensee must undertake. The FERC publication Engineering Guidelines for the Evaluation of Hydropower Projects guides the FERC engineering staff and licensees in evaluating dam safety. The publication is frequently revised to reflect current information and methodologies. FERC requires licensees to prepare emergency action plans and conducts training sessions on how to develop and test these plans. The plans outline an early warning system if there is an actual or potential sudden release of water from a dam due to failure. The plans include operational procedures that may be used, such as reducing reservoir levels and reducing downstream flows, as well as procedures for notifying affected residents and TETRA TECH B-5 Harris County Multi -Hazard Mitigation Action Plan; Volume 1—Area-Wide Elements agencies responsible for emergency management. These plans are frequently updated and tested to ensure that everyone knows what to do in emergency situations. National Environmental Policy Act The National Environmental Policy Act requires federal agencies to consider the environmental impacts of proposed actions and reasonable alternatives to those actions, alongside technical and economic considerations. The National Environmental Policy Act established the Council on Environmental Quality, whose regulations (40 CFR Parts 1500-1508) set standards for compliance. Consideration and decision -making regarding environmental impacts must be documented in an environmental impact statement or environmental assessment. Environmental impact assessment requires the evaluation of reasonable alternatives to a proposed action, solicitation of input from organizations and individuals that could be affected, and an unbiased presentation of direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental impacts. FEMA hazard mitigation project grant applications require full compliance with applicable federal acts. Any action identified in this plan that falls within the scope of this act will need to meet its requirements. Federal Wildfire Management Policy and Healthy Forests Restoration Act Federal Wildfire Management Policy and Healthy Forests Restoration Act (2003). These documents call for a single comprehensive federal fire policy for the Interior and Agriculture Departments (the agencies using federal fire management resources). They mandate community -based collaboration to reduce risks from wildfire. National Dam Safety Act Potential for catastrophic flooding due to dam failures led to passage of the National Dam Inspection Act in 1972, creation of the National Dam Safety Program in 1996, and reauthorization of the program through the Dam Safety Act in 2006. National Dam Safety Program, administered by FEMA requires a periodic engineering analysis of the majority of dams in the country; exceptions include the following: Dams under jurisdiction of the Bureau of Reclamation, Tennessee Valley Authority, or International Boundary and Water Commission Dams constructed pursuant to licenses issued under the Federal Power Act Dams that the Secretary of the Army determines do not pose any threat to human life or property. The goal of this FEMA-monitored effort is to identify and mitigate the risk of dam failure so as to protect lives and property of the public. The National Dam Safety Program is a partnership among the states, federal agencies, and other stakeholders that encourages individual and community responsibility for dam safety. Under FEMA's leadership, state assistance funds have allowed all participating states to improve their programs through increased inspections, emergency action planning, and purchases of needed equipment. FEMA has also expanded existing and initiated new training programs. Grant assistance from FEMA provides support for improvement of dam safety programs that regulate most of the dams in the United States. National Fire Plan (2001) The 2001 National Fire Plan was developed based on the National Fire Policy. A major aspect of the National Fire Plan is joint risk reduction planning and implementation carried out by federal, state and local agencies and communities. The National Fire Plan presented a comprehensive strategy in five key initiatives: Firefighting —Be adequately prepared to fight fires each fire season. Rehabilitation and Restoration —Restore landscapes and rebuild communities damaged by wildfires. Hazardous Fuel Reduction —Invest in projects to reduce fire risk. B-6 TETRA TECH Appendix B. Summary of Federal and State Agencies, Programs and Regulations Community Assistance —Work directly with communities to ensure adequate protection. Accountability —Be accountable and establish adequate oversight, coordination, program development, and monitoring for performance. National Flood Insurance Program The NFIP makes federally backed flood insurance available to homeowners, renters, and business owners in participating communities. For most participating communities, FEMA has prepared a detailed Flood Insurance Study. The study presents water surface elevations for floods of various magnitudes, including the 1-percent- annual-chance flood and the 0.2-percent-annual-chance flood. Base flood elevations and the boundaries of the flood hazard areas are shown on Flood Insurance Rate Maps, which are the principle tool for identifying the extent and location of the flood hazard. Flood Insurance Rate Maps are the most detailed and consistent data source available, and for many communities they represent the minimum area of oversight under the local floodplain management program. In recent years, Flood Insurance Rate Maps have been digitized as Digital Flood Insurance Rate Maps, which are more accessible to residents, local governments and stakeholders. Participants in the NFIP must, at a minimum, regulate development in floodplain areas in accordance with NFIP criteria. Before issuing a permit to build in a floodplain, participating jurisdictions must ensure that three criteria are met: New buildings and those undergoing substantial improvements must, at a minimum, be elevated to protect against damage by the 1-percent-annual-chance flood. New floodplain development must not aggravate existing flood problems or increase damage to other properties. New floodplain development must exercise a reasonable and prudent effort to reduce its adverse impacts on threatened salmonid species. National Flood Insurance Program The National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) provides federally backed flood insurance in exchange for communities enacting floodplain regulations. Participation and good standing under NFIP are prerequisites to grant funding eligibility under the Robert T. Stafford Act. Full compliance and good standing under the NFIP are application prerequisites for all FEMA grant programs for which participating jurisdictions are eligible under this plan. National Incident Management System The National Incident Management System (NIMS) is a systematic approach for government, nongovernmental organizations, and the private sector to work together to manage incidents involving hazards. The NIMS provides a flexible but standardized set of incident management practices. Incidents typically begin and end locally, and they are managed at the lowest possible geographical, organizational, and jurisdictional level. In some cases, success depends on the involvement of multiple jurisdictions, levels of government, functional agencies, and emergency responder disciplines. These cases necessitate coordination across a spectrum of organizations. Communities using NIMS follow a comprehensive national approach that improves the effectiveness of emergency management and response personnel across the full spectrum of potential hazards (including natural hazards, technological hazards, and human -caused hazards) regardless of size or complexity. Although participation is voluntary, federal departments and agencies are required to make adoption of NIMS by local and state jurisdictions a condition to receive federal preparedness grants and awards. The content of this plan is considered to be a viable support tool for any phase of emergency management. The NIMS program is TETRA TECH B-7 Harris County Multi -Hazard Mitigation Action Plan; Volume 1—Area-Wide Elements considered as a response function, and information in this hazard mitigation plan can support the implementation and update of all NIMS-compliant plans within the planning area. Presidential Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management Executive Order 11988 requires federal agencies to avoid to the extent possible the long and short-term adverse impacts associated with the occupancy and modification of floodplains and to avoid direct and indirect support of floodplain development wherever there is a practicable alternative. It requires federal agencies to provide leadership and take action to reduce the risk of flood loss, minimize the impact of floods on human safety, health, and welfare, and restore and preserve the natural and beneficial values of floodplains. The requirements apply to the following activities (FEMA, 2015a): • Acquiring, managing, and disposing of federal lands and facilities • Providing federally undertaken, financed, or assisted construction and improvements • Conducting federal activities and programs affecting land use, including but not limited to water and related land resources planning, regulation, and licensing. Presidential Executive Order 11990, Protection of Wetlands Executive Order 11990 requires federal agencies to provide leadership and take action to minimize the destruction, loss or degradation of wetlands, and to preserve and enhance the natural and beneficial values of wetlands. The requirements apply to the following activities (National Archives, 2016): • Acquiring, managing, and disposing of federal lands and facilities • Providing federally undertaken, financed, or assisted construction and improvements • Conducting federal activities and programs affecting land use, including but not limited to water and related land resources planning, regulation, and licensing. All actions identified in this plan will seek full compliance with all applicable presidential executive orders. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Dam Safety Program The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers operates and maintains approximately 700 dams nationwide. It is also responsible for safety inspections of some federal and non-federal dams in the United States that meet the size and storage limitations specified in the National Dam Safety Act. The Corps has inventoried dams; surveyed each state and federal agency's capabilities, practices and regulations regarding design, construction, operation and maintenance of the dams; and developed guidelines for inspection and evaluation of dam safety. The Corps maintains the National Inventory of Dams, which contains information about a dam's location, size, purpose, type, last inspection and regulatory status (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2017). U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Flood Hazard Management The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has several civil works authorities and programs related to flood risk and flood hazard management: The Floodplain Management Services program offers 100-percent federally funded technical services such as development and interpretation of site -specific data related to the extent, duration and frequency of flooding. Special studies may be conducted to help a community understand and respond to flood risk. These may include flood hazard evaluation, flood warning and preparedness, or flood modeling. For more extensive studies, the Corps of Engineers offers a cost -shared program called Planning Assistance to States and Tribes. Studies under this program generally range from $25,000 to $100,000 with the local jurisdiction providing 50 percent of the cost. B-8 TETRA TECH Appendix B. Summary of Federal and State Agencies, Programs and Regulations • The Corps of Engineers has several cost -shared programs (typically 65 percent federal and 35 percent non-federal) aimed at developing, evaluating and implementing structural and non-structural capital projects to address flood risks at specific locations or within a specific watershed: ➢ The Continuing Authorities Program for smaller -scale projects includes Section 205 for Flood Control, with a $7 million federal limit and Section 14 for Emergency Streambank Protection with a $1.5 million federal limit. These can be implemented without specific authorization from Congress. ➢ Larger scale studies, referred to as General Investigations, and projects for flood risk management, for ecosystem restoration or to address other water resource issues, can be pursued through a specific authorization from Congress and are cost -shared, typically at 65 percent federal and 35 percent non- federal. ➢ Watershed management planning studies can be specifically authorized and are cost -shared at 50 percent federal and 50 percent non-federal. • The Corps of Engineers provides emergency response assistance during and following natural disasters. Public Law 84-99 enables the Corps to assist state and local authorities in flood fight activities and cost share in the repair of flood protective structures. Assistance is provided in the flowing categories: ➢ Preparedness —The Flood Control and Coastal Emergency Act establishes an emergency fund for preparedness for emergency response to natural disasters; for flood fighting and rescue operations; for rehabilitation of flood control and hurricane protection structures. Funding for Corps of Engineers emergency response under this authority is provided by Congress through the annual Energy and Water Development Appropriation Act. Disaster preparedness activities include coordination, planning, training and conduct of response exercises with local, state and federal agencies. ➢ Response Activities —Public Law 84-99 allows the Corps of Engineers to supplement state and local entities in flood fighting urban and other non-agricultural areas under certain conditions (Engineering Regulation 500-1-1 provides specific details). All flood fight efforts require a project cooperation agreement signed by the public sponsor and the sponsor must remove all flood fight material after the flood has receded. Public Law 84-99 also authorizes emergency water support and drought assistance in certain situations and allows for "advance measures" assistance to prevent or reduce flood damage conditions of imminent threat of unusual flooding. ➢ Rehabilitation —Under Public Law 84-99, an eligible flood protection system can be rehabilitated if damaged by a flood event. The flood system would be restored to its pre -disaster status at no cost to the federal system owner, and at 20-percent cost to the eligible non-federal system owner. All systems considered eligible for Public Law 84-99 rehabilitation assistance have to be in the Rehabilitation and Inspection Program prior to the flood event. Acceptable operation and maintenance by the public levee sponsor are verified by levee inspections conducted by the Corps on a regular basis. The Corps has the responsibility to coordinate levee repair issues with interested federal, state, and local agencies following natural disaster events where flood control works are damaged. All of these authorities and programs are available to the planning partners to support any intersecting mitigation actions. U.S. Fire Administration There are federal agencies that provide technical support to fire agencies/organizations. For example, the U.S. Fire Administration, which is a part of FEMA, provides leadership, advocacy, coordination, and support for fire agencies and organizations. TETRA TECH B-9 Harris County Multi -Hazard Mitigation Action Plan; Volume 1—Area-Wide Elements U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service fire management strategy employs prescribed fire to maintain early successional fire -adapted grasslands and other ecological communities throughout the National Wildlife Refuge System. STATE Texas Government Code Chapter 418; Texas Administrative Code Title 37, Part 1, Chapter 7 Under Texas Government Code Chapter 418 (Emergency Management), mayors and county judges serve as emergency management directors. In most jurisdictions, these officials appoint an emergency management coordinator to administer the program. The mayor and county judge are authorized by the Texas Disaster Act to declare a local disaster when conditions exist or when there is an immediate threat. Texas government Code Chapter 418.014 grants the governor the authority to declare a state -level disaster. At the local level, an emergency management director serves as the governor's designated agent in the administration and supervision of duties under Chapter 418. An emergency management director may exercise the powers granted to the governor under this chapter on an appropriate local scale (Texas Government Code Chapter 418.015) and may declare a local state of disaster (Texas Government Code Chapter 418.108). Jurisdictions must prepare emergency operations plans that follow TDEM's planning standards (Texas Government Code Chapter 418.102). Texas Planning Law The Texas Planning Law enables local governments to adopt comprehensive plans. A municipality may define the content and design of its comprehensive plan, but the state suggests including the following elements: • Land use • Transportation • Public facilities. The municipality may then, should it choose to do so, enact development regulations that are consistent with the plan. Consistency is defined by the local jurisdiction. The law also authorizes the creation of a conservation easement that imposes limitations on land use for the purpose of retaining or protecting natural, scenic, agricultural, historical, or open space values of real property. If the conservation easement is not unlimited in duration, as soon as it ends, an additional tax is imposed on the land equal to the tax break received for the five prior years, plus 7 percent annual interest. Texas Property Code Section 5.008 of the Texas Property Code establishes requirements for sellers to disclose whether a property is in the floodplain, has suffered flood damage, and has flood insurance coverage. Texas Stormwater Management Program The state of Texas and the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality were delegated authority by the U.S. EPA to administer the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permitting program for B-10 TETRA TECH Appendix B. Summary of Federal and State Agencies, Programs and Regulations wastewater and stormwater discharges associated with construction activity and industrial activity, as well as Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) activity. Because the EPA and the Clean Water Act require a program for addressing the pollution caused by stormwater discharges, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality implemented and managed the Texas Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permitting program to fulfill all Clean Water Act and federal mandates. The system provides a process for project owners and operators to attain permit coverage allowing the discharge of stormwater and wastewater into Texas surface waters H B 108; Texas Water Code Section 16.3145 of the Texas Water Code requires non -participating flood -prone communities in Texas to adopt a flood damage prevention ordinance and enroll in the National Flood Insurance Program. HOME Program The Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs administers the HOME Program to expand the supply of decent, safe, affordable housing and strengthen public -private housing partnerships between units of local governments, public housing authorities, nonprofits, and for -profit entities. The Department of Housing and Community Affairs has set aside funding for disaster relief and persons with disabilities, among others. Texas Water Development Board The Texas Water Development Board manages state programs for flood hazard mapping under FEMA's CTP program. The Board also monitors NFIP program compliance on behalf of the State. Texas Flash Flood Coalition The Texas Flash Flood Coalition works to decrease the number of deaths caused by flash flooding in Texas. More than 30 representatives of higher education, media, private industry, local, state and federal governments participate in the coalition. Texas Silver Jackets This U.S. Army Corps of Engineers initiative provides a formal and consistent strategy for an interagency approach to planning and implementing measures in order to reduce the risks associated with flooding and other natural hazards. Community Hazard Analysis and Mitigation Planning Support Community Hazard Analysis and Mitigation Planning Support (CHAMPS) reports provide summarized descriptions of historical hazard events and future hazard risks for each county in Texas. These have been developed by the Texas Geographic Society in a project funded by FEMA and administered by TDEM. CHAMPS reports have been developed to provide local mitigation planners with data, maps and other information they can use to support the hazard assessment portion of the mitigation planning process. Texas General Land Office The General Land Office sponsors education efforts to increase public and private sector awareness and support for mitigation planning along the Texas coast, including the Texas Storm Smart Coasts Network website, Texas Coastal Homeowners Handbook, and the Texas Hazard Mitigation Guidebook. TETRA TECH B-11 Harris County Multi -Hazard Mitigation Action Plan Appendix C. Risk Assessment Results Dam Failure Risk Assessment Conroe Dam Inundation Area Jurisdiction Estimated Population (1) Total Number of Buildings (2) Total Number of Residential Buildings (2) Total Building Value (Structure and contents in $) (2) Baytown (Harris Co.) 72,879 20,718 19,029 $10,081,462,691 Baytown (Chambers Co.) 4,145 1,440 1,280 $1,376,644,000 Baytown (Total) 77,024 22,158 20,309 $11,458,106,691 Bellaire 18,966 6,503 6,307 $5,726,227,131 Bunker Hill Village 3,982 1,303 1,302 $1,322,346,729 Deer Park 33,931 11,370 10,575 $5,845,168,035 El Lago 2,727 1,107 1,078 $469,295,696 Friendswood (Harris Co.) 11,575 3,570 3,479 $1,631,453,165 Friendswood (Galveston Co.) 28,606 9,959 9,593 $4,553,773,509 Friendswood (Total) 40,181 13,529 13,072 $6,185,226,675 Galena Park 10,931 3,288 3,032 $1,178,706,765 Hedwig Village 2,669 909 818 $1,142,111,969 Hilshire Village 819 321 311 $207,926,478 Houston (Harris Co.) 2,278,069 592,166 544,150 $487,379,428,234 Humble 16,041 4,890 3,979 $4,570,456,883 Hunters Creek Village 4,891 1,572 1,552 $1,787,651,957 Jacinto City 10,625 2,986 2,745 $1,261,111,221 Jersey Village 7,962 2,527 2,348 $2,275,428,136 Katy (Harris Co.) 15,251 4,249 3,929 $1,865,017,616 Katy (Fort Bend Co.) 2,159 811 548 $1,312,561,128 Katy (Waller Co.) 1,806 492 444 $218,939,000 Katy (Toatal) 19,216 5,552 4,921 3,396,517,744 La Porte 35,423 12,427 11,467 $6,575,613,440 League City (Harris Co.) 1,984 394 386 $280,449,911 Missouri City (Harris Co.) 6,273 1,876 1,824 $770,837,732 Missouri City (Fort Bend Co.) 68,432 22,450 21,588 $11,627,868,465 Missouri City (Total) 74,705 24,326 23,412 $12,398,706,197 Morgan's Point (Harris Co.) 345 160 150 $262,314,866 Nassau Bay 4,037 1,574 1,504 $1,635,924,802 Pasadena 153,219 40,639 37,128 $22,505,882,445 Pearland (Harris Co.) 5,237 834 791 $709,046,327 Piney Point Village 3,449 1,195 1,188 $1,817,131,583 Seabrook (Harris Co.) 14,291 4,390 4,105 $2,537,671,414 Shoreacres (Harris Co.) 1,611 657 656 $218,188,519 South Houston 17,583 5,001 4,050 $2,162,541,092 Southside Place 1,881 508 491 $471,918,214 Spring Valley Village 4,333 1,509 1,466 $1,227,871,955 Stafford (Harris Co.) 309 89 89 $24,088,003 Stafford (Fort Bend Co.) 18,003 4,966 3,878 $6,078,341,979 Stafford (Total) 18,312 5,055 3,967 $6,102,429,982 Taylor Lake Village 3,625 1,390 1,385 $690,404,692 Tomball (Harris Co.) 11,761 3,649 2,933 $3,569,286,191 Waller (Harris Co.) 600 261 197 $221,680,638 Webster 11,201 2,387 1,774 $5,700,342,104 West University Place 15,676 5,525 5,468 $3,722,134,705 Unincorporated County 1,914,463 1 573,070 1,355,132 541,942 1,260,959 $321,033,774,612 928,049,024,035 (1) U.S. Census Bureau 2018 estimated population downloaded from the The County Information Program, Texas Association of Counties website in July 2019. (2) Values based off of Harris Central Appraisal District data (2019), Fort Bend Central Appraisal District data (2018), Galveston Central Appraisal District data (2018), and Hazus v4.2 SP03 default general building stock data (Chambers and walla, -mti-) (3) Lake Conroe Dam inundation area data (draft PMF breach) Drovided by Harris County. (4) Percent of residential buildings exposed multiplied by the Estimated Population. (5) Assumed 1foot of Flood depth over finished floor and applied aggregate average USACE depth damage curves to estimate loss Dam Failure Risk Assessment Conroe Dam Inundation Area Jurisdiction Dam Inundation - Lake Conroe Dam (3) Estimated Exposure Estimated Buildings Exposed(2) Population Exposed(4) % of Population Exposed Value Structure in $ Exposed(2) Value Contents in $ Exposed(2) Value (Structure and contents in $) Exposed(2) % of Total Value Baytown (Harris Co.) 45 172 0.24% 9,471,687 4,735,844 14,207,531 0.14% Baytown (Chambers Co.) 0 0 0.00% 0 0 0 0.00% Baytown (Total) 45 172 0.22% 9,471,687 4,735,844 14,207,531 0.12% Bellaire 0 0 0.00% 0 0 0 0.00% Bunker Hill Village 0 0 0.00% 0 0 0 0.00% Deer Park 0 0 0.00°% 0 0 0 0.00% Ell -ago 0 0 0.00% 0 0 0 0.00% Friendswood (Harris Co.) 0 0 0.00% 0 0 0 0.00% Friendswood (Galveston Co.) 0 0 0.00% 0 0 0 0.00% Friendswood (Total) 0 0 0.00% 0 0 0 0.00% Galena Park 0 0 0.00% 0 0 0 0.00% Hedwig Village 0 0 0.00% 0 0 0 0.00% Hilshire Village 0 0 0.00% 0 0 0 0.00% Houston (Harris Co.) 3,635 14,544 0.64% 1,816,286,365 1,059,629,339 2,875,915,704 0.59% Humble 572 1,794 11.18% 515,847,360 476,530,660 992,378,020 21.71% Hunters Creek Village 0 0 0.00% 0 0 0 0.00% Jacinto City 0 0 0.00% 0 0 0 0.00% Jersey Village 0 0 0.00% 0 0 0 0.00% Katy (Harris Co.) 0 0 0.00% 0 0 0 0.00% Katy (Fort Bend Co.) 0 0 0.00% 0 0 0 0.00% Katy (Waller Co.) 0 0 0.00% 0 0 0 0.00% Katy (Toatal) 0 0 0.00% 0 0 0 0.00% La Porte 0 0 0,00 % 0 0 0 0,00 % League City (Harris Co.) 0 0 0.00% 0 0 0 0.00% Missouri City (Harris Co.) 0 0 0.00% 0 0 0 0.00% Missouri City (Fort Bend Co.) 0 0 0.00% 0 0 0 0.00% Missouri City (Total) 0 0 0.00% 0 0 0 0.00% Morgan's Point (Harris Co.) 0 0 0.00% 0 0 0 0.00% Nassau Bay 0 0 0.00% 0 0 0 0.00% Pasadena 0 0 0.00% 0 0 0 0.00% Pearland (Harris Co.) 0 0 0.00% 0 0 0 0.00% Piney Point Village 0 0 0.00% 0 0 0 0.00% Seabrook (Harris Co.) 0 0 0.00% 0 0 0 0.00% Shoreacres (Harris Co.) 0 0 0.00% 0 0 0 0.00% South Houston 0 0 0.00% 0 0 0 0.00% Southside Place 0 0 0.00% 0 0 0 0.00% Spring Valley Village 0 0 0.00% 0 0 0 0.00% Stafford (Harris Co.) 0 0 0.00% 0 0 0 0.00% Stafford (Fort Bend Co.) 0 0 0.00% 0 0 0 0.00% Stafford (Total) 0 0 0.00% 0 0 0 0.00% Taylor Lake Village 0 0 0.00% 0 0 0 0.00% Tomball (Harris Co.) 0 0 0.00% 0 0 0 0.00% Waller (Harris Co.) 0 0 0.00% 0 0 0 0.00% Webster 0 0 0.00°% 0 0 0 0.00% West University Place 0 0 0.00% 0 0 0 0.00% Unincorporated County 2,390 7.616 0.40% 1 729,489,007 438,488,556 1,167,977,563 0.36% 3,071,094,4205,050,478,818 (1) U.S. Census Bureau 2018 estimated population downloaded from the The County Information Program, Texas Association of Counties website in July 2019. (2) Values based off of Harris Central Appraisal District data (2019), Fort Bend Central Appraisal District data (2018), Galveston Central Appraisal District data (2018), and Hazus v4.2 SP03 default general building stock data (Chambers and walla, -mfi-) (3) Lake Conroe Dam inundation area data (draft PMF breach) Drovided by Harris Countv. (4) Percent of residential buildings exposed multiplied by the Estimated Population. (5) Assumed 1foot of Flood depth over finished floor and applied aggregate average USACE depth damage curves to estimate loss Dam Failure Risk Assessment Conroe Dam Inundation Area Jurisdiction Estimated Damage to Structure 5 Estimated Damage to Contents(5) Total % of Total Baytown (Harris Co.) $1,515,470 $426,226 $1,941,696 0.02% Baytown (Chambers Co.) $0 $0 $0 0.00°% Baytown (Total) $1,515,470 $426,226 $1,941,696 0.02% Bellaire Bunker Hill Village Deer Park El Lago Friendswood (Harris Co.) Friendswood (Galveston Co.) Friendswood (Total) Galena Park Hedwig Village Hilshire Village Houston (Harris Co.) $290,605,818 $95,366,640 $385,972,459 0.08 % Humble $82,535,578 $42,887,759 $125,423,337 2.74% Hunters Creek Village Jacinto City Jersey Village Katy (Harris Co.) Katy (Fort Bend Co.) Katy (Waller Co.) Katy (Toatal) La Porte League City (Harris Co.) Missouri City (Harris Co.) Missouri City (Fort Bend Co.) Missouri City (Total) Morgan's Point (Harris Co.) Nassau Bay Pasadena Pearland (Harris Co.) Piney Point Village Seabrook (Harris Co.) Shoreacres (Harris Co.) South Houston Southside Place Spring Valley Village Stafford (Harris Co.) Stafford (Fort Bend Co.) Stafford (Total) Taylor Lake Village Tomball (Harris Co.) Waller (Harris Co.) Webster West University Place Unincorporated County $116,718,241 $39,463,970 $156,182,211 0.05% (1) U.S. Census Bureau 2018 estimated population downloaded from the The County Information Program, Texas Association of Counties website in July 2019. (2) Values based off of Harris Central Appraisal District data (2019), Fort Bend Central Appraisal District data (2018), Galveston Central Appraisal District data (2018), and Hazus v4.2 SP03 default general building stock data (Chambers and Wnfl--mti—) (3) Lake Conroe Dam inundation area data (draft PMF breach) Drovided by Harris County. (4) Percent of residential buildings exposed multiplied by the Estimated Population. (5) Assumed 1foot of Flood depth over finished floor and applied aggregate average USACE depth damage curves to estimate loss Dam Failure Risk Assessment Conroe Dam Inundation Area Jurisdiction Number of Structures in Dam Inundation Area (2) Residential Commercial Industrial Agriculture Religion Government Education Total Baytown (Harris Co.) 45 0 0 0 0 0 0 45 Baytown (Chambers Co.) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Baytown (Total) 45 0 0 0 0 0 0 45 Bellaire 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 Bunker Hill Village 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Deer Park 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 El Lago 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Friendswood (Harris Co.) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Friendswood (Galveston Co.) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Friendswood (Total) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Galena Park 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Hedwig Village 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Hilshire Village 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Houston (Harris Co.) 3,474 146 0 6 1 1 7 3,635 Humble 445 121 4 2 0 0 0 572 Hunters Creek Village 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Jacinto City 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Jersey Village 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Katy (Harris Co.) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Katy (Fort Bend Co.) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Katy (Waller Co.) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Katy (Toatal) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 La Porte 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 League City (Harris Co.) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Missouri City (Harris Co.) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Missouri City (Fort Bend Co.) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Missouri City (Total) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Morgan's Point (Harris Co.) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Nassau Bay 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pasadena 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pearland (Harris Co.) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Piney Point Village 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Seabrook (Harris Co.) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Shoreacres (Harris Co.) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 South Houston 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Southside Place 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spring Valley Village 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Stafford (Harris Co.) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Stafford (Fort Bend Co.) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Stafford (Total) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Taylor Lake Village 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Tomball (Harris Co.) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Waller (Harris Co.) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Webster 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 West University Place 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Unincorporated County 21156 230 2 1 1 0 0 2,390 (1) U.S. Census Bureau 2018 estimated population downloaded from the The County Information Program, Texas Association of Counties website in July 2019. (2) Values based off of Harris Central Appraisal District data (2019), Fort Bend Central Appraisal District data (2018), Galveston Central Appraisal District data (2018), and Hazus v4.2 SP03 default general building stock data (Chambers and walla, —mti—) (3) Lake Conroe Dam inundation area data (draft PMF breach) provided by Harris Countv. (4) Percent of residential buildings exposed multiplied by the Estimated Population. (5) Assumed 1foot of Flood depth over finished floor and applied aggregate average USACE depth damage curves to estimate loss Earthquake Risk Assessment 500-Year Probabilistic Jurisdiction Estimated Exposure Estimated Population (1) % Population Exposed Total Number of Buildings (2) Total Building Value (Structure and contents in $) (2) f Total Value Exposed Baytown (Harris Co.) 72,879 100% 20,718 $10,081,462,691 100% Baytown (Chambers Co.) 4,145 100% 1,440 $1,376,644,000 100°% Baytown (Total) 77,024 100% 22,158 $11,458,106,691 100% Bellaire 18,966 100% 6,503 $5,726,227,131 100% Bunker Hill Village 3,982 100% 1,303 $1,322,346,729 100% Deer Park 33,931 100°% 11,370 $5,845,168,035 100% ElLago 2,727 100% 1,107 $469,295,696 100% Friendswood (Harris Co.) 11,575 100% 3,570 $1,631,453,165 100°% Friendswood (Galveston Co.) 28,606 100% 9,959 $4,553,773,509 100% Friendswood (Total) 40,181 100% 13,529 $6,185,226,675 100% Galena Park 10,931 100% 3,288 $1,178,706,765 100% Hedwig Village 2,669 100°% 909 $1,142,111,969 100°% Hilshire Village 819 100% 321 $207,926,478 100% Houston (Harris Co.) 2,278,069 100°% 592,166 $487,379,428,234 100°% Humble 16,041 100% 4,890 $4,570,456,883 100% Hunters Creek Village 4,891 100°% 1,572 $1,787,651,957 100°% Jacinto City 10,625 100% 2,986 $1,261,111,221 100% Jersey Village 7,962 100°% 2,527 $2,275,428,136 100°% Katy (Harris Co.) 15,251 100% 4,249 $1,865,017,616 100% Katy (Fort Bend Co.) 2,159 100°% 811 $1,312,561,128 100°% Katy (Waller Co.) 1,806 100% 492 $218,939,000 100% 19,216 100°% 5,552 $3,396,517,744 100% La Porte 35.423 100% 12,427 $6,575,613,440 100% League City (Harris Co.) 1,984 100% 394 $280,449,911 100% Missouri City (Harris Co.) 6,273 100% 1,876 $770,837,732 100% Missouri City (Fort Bend Co.) 68,432 100°% 22,450 $11,627,868,465 100% Missouri City (Total) 74,705 100% 24,326 $12,398,706,197 100% Morgan's Point (Harris Co.) 345 100°% 160 $262,314,866 100°% Nassau Bay 4,037 100% 1,574 $1,635,924,802 100% Pasadena 153,219 100% 40,639 $22,505,882,445 100% Pearland (Harris Co.) 5,237 100% 834 $709,046,327 100% Piney Point Village 3,449 100% 1,195 $1,817,131,583 100% Seabrook (Harris Co.) 14,291 100% 4,390 $2,537,671,414 100% Shoreacres (Harris Co.) 1,611 100°% 657 $218,188,519 100% South Houston 17,583 100% 5,001 $2,162,541,092 100% Southside Place 1,881 100% 508 $471,918,214 100% Spring Valley Village 4,333 100% 1,509 $1,227,871,955 100% Stafford (Harris Co.) 309 100°% 89 $24,088,003 100% Stafford (Fort Bend Co.) 18,003 100% 4,966 $6,078,341,979 100% Stafford (Total) 18,312 100°% 5,055 $6,102,429,982 100% Taylor Lake Village 3,625 100% 1,390 $690,404,692 100% Tomball (Harris Co.) 11,761 100°% 3,649 $3,569,286,191 100°% Waller (Harris Co.) 600 100% 261 $221,680,638 100% Webster 11,201 100°% 2,387 $5,700,342,104 100°% West University Place 15,676 100% 5,525 $3,722,134,705 100% Unincorporated County TOTAL 1,914,463 4,821,770 100% 00928,049,024,03500 573,070 $321,033,774,612 100% (1) U.S. Census Bureau 2018 estimated population downloaded from the The County Information Program, Texas Association of Counties website in Julv 2019. (2) Values based off of Harris Central Appraisal District data (2019), Fort Bend Central Appraisal District data (2018), Galveston Central Appraisal District data (2018), and Hazus v4.2 SP03 default general building stock data (Chambers and (3) Calculated using a Census tract level, general building stock (GBS) analvsis in Hazus 4.2 SP03. Earthquake Risk Assessment 500-Year Probabilistic Jurisdiction Economic Impact Structure Debris (x 1,000 Tons) (3 Number of Displaced Households 3 People Requiring Short -Term Shelter 3 Value Structure in $ Damaged 3 Value Contents in $ Damaged 3 Total Value (Structure and Contents in $) Damaged 3 % of Total Value Damaged Baytown (Harris Co.) 1.04 0 0 $1,117,367 $107,747 $1,225,114 0.012% Baytown (Chambers Co.) 0.01 0 0 $11,438 $1,009 $12,446 0.001 % Baytown (Total) 1.05 0 0 $1,128,805 $108,755 $1,237,560 0.011 % Bellaire 0.29 0 0 $453,452 $36,757 $490,208 0.009% Bunker Hill Village 0.01 0 0 $63,824 $5,986 $69,810 0.005% Deer Park 1.12 0 0 $840,885 $81,898 $922,783 0.016% ElLago 0.00 0 0 $13,073 $1,252 $14,324 0.003% Friendswood (Harris Co.) 0.07 0 0 $87,499 $8,190 $95,689 0.006% Friendswood (Galveston Co.) 0.04 0 0 $117,726 $14,108 $131,834 0.003% Friendswood (Total) 0.11 0 0 $205,225 $22,298 $227,523 0.004% Galena Park 0.37 0 0 $211,773 $21,687 $233,460 0.020% Hedwig Village 0.02 0 0 $63,341 $8,012 $71,354 0.006% Hilshire Village 0.01 0 0 $16,068 $1,916 $17,984 0.009% Houston (Harris Co.) 80.87 2 1 $67,404,367 $5,389,108 $72,793,475 0.015% Humble 0.83 0 0 $605,387 $50,705 $656,093 0.014% Hunters Creek Village 0.03 0 0 $103,598 $9,606 $113,204 0.006% Jacinto City 0.36 0 0 $243,961 $18,546 $262,508 0.021% Jersey Village 0.47 0 0 $391,560 $33,715 $425,276 0.019% Katy (Harris Co.) 0.24 0 0 $199,724 $16,565 $216,289 0.012% Katy (Fort Bend Co.) 0.00 0 0 $5,498 $860 $6,359 0.000% Katy (Waller Co.) 0.01 0 0 $4,657 $393 $5,050 0.002% Katy (Total) 0.24 0.00 0.00 209,879.93 17,817.98 227,698 0.007% La Porte 2.17 0 0 $1,428,585 $113,379 $1,541,964 0.023% League City (Harris Co.) 0.02 0 0 $20,054 $1,958 $22,012 0.008% Missouri City (Harris Co.) 0.15 0 0 $116,446 $8,677 $125,123 0.016% Missouri City (Fort Bend Co.) 0.26 0 0 $449,149 $62,857 $512,006 0.004% Missouri City (Total) 0.41 0 0 $565,595 $71,534 $637,129 0.005% Morgan's Point (Harris Co.) 0.12 0 0 $69,485 $5,689 $75,174 0.029% Nassau Bay 0.07 0 0 $126,806 $11,748 $138,554 0.008% Pasadena 3.34 0 0 $2,903,182 $258,858 $3,162,040 0.014% Pearland (Harris Co.) 0.11 0 0 $85,290 $8,318 $93,607 0.013% Piney Point Village 0.09 0 0 $140,040 $9,967 $150,007 0.008% Seabrook (Harris Co.) 0.21 0 0 $174,109 $14,106 $188,214 0.007% Shoreacres (Harris Co.) 0.00 0 0 $8,092 $837 $8,929 0.004% South Houston 0.61 0 0 $425,278 $31,584 $456,862 0.021% Southside Place 0.01 0 0 $21,527 $2,711 $24,238 0.005% Spring Valley Village 0.06 0 0 $94,729 $11,298 $106,027 0.009% Stafford (Harris Co.) 0.01 0 0 $4,936 $351 $5,287 0.022% Stafford (Fort Bend Co.) 0.33 0 0 $301,742 $49,117 $350,859 0.006% Stafford (Total) 0.34 0 0 $306,678 $49,469 $356,147 0.006% Taylor Lake Village 0.04 0 0 $39,324 $4,005 $43,328 0.006% Tomball (Harris Co.) 0.39 0 0 $346,989 $30,669 $377,658 0.011 % Waller (Harris Co.) 0.04 0 0 $27,663 $2,168 $29,831 0.013% Webster 0.59 0 0 $753,898 $69,795 $823,692 0.014% West University Place 0.02 0 0 $151,331 $17,112 $168,442 0.005% Unincorporated County 44.06 0 0 $35,537,925 $3,220,918 $38,758,843 0.012% rr (1) U.S. Census Bureau 2018 estimated population downloaded from the The County Information Program, Texas Association of Counties website in Julv 2019. (2) Values based off of Harris Central Appraisal District data (2019), Fort Bend Central Appraisal District data (2018), Galveston Central Appraisal District data (2018), and Hazus v4.2 SP03 default general building stock data (Chambers and W.11-nfi-I (3) Calculated using a Census tract level, general building stock (GBS) analvsis in Hazus 4.2 SP03. Flood Risk Assessment 100-Year Riverine Jurisdiction Estimated Population 0) Total Number of Buildings (2) Total Number of Residential Buildings (2) Total Building Value (Structure and contents in $) (2) Baytown (Harris Co.) 72,879 20,718 19,029 $10,081,462,691 Baytown (Chambers Co.) 4,145 1,440 1,280 $1,376,644,000 Baytown (total) 77,024 22,158 20,309 11,458,106,691 Bellaire 18,966 6,503 6,307 $5,726,227,131 Bunker Hill Village 3,982 1,303 1,302 $1,322,346,729 Deer Park 33,931 11,370 10,575 $5,845,168,035 El Lago 2,727 1,107 1,078 $469,295,696 Friendswood (Harris Co.) 11,575 3,570 3,479 $1,631,453,165 Friendswood (Galveston Co.) 28,606 9,959 9,593 $4,553,773,509 Friendswood (Total) 40,181 13,529 13,072 6,185,226,675 Galena Park 10,931 3,288 3,032 S1,178,706,765 Hedwig Village 2,669 909 818 $1,142,111,969 Hilshire Village 819 321 311 $207,926,478 Houston (Harris Co.) 2,278,069 592,166 544,150 $487,379,428,234 Humble 16,041 4,890 3,979 $4,570,456,883 Hunters Creek Village 4,891 1,572 1,552 $1,787,651,957 Jacinto City 10,625 2,986 2,745 $1,261,111,221 Jersey Village 7,962 2,527 2,348 $2,275,428,136 Katy (Harris Co.) 15,251 4,249 3,929 $1,865,017,616 Katy (Fort Bend Co.) 2,159 811 548 $1,312,561,128 Katy (Waller Co.) 1,806 492 444 $218,939,000 Katy (Total) 19,216 5,552 4,921 3,396,517,744 La Porte 35,423 12,427 11,467 $6,575,613,440 League City (Harris Co.) 1,984 394 386 $280,449,911 Missouri City (Harris Co.) 6,273 1,876 1,824 $770,837,732 Missouri City (Fort Bend Co.) 68,432 22,450 21,588 $11,627,868,465 Misouri City (Total) 74,705 24,326 23,412 12,398,706,197 Morgan's Point (Harris Co.) 345 160 150 $262,314,866 Nassau Bay 4,037 1,574 1,504 $1,635,924,802 Pasadena 153,219 40,639 37,128 $22,505,882,445 Pearland (Harris Co.) 5,237 834 791 $709,046,327 Piney Point Village 3,449 1,195 1,188 $1,817,131,583 Seabrook (Harris Co.) 14,291 4,390 4,105 $2,537,671,414 Shoreacres (Harris Co.) 1,611 657 656 $218,188,519 South Houston 17,583 5,001 4,050 $2,162,541,092 Southside Place 1,881 508 491 $471,918,214 Spring Valley Village 4,333 1,509 1,466 $1,227,871,955 Stafford (Harris Co.) 309 89 89 $24,088,003 Stafford (Fort Bend Co.) 18,003 4,966 3,878 $6,078,341,979 Stafford (total) 18,312 5,055 3,967 6,102,429,982 Taylor Lake Village 3,625 1,390 1,385 $690,404,692 Tomball (Harris Co.) 11,761 3,649 2,933 $3,569,286,191 Waller (Harris Co.) 600 261 197 $221,680,638 Webster 11,201 2,387 1,774 $5,700,342,104 West University Place 15,676 5,525 5,468 $3,722,134,705 Unincorporated Harris County 1,914,463 573,070 541,942 .0928,049,024,035 $321,033,774,612 (1) U.S. Census Bureau 2018 estimated population (2) Values based off of Harris Central Appraisal District (3) Percent of residential buildings exposed multiplied by the Estimated Population. (4) Calculated using a Census block level, general buildinq stock (GBS) analvsis in Hazus 4.2 SP03. (5) Calculated using a Census block level, general building stock (GBS) analysis in Hazus 4.2 SP03, and adiusted to reflect the estimated Dooulation. (6) Calculated using a user -defined (UDF) analysis (Harris, Fort Bend, Galveston) or a general building stock (GBS) analysis (Chambers, Waller) in Hazus 4.2 SP03. Flood Risk Assessment 100-Year Riverine Jurisdiction Estimated Building Exposure Buildings Exposed (2) Population Exposed (3) % of Population Exposed Value Structure in $ Exposed (2) Value Contents in $ Exposed (2) Value (Structure and contents in $) Exposed (2) % of Total Value Exposed Baytown (Harris Co.) 677 2,409 3.3% $213,419,969 $140,577,448 $353,997,417 3.5% Baytown (Chambers Co.) 575 1,736 41.9% $167,716,000 $108,161,000 S275,877,000 20.0% Baytown (total) 1,252 4,145 5.4% 381,135,969 248,738,448 629,874,417 5.5% Bellaire 5,359 15,634 82.4% $2,944,769,141 $1,726,222,179 $4,670,991,320 81.6% Bunker Hill Village 0 0 0.0% $0 $0 $0 0.0% Deer Park 384 687 2.0% $378,853,512 $419,217,270 $798,070,782 13.7% ElLago 707 1,720 63.1% $201,454,689 $107,137,036 $308,591,725 65.8% Friendswood (Harris Co.) 523 1,717 14.8% $119,867,843 $61,597,501 $181,465,343 11.1 Friendswood (Galveston Co.) 656 1,894 6.6% $197,172,528 $116,972,092 $314,144,620 6.9% Friendswood (Total) 1,179 3,610 9.0% 317,040,371 178,569,593 495,609,963 8.0% Galena Park 108 382 3.5% $12,544,057 $6,420,134 $18,964,191 1.6% Hedwig Village 0 0 0.0% $0 $0 $0 0.0% Hilshire Village 0 0 0.0% $0 $0 $0 0.0% Houston (Harris Co.) 66,553 259,980 11.4% 1 $28,661,376,542 $19,272,797,951 $47,934,174,493 9.8% Humble 207 689 4.3% $147,328,131 $125,653,165 $272,981,296 6.0% Hunters Creek Village 45 142 2.9% $30,666,051 $15,333,025 $45,999,076 2.6% Jacinto City 1 0 0.0% $1,557,700 $1,557,700 $3,115,400 0.2% Jersey Village 675 2,282 28.7% $223,526,600 $115,736,064 $339,262,665 14.9% Katy (Harris Co.) 101 392 2.6% $34,812,480 $17,406,240 $52,218,719 2.8% Katy (Fort Bend Co.) 89 106 4.9 % $38,262,829 $35,933,271 $74,196,099 5.7% Katy (Waller Co.) 175 622 34.5% $52,299,000 $34,307,000 $86,606,000 39.6% Katy(Total) 365 1,121 5.8% 125,374,308 87,646,510 213,020,818 6.3% La Porte 557 1,498 4.2% $169,550,275 $129,633,354 $299,183,630 4.5% League City (Harris Co.) 45 221 11.1 % $17,264,573 $9,974,151 $27,238,725 9.7 % Missouri City (Harris Co.) 88 275 4.4% $39,478,426 $22,694,827 $62,173,253 8.1% Missouri City (Fort Bend Co.) 47 67 0.1 % $45,288,292 $42,650,791 $87,939,083 0.8 % Misouri City (Total) 135 342 0.5 % 84,766,718 65,345,618 150,112,336 1.2 % Morgan's Point (Harris Co.) 0 0 0.0% $0 $0 $0 0.0% Nassau Bay 1,217 3,210 79.5% $583,779,100 $356,806,863 $940,585,962 57.5% Pasadena 2,699 9,855 6.4% $1,449,983,675 $1,059,194,630 $2,509,178,305 11.1% Pearland (Harris Co.) 68 344 6.6% $79,125,320 $77,265,923 $156,391,243 22.1% Piney Point Village 65 183 5.3% $75,922,564 $45,079,635 $121,002,199 6.7% Seabrook (Harris Co.) 2,028 6,430 45.0% $805,380,699 $490,042,010 $1,295,422,709 51.0% Shoreacres (Harris Co.) 274 673 41.8% $66,046,445 $33,023,222 $99,069,667 45.4% South Houston 1,245 3,660 20.8% $407,508,698 $343,861,989 $751,370,687 34.7% Southside Place 362 1,364 72.5% $221,612,463 $117,451,501 $339,063,964 71.8% Spring Valley Village 7 21 0.5% $2,763,435 $1,381,717 $4,145,152 0.3% Stafford (Harris Co.) 0 0 0.0% $0 $0 $0 0.0% Stafford (Fort Bend Co.) 0 0 $0 $0 $0 0.0% Stafford (total) 0 0 0.0% 0 0 0 0.0% Taylor Lake Village 634 1,654 45.6% $231,417,699 $116,457,910 $347,875,609 50.4% Tomball (Harris Co.) 12 28 0.2% $41,520,169 $21,620,275 $63,140,444 1.8% Waller (Harris Co.) 48 125 20.8% $4,377,310 $3,340,547 $7,717,856 3.5% Webster 720 4,388 39.2% $231,985,348 $141,786,974 $373,772,322 6.6% West University Place 808 2,305 14.7% $386,080,477 $195,110,666 $581,191,144 15.6% Unincorporated Harris County Total 32,044 :1 1 102,343 5.3% $10,722,244,302 0 $8,333,570,785 $19,055,815,087 5.9% (1) U.S. Census Bureau 2018 estimated population (2) Values based off of Harris Central Appraisal District (3) Percent of residential buildings exposed multiplied by the Estimated Population. (4) Calculated using a Census block level, general buildinq stock (GBS) analvsis in Hazus 4.2 SP03. (5) Calculated using a Census block level, general building stock (GBS) analysis in Hazus 4.2 SP03, and adiusted to reflect the estimated Dooulation. (6) Calculated using a user -defined (UDF) analysis (Harris, Fort Bend, Galveston) or a general building stock (GBS) analysis (Chambers, Waller) in Hazus 4.2 SP03. Flood Risk Assessment 100-Year Riverine Jurisdiction Economic Impact Structure Debris (Tons) (4) Displaced Population (5) People Requiring Short- Term Shelter (5) Buildings Impacted (6) Value Structure in $ Damaged (6) Value Contents in $ Damaged (6) Total Value (Structure and Contents in $) Damaged (6) %of Total Value Damaged Baytown (Harris Co.) 18,713 490 32 474 $31,378,554 $22,444,865 $53,823,419 0.5% Baytown (Chambers Co.) 933 162 4 147 $10,367,000 $11,161,000 $21,528,000 1.6% Baytown (total) 19,646 652 36 621 41,745,554 33,605,865 75,351,419 0.7% Bellaire 27,789 12,989 565 4.066 $248,691,296 $158,631,579 $407,322,875 7.1% Bunker Hill Village 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 0.0% Deer Park 2,042 87 4 319 $7,368,743 $12,353,532 $19,722,275 0.3% El Lago 9,004 1,261 94 618 $32,185,495 $19,037,537 $51,223,032 10.9% Friendswood (Harris Co.) 5,249 457 23 380 $11,327,946 $6,758,841 $18,086,787 1.1 % Friendswood (Galveston Co.) 12.591 380 15 448 $27,594,709 $24,161,616 $51,756,324 1.1°/ Friendswood (Total) 17,840 837 38 828 38,922,654 30,920,457 69,843,111 1.1% Galena Park 488 37 1 7 $101,936 $59,501 $161,437 0.0% Hedwig Village 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 0.0% Hilshire Village 902 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 0.0% Houston (Harris Co.) 728,996 114,281 11,038 48,829 $2,388,077,802 $1,876,193,414 $4,264,271,215 0.9% Humble 4,422 80 3 130 $12,772,817 $27,278,767 $40,051,585 0.9% Hunters Creek Village 10,310 15 1 10 $1,467,205 $827,378 $2,294,583 0.1% Jacinto City 212 0 0 1 $0 $55,703 $55,703 0.0% Jersey Village 10,873 1,112 60 669 $33,027,042 $24,861,390 $57,888,432 2.5% Katy (Harris Co.) 667 127 8 76 $3,093,857 $1,866,900 $4,960,757 0.3% Katy (Fort Bend Co.) 319 19 1 71 $1,388,998 $2,875,170 $4,264,168 0.3% Katy (Waller Co.) 288 198 9 99 $2,621,000 $1,799,000 $4,420,000 2.0% Katy (Total) 1,274 344 18 246 7,103,855 6,541,070 13,644,925 0.4% La Porte 3,876 243 6 348 $8,872,955 $7,394,843 $16,267,798 0.2% League City (Harris Co.) 584 14 0 25 $1,639,076 $933,354 $2,572,430 0.9% Missouri City (Harris Co.) 565 15 0 2 $7,154 $56,000 $63,154 0.0% Missouri City (Fort Bend Co.) 6,458 6 0 9 $592,771 $1,128,864 $1,721,635 0.0% Misouri City (Total) 7,023 22 1 11 599,925 1,184,864 1,784,789 0.0% Morgan's Point (Harris Co.) 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 0.0% Nassau Bay 32,168 2,665 206 1,137 $107,919,674 $63,242,293 $171,161,967 10.5% Pasadena 28,346 2,357 162 1,385 $93,497,484 $61,892,669 $155,390,153 0.7% Pearland (Harris Co.) 436 61 3 52 $2,781,778 $2,185,948 $4,967,726 0.7% Piney Point Village 11,892 32 1 14 $9,766,964 $9,558,191 $19,325,155 1.1% Seabrook (Harris Co.) 22,291 3,680 291 1,865 $109,356,734 $89,659,527 $199,016,261 7.8% Shoreacres (Harris Co.) 4,682 485 19 274 $13,974,480 $7,904,705 $21,879,185 10.0% South Houston 4,694 1,906 94 1,085 $21,549,628 $27,580,173 $49,129,802 2.3% Southside Place 1,573 888 51 219 $10,589,416 $6,544,216 $17,133,632 3.6% Spring Valley Village 1,202 1 0 5 $255,212 $154,260 $409,471 0.0% Stafford (Harris Co.) 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 0.0% Stafford (Fort Bend Co.) 122 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 0.0% Stafford (total) 122 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% Taylor Lake Village 10,476 944 48 572 $40,656,036 $23,114,793 $63,770,829 9.2% Tomball (Harris Co.) 962 2 0 9 $195,726 $233,135 $428,862 0.0% Waller (Harris Co.) 128 13 0 48 $263,026 $223,076 $486,102 0.2% Webster 8,031 1,358 146 702 $28,721,080 $16,832,161 $45,553,241 0.8% West University Place 2,759 782 20 427 $11,956,554 $7,467,559 $19,424,113 0.5% Unincorporated Harris County 442,981 25,330 1,722 24,657 $771,263,688 $620,844,525 $1,392,108,213 0.4% Total i 0- i (1) U.S. Census Bureau 2018 estimated population (2) Values based off of Harris Central Appraisal District (3) Percent of residential buildings exposed multiplied by the Estimated Population. (4) Calculated using a Census block level, general building stock (GBS) analvsis in Hazus 4.2 SP03. (5) Calculated using a Census block level, general building stock (GBS) analysis in Hazus 4.2 SP03, and adiusted to reflect the estimated Dooulation. (6) Calculated using a user -defined (UDF) analysis (Harris, Fort Bend, Galveston) or a general building stock (GBS) analysis (Chambers, Waller) in Hazus 4.2 SP03. Flood Risk Assessment 100-Year Riverine Jurisdiction Number of Structures in Floodplain (2) Acres of Floodplain Residential Commercial Industrial Agriculture Reli ion Government Education Total Baytown (Harris Co.) 3,330 629 44 2 0 1 1 0 677 Baytown (Chambers Co.) 591 536 22 13 0 4 0 0 575 Baytown (total) 3,921 1,165 66 15 0 5 1 0 1,252 Bellaire 1,902 5,199 148 0 4 4 0 4 5359 Bunker Hill Village 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Deer Park 886 214 125 44 0 0 0 1 384 ElLago 343 680 22 0 2 2 1 0 707 Friendswood (Harris Co.) 1,437 516 7 0 0 0 0 0 523 Friendswood (Galveston Co.) 1,851 635 20 0 1 0 0 0 656 Friendswood (Total) 3,288 1,151 27 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1,179 Galena Park 384 106 2 0 0 0 0 0 108 Hedwig Village 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Hilshire Village 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Houston (Harris Co.) 96,995 62,100 4,131 111 17 149 4 41 66553 Humble 1,036 171 32 3 0 1 0 0 207 Hunters Creek Village 174 45 0 0 0 0 0 0 45 Jacinto City 40 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 Jersey Village 571 673 1 0 0 1 0 0 675 Katy (Harris Co.) 89 101 0 0 0 0 0 0 101 Katy (Fort Bend Co.) 475 27 61 0 1 0 0 0 89 Katy (Waller Co.) 523 153 15 5 2 0 0 0 175 Katy (Total) 1,087 281 76 5 3 0 0 0 365 La Porte 1,722 485 72 0 0 0 0 0 557 League City (Harris Co.) 458 43 2 0 0 0 0 0 45 Missouri City (Harris Co.) 73 80 8 0 0 0 0 0 88 Missouri City (Fort Bend Co.) 2,765 21 16 0 10 0 0 0 47 Misouri City (Total) 2,838 101 24 0 10 0 0 0 135 Morgan's Point (Harris Co.) 143 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Nassau Bay 905 1,196 21 0 0 0 0 0 1217 Pasadena 7,779 2,388 293 12 1 1 0 4 2699 Pearland (Harris Co.) 824 52 9 7 0 0 0 0 68 Piney Point Village 203 63 2 0 0 0 0 0 65 Seabrook (Harris Co.) 1,606 1,847 177 2 1 0 1 0 2028 Shoreacres (Harris Co.) 348 274 0 0 0 0 0 0 274 South Houston 563 843 388 10 0 4 0 0 1245 Southside Place 117 356 5 0 0 0 1 0 362 Spring Valley Village 29 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 Stafford (Harris Co.) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Stafford (Fort Bend Co.) 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Stafford (total) 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Taylor Lake Village 565 632 2 0 0 0 0 0 634 Tomball (Harris Co.) 467 7 5 0 0 0 0 0 12 Waller (Harris Co.) 40 41 7 0 0 0 0 0 48 Webster 1,017 695 22 2 1 0 0 0 720 West University Place 244 804 4 0 0 0 0 0 808 Unincorporated Harris County Total 154,043 i 28,971 110,590i• 2,645 305 516 21 61 79 246 6 14 17 67 320" 119,803 (1) U.S. Census Bureau 2018 estimated population (2) Values based off of Harris Central Appraisal District (3) Percent of residential buildings exposed multiplied by the Estimated Population. (4) Calculated using a Census block level, general buildinq stock (GBS) analvsis in Hazus 4.2 SP03. (5) Calculated using a Census block level, general building stock (GBS) analysis in Hazus 4.2 SP03, and adiusted to reflect the estimated DODulation. (6) Calculated using a user -defined (UDF) analysis (Harris, Fort Bend, Galveston) or a general building stock (GBS) analysis (Chambers, Waller) in Hazus 4.2 SP03. Flood Risk Assessment 100-Year Coastal Jurisdiction Estimated Population (1) Total Number of Buildings (2) Total Number of Residential Buildings (2) Total Building Value (Structure and contents in $) (2) Baytown (Harris Co.) 72,879 20,718 19,029 $10,081,462,691 Baytown (Chambers Co.) 4,145 1,440 1,280 $1,376,644,000 Baytown (Total) 77,024 22,158 20,309 11,458,106,691 Bellaire 18,966 6,503 6,307 $5,726,227,131 Bunker Hill Village 3,982 1,303 1,302 $1,322,346,729 Deer Park 33,931 11,370 10,575 $5,845,168,035 El Lago 2,727 1,107 1,078 $469,295,696 Friendswood (Harris Co.) 11,575 3,570 3,479 $1,631,453,165 Friendswood (Galveston Co.) 28,606 9,959 9,593 $4,553,773,509 Friendswood (Total) 40,181 13,529 13,072 6,185,226,675 Galena Park 10,931 3,288 3,032 $1,178,706,765 Hedwig Village 2,669 909 818 $1,142,111,969 Hilshire Village 819 321 311 $207,926,478 Houston (Harris Co.) 2,278,069 592,166 544,150 $487,379,428,234 Humble 16,041 4,890 3,979 $4,570,456,883 Hunters Creek Village 4,891 1,572 1,552 $1,787,651,957 Jacinto City 10,625 2,986 2,745 $1,261,111,221 Jersey Village 7,962 2,527 2,348 $2,275,428,136 Katy (Harris Co.) 15,251 4,249 3,929 $1,865,017,616 Katy (Fort Bend Co.) 2,159 811 548 $1,312,561,128 Katy (Waller Co.) 1,806 492 444 $218,939,000 Katy (Total) 19,216 5,552 4,921 3,396,517,744 La Porte 35,423 12,427 11,467 $6,575,613,440 League City (Harris Co.) 1,984 394 386 $280,449,911 Missouri City (Harris Co.) 6,273 1,876 1,824 $770,837,732 Missouri City (Fort Bend Co.) 68,432 22,450 21,588 $11,627,868,465 Misouri City (Total) 74,705 24,326 23,412 12,398,706,197 Morgan's Point (Harris Co.) 345 160 150 $262,314,866 Nassau Bay 4,037 1,574 1,504 $1,635,924,802 Pasadena 153,219 40,639 37,128 $22,505,882,445 Pearland (Harris Co.) 5,237 834 791 $709,046,327 Piney Point Village 3,449 1,195 1,188 $1,817,131,583 Seabrook (Harris Co.) 14,291 4,390 4,105 $2,537,671,414 Shoreacres (Harris Co.) 1,611 657 656 $218,188,519 South Houston 17,583 5,001 4,050 $2,162,541,092 Southside Place 1,881 508 491 $471,918,214 Spring Valley Village 4,333 1,509 1,466 $1,227,871,955 Stafford (Harris Co.) 309 89 89 $24,088,003 Stafford (Fort Bend Co.) 18,003 4,966 3,878 $6,078,341,979 Stafford (total) 18,312 5,055 3,967 6,102,429,982 Taylor Lake Village 3,625 1,390 1,385 $690,404,692 Tomball (Harris Co.) 11,761 3,649 2,933 $3,569,286,191 Waller (Harris Co.) 600 261 197 $221,680,638 Webster 11,201 2,387 1,774 $5,700,342,104 West University Place 15,676 5,525 5,468 $3,722,134,705 Unincorporated Harris County 1,914,463 573,070 541,942 $321,033,774,612 Total i. i (1) U.S. Census Bureau 2018 estimated population downloaded from the The County Information Program, Texas Association of Counties website in July 2019. (2) Values based off of Harris Central Appraisal District data (2019), Fort Bend Central Appraisal District data (2018), Galveston Central Appraisal District data (2018), and Hazus v4.2 SP03 default general building stock data (Chambers and Waller counties). (3) Percent of residential buildings exposed multiplied by the Estimated Population. (4) Calculated using a Census block level, general building stock (GBS) analysis in Hazus 4.2 SP03. (5) Calculated using a Census block level, general building stock (GBS) analysis in Hazus 4.2 SP03, and adjusted to reflect the estimated DODulation. (6) Calculated using a user -defined (UDF) analysis (Harris, Fort Bend, Galveston) or a general building stock (GBS) analysis (Chambers, Waller) in Hazus 4.2 SP03. Flood Risk Assessment 100-Year Coastal Jurisdiction Estimated Building Exposure Buildings Exposed (2) Population Exposed (3) % of Population Exposed Value Structure in $ Exposed (2) Value Contents in $ Exposed (2) Value (Structure and contents in $) Exposed (2) % of Total Value Exposed Baytown (Harris Co.) 57 211 0.3% $6,099,519 $3,439,193 $9,538,712 0.1 % Baytown (Chambers Co.) 1 0 0.0% $94,000 $94,000 $188,000 0.0% Baytown (Total) 58 211 0.3% 6,193,519 3,533,193 9,726,712 0.1 % Bellaire 0 0 0.0% $0 $0 $0 0.0% Bunker Hill Village 0 0 0.0% $0 $0 $0 0.0% Deer Park 0 0 0.0% $0 $0 $0 0.0% Ell -ago 0 0 0.0% $0 $0 $0 0.0% Friendswood (Harris Co.) 0 0 0.0% $0 $0 $0 0.0% Friendswood (Galveston Co.) 0 0 0.0% $0 $0 $0 0.0% Friendswood (Total) 0 0 0.0% 0 0 0 0.0% Galena Park 0 0 0.0% $0 $0 $0 0.0% Hedwig Village 0 0 0.0% $0 $0 $0 0.0% Hilshire Village 0 0 0.0% $0 $0 $0 0.0% Houston (Harris Co.) 0 0 0.0% $0 $0 $0 0.0% Humble 0 0 0.0% $0 $0 $0 0.0% Hunters Creek Village 0 0 0.0% $0 $0 $0 0.0% Jacinto City 0 0 0.0% $0 $0 $0 0.0% Jersey Village 0 0 0.0% $0 $0 $0 0.0% Katy (Harris Co.) 0 0 0.0% $0 $0 $0 0.0% Katy (Fort Bend Co.) 0 0 0.0% $0 $0 $0 0.0% Katy (Waller Co.) 0 0 0.0% $0 $0 $0 0.0% Katy (Total) 0 0 0.0% 0 0 0 0.0% La Porte 1,409 4,226 11.9 % $384,915,453 $233,698,490 $618,613,942 9.4 % League City (Harris Co.) 0 0 0.0% $0 $0 $0 0.0% Missouri City (Harris Co.) 0 0 0.0% $0 $0 $0 0.0% Missouri City (Fort Bend Co.) 0 0 0.0% $0 $0 $0 0.0% Misouri City (Total) 0 0 0.0% 0 0 0 0.0% Morgan's Point (Harris Co.) 35 81 23.3% $15,614,271 $7,807,136 $23,421,407 8.9% Nassau Bay 0 0 0.0% $0 $0 $0 0.0% Pasadena 129 524 0.3% $22,080,884 $11,376,359 $33,457,243 0.1% Pearland (Harris Co.) 0 0 0.0% $0 $0 $0 0.0% Piney Point Village 0 0 0.0% $0 $0 $0 0.0% Seabrook (Harris Co.) 1,264 4,268 29.9% $305,943,315 $163,697,223 $469,640,539 18.5% Shoreacres (Harris Co.) 383 938 58.2% $77,924,992 $41,193,860 $119,118,852 54.6% South Houston 0 0 0.0% $0 $0 $0 0.0% Southside Place 0 0 0.0% $0 $0 $0 0.0% Spring Valley Village 0 0 0.0% $0 $0 $0 0.0% Stafford (Harris Co.) 0 0 0.0% $0 $0 $0 0.0% Stafford (Fort Bend Co.) 0 0 0.0% $0 $0 $0 0.0% Stafford (total) 0 0 0.0% 0 0 0 0.0% Taylor Lake Village 0 0 0.0% $0 $0 $0 0.0% Tomball (Harris Co.) 0 0 0.0% $0 $0 $0 0.0% Waller (Harris Co.) 0 0 0.0% $0 $0 $0 0.0% Webster 0 0 0.0% $0 $0 $0 0.0% West University Place 0 0 0.0% $0 $0 $0 0.0% Unincorporated Harris County Total 10 3,345 21 i- 0.0% $4,784,385 $4,512,568 :r $9,296,953 i 0.0% (1) U.S. Census Bureau 2018 estimated population downloaded from the The County Information Program, Texas Association of Counties website in July 2019. (2) Values based off of Harris Central Appraisal District data (2019), Fort Bend Central Appraisal District data (2018), Galveston Central Appraisal District data (2018), and Hazus v4.2 SP03 default general building stock data (Chambers and Waller counties). (3) Percent of residential buildings exposed multiplied by the Estimated Population. (4) Calculated using a Census block level, general building stock (GBS) analysis in Hazus 4.2 SP03. (5) Calculated using a Census block level, general building stock (GBS) analysis in Hazus 4.2 SP03, and adjusted to reflect the estimated Dooulation. (6) Calculated using a user -defined (UDF) analysis (Harris, Fort Bend, Galveston) or a general building stock (GBS) analysis (Chambers, Waller) in Hazus 4.2 SP03. Flood Risk Assessment 100-Year Coastal Jurisdiction Economic Impact Structure Debris (Tons) (4) Displaced Population (5) People Requiring Short -Term Shelter (5) Buildings Impacted (6) Value Structure in $ Damaged (6) Value Contents in $ Damaged (6) Total Value (Structure and Contents in $) Damaged % of Total Value Damaged Baytown (Harris Co.) 551 31 1 52 $2,022,190 $1,109,467 $3,131,657 0.0% Baytown (Chambers Co.) 0 0 0 1 $1,000 $4,000 $5,000 0.0% Baytown (Total) 551 31 1 53 2,023,190 1,113,467 3,136,657 0.0% Bellaire 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 0.0% Bunker Hill Village 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 0.0% Deer Park 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 0.0% El Lago 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 0.0% Friendswood (Harris Co.) 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 0.0% Friendswood (Galveston Co.) 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 0.0% Friendswood (Total) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% Galena Park 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 0.0% Hedwig Village 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 0.0% Hilshire Village 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 0.0% Houston (Harris Co.) 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 0.0% Humble 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 0.0% Hunters Creek Village 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 0.0% Jacinto City 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 0.0% Jersey Village 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 0.0% Katy (Harris Co.) 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 0.0% Katy (Fort Bend Co.) 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 0.0% Katy (Waller Co.) 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 0.0% Katy (Total) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% LaPorte 14,811 3,370 212 1.155 $81,416,200 $43,067,216 $124,483,416 1.9% League City (Harris Co.) 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 0.0% Missouri City (Harris Co.) 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 0.0% Missouri City (Fort Bend Co.) 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 0.0% Misouri City (Total) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% Morgan's Point (Harris Co.) 1,869 27 1 27 $5,253,199 $2,461,757 $7,714,956 2.9% Nassau Bay 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 0.0% Pasadena 514 224 5 100 $3,506,182 $1,774,621 $5,280,803 0.0% Pearland (Harris Co.) 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 0.0% Piney Point Village 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 0.0% Seabrook (Harris Co.) 30,805 3,752 214 1,157 $96,015,066 $57,969,127 $153,984,193 6.1 % Shoreacres (Harris Co.) 10,349 932 29 383 $45,735,418 $25,127,098 $70,862,516 32.50/ South Houston 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 0.0% Southside Place 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 0.0% Spring Valley Village 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 0.0% Stafford (Harris Co.) 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 0.0% Stafford (Fort Bend Co.) 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 0.0% Stafford (total) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% Taylor Lake Village 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 0.0% Tomball (Harris Co.) 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 0.0% Waller (Harris Co.) 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 0.0% Webster 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 0.0% West University Place 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 0.0% Unincorporated Harris County 132 11 0 10 $1,730,336 $2,937,138 $4,667,475 i i (1) U.S. Census Bureau 2018 estimated population downloaded from the The County Information Program, Texas Association of Counties website in July 2019. (2) Values based off of Harris Central Appraisal District data (2019), Fort Bend Central Appraisal District data (2018), Galveston Central Appraisal District data (2018), and Hazus v4.2 SP03 default general building stock data (Chambers and Waller counties). (3) Percent of residential buildings exposed multiplied by the Estimated Population. (4) Calculated using a Census block level, general building stock (GBS) analysis in Hazus 4.2 SP03. (5) Calculated using a Census block level, general building stock (GBS) analysis in Hazus 4.2 SP03, and adjusted to reflect the estimated Dooulation. (6) Calculated using a user -defined (UDF) analysis (Harris, Fort Bend, Galveston) or a general building stock (GBS) analysis (Chambers, Waller) in Hazus 4.2 SP03. Flood Risk Assessment 100-Year Coastal Jurisdiction Number of Structures in Floodplain (2) Acres of Floodplain Residential Commercial Industrial Agriculture Religion Government Education Total Baytown (Harris Co.) 649 55 2 0 0 0 0 0 57 Baytown (Chambers Co.) 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 Baytown (Total) 650 55 3 0 0 0 0 0 58 Bellaire 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Bunker Hill Village 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Deer Park 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 El Lago 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Friendswood (Harris Co.) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Friendswood (Galveston Co.) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Friendswood (Total) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Galena Park 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Hedwig Village 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Hilshire Village 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Houston (Harris Co.) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Humble 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Hunters Creek Village 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Jacinto City 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Jersey Village 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Katy (Harris Co.) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Katy (Fort Bend Co.) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Katy (Waller Co.) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Katy (Total) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 La Porte 1,354 1,368 39 0 0 1 0 1 1409 League City (Harris Co.) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Missouri City (Harris Co.) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Missouri City (Fort Bend Co.) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Misouri City (Total) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Morgan's Point (Harris Co.) 65 35 0 0 0 0 0 0 35 Nassau Bay 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pasadena 142 127 2 0 0 0 0 0 129 Pearland (Harris Co.) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Piney Point Village 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Seabrook (Harris Co.) 1,773 1,226 34 0 2 2 0 0 1264 Shoreacres (Harris Co.) 236 382 1 0 0 0 0 0 383 South Houston 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Southside Place 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spring Valley Village 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Stafford (Harris Co.) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Stafford (Fort Bend Co.) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Stafford (total) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Taylor Lake Village 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Tomball (Harris Co.) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Waller (Harris Co.) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Webster 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 West University Place 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Unincorporated Harris County Total 850 i 6 3,254 3 84 1 1 0 2 0 3 0 r 0 10 (1) U.S. Census Bureau 2018 estimated population downloaded from the The County Information Program, Texas Association of Counties website in July 2019. (2) Values based off of Harris Central Appraisal District data (2019), Fort Bend Central Appraisal District data (2018), Galveston Central Appraisal District data (2018), and Hazus v4.2 SP03 default general building stock data (Chambers and Waller counties). (3) Percent of residential buildings exposed multiplied by the Estimated Population. (4) Calculated using a Census block level, general building stock (GBS) analysis in Hazus 4.2 SP03. (5) Calculated using a Census block level, general building stock (GBS) analysis in Hazus 4.2 SP03, and adjusted to reflect the estimated Dooulation. (6) Calculated using a user -defined (UDF) analysis (Harris, Fort Bend, Galveston) or a general building stock (GBS) analysis (Chambers, Waller) in Hazus 4.2 SP03. Flood Risk Assessment Harvey Jurisdiction Estimated Population (1) Total Number of Buildings (2) Total Number of Residential Buildings (2) Total Building Value (Structure and contents in $) (2) Baytown (Harris Co.) 72,879 20,718 19,029 $10,081,462,691 Baytown (Chambers Co.) 4,145 1,440 1,280 $1,376,644,000 Baytown (Total) 77,024 22,158 20,309 11,458,106,691 Bellaire 18,966 6,503 6,307 $5,726,227,131 Bunker Hill Village 3,982 1,303 1,302 $1,322,346,729 Deer Park 33,931 11,370 10,575 $5,845,168,035 El Lago 2,727 1,107 1,078 $469,295,696 Friendswood (Harris Co.) 11,575 3,570 3,479 $1,631,453,165 Friendswood (Galveston Co.) 28,606 9,959 9,593 $4,553,773,509 Friendswood (Total) 40,181 13,529 13,072 6,185,226,675 Galena Park 10,931 3,288 3,032 $1,178,706,765 Hedwig Village 2,669 909 818 $1,142,111,969 Hilshire Village 819 321 311 $207,926,478 Houston (Harris Co.) 2,278,069 592,166 544,150 $487,379,428,234 Humble 16,041 4,890 3,979 $4,570,456,883 Hunters Creek Village 4,891 1,572 1,552 $1,787,651,957 Jacinto City 10,625 2,986 2,745 $1,261,111,221 Jersey Village 7,962 2,527 2,348 $2,275,428,136 Katy (Harris Co.) 15,251 4,249 3,929 $1,865,017,616 Katy (Fort Bend Co.) 2,159 811 548 $1,312,561,128 Katy (Waller Co.) 1,806 492 444 $218,939,000 Katy (Total) 19,216 5,552 4,921 3,396,517,744 La Porte 35,423 12,427 11,467 $6,575,613,440 League City (Harris Co.) 1,984 394 386 $280,449,911 Missouri City (Harris Co.) 6,273 1,876 1,824 $770,837,732 Missouri City (Fort Bend Co.) 68,432 22,450 21,588 $11,627,868,465 Misourt City (Total) 74,705 24,326 23,412 12,398,706,197 Morgan's Point (Harris Co.) 345 160 150 $262,314,866 Nassau Bay 4,037 1,574 1,504 $1,635,924,802 Pasadena 153,219 40,639 37,128 $22,505,882,445 Pearland (Harris Co.) 5,237 834 791 $709,046,327 Piney Point Village 3,449 1,195 1,188 $1,817,131,583 Seabrook (Harris Co.) 14,291 4,390 4,105 $2,537,671,414 Shoreacres (Harris Co.) 1,611 657 656 $218,188,519 South Houston 17,583 5,001 4,050 $2,162,541,092 Southside Place 1,881 508 491 $471,918,214 Spring Valley Village 4,333 1,509 1,466 $1,227,871,955 Stafford (Harris Co.) 309 89 89 $24,088,003 Stafford (Fort Bend Co.) 18,003 4,966 3,878 $6,078,341,979 Stafford (total) 18,312 5,055 3,967 6,102,429,982 Taylor Lake Village 3,625 1,390 1,385 $690,404,692 Tomball (Harris Co.) 11,761 3,649 2,933 $3,569,286,191 Waller (Harris Co.) 600 261 197 $221,680,638 Webster 11,201 2,387 1,774 $5,700,342,104 West University Place 15,676 5,525 5,468 $3,722,134,705 Unincorporated Harris County 1,914,463 573,070 541,942 $321,033,774,612 Total i. i (1) U.S. Census Bureau 2018 estimated population downloaded from the The County Information Program, Texas Association of Counties website in July 2019. (2) Values based off of Harris Central Appraisal District data (2019), Fort Bend Central Appraisal District data (2018), Galveston Central Appraisal District data (2018), and Hazus v4.2 SP03 default general building stock data (Chambers and Waller counties). (3) Percent of residential buildings exposed multiplied by the Estimated Population. (4) Calculated using a Census block level, general building stock (GBS) analvsis in Hazus 4.2 SP03. (5) Calculated using a Census block level, general building stock (GBS) analysis in Hazus 4.2 SP03, and adjusted to reflect the estimated 000ulation. (6) Calculated using a user -defined (UDF) analysis (Harris, Fort Bend, Galveston) or a general building stock (GBS) analysis (Chambers, Waller) in Hazus 4.2 SP03. Flood Risk Assessment Harvey Jurisdiction Estimated Building Exposure Buildings Exposed (2) Population Exposed (3) % of Populatio Exposed Value Structure in $ Exposed (2) Value Contents in $ Exposed (2) Value (Structure and contents in $) Exposed (2) % of Total Value Exposed Baytown (Harris Co.) 7,721 26,909 36.9% $1,801,715,229 $1,218,149,893 $3,019,865,121 30.0% Baytown (Chambers Co.) 1,430 4,142 99.9°/ $679,197,000 $691,484,000 $1,370,681,000 99.6% Baytown (Total) 9,151 31,051 40.3% 2,480,912,229 1,909,633,893 4,390,546,121 38.3% Bellaire 2,963 8,754 46.2% $1,537,023,254 $936,185,007 $2,473,208,261 43.2% Bunker Hill Village 8 24 0.6% $4,509,551 $2,254,776 $6,764,327 0.5% Deer Park 4,352 12,404 36.6% $1,610,270,240 $1,207,829,185 $2,818,099,425 48.2% Ell -ago 550 1,369 50.2% $135,925,454 $70,225,543 $206,150,997 43.9% Friendswood (Harris Co.) 1,833 5,992 51.8% $468,313,627 $250,032,352 $718,345,978 44.0% Friendswood (Galveston Co.) 2,744 7,923 27.7% $777,896,214 $463,073,009 $1,240,969,223 27.3% Friendswood(Total) 4,577 13,915 34.6% 1,246,209,840 713,105,361 1,959,315,201 31.7% Galena Park 1,292 4,200 38.4% $273,471,336 $211,339,761 $484,811,098 41.1 % Hedwig Village 52 108 4.0% 01 $55,758,601 $47,726,940 $103,485,541 9.1% Hilshire Village 234 590 72.0% $100,895,591 $52,133,982 $153,029,573 73.6% Houston (Harris Co.) 232,838 892,426 39.2% $103,604,257,785 $75,397,073,382 $179,001,331,167 36.7% Humble 2,010 6,692 41.7% $907,314,897 $822,773,481 $1,730,088,377 37.9% Hunters Creek Village 307 952 19.5% $225,499,213 $125,151,041 $350,650,254 19.6% Jacinto City 1,130 4,056 38.2% $262,187,581 $195,829,132 $458,016,713 36.3% Jersey Village 833 2,709 34.0% $419,346,672 $305,566,424 $724,913,097 31.9% Katy (Harris Co.) 859 2,779 18.2 % $258,924,431 $191,406,526 $450,330,957 24.1 % Katy (Fort Bend Co.) 278 556 25.7% $129,380,399 $112,840,525 $242,220,923 18.5% Katy (Waller Co.) 487 1,806 100.0% $128,967,000 $75,540,000 $204,507,000 93.4% Katy (Total) 1,624 5,141 26.8% 517,271,830 379,787,051 897,058,880 26.4% LaPorte 5,882 16,159 45.6% $1,856,961,252 $1,327,117,490 $3,184,078,742 48.4% League City (Harris Co.) 83 385 19.4% $73,575,155 $40,699,917 $114,275,072 40.7% Missouri City (Harris Co.) 507 1,685 26.9% $165,295,390 $108,632,923 $273,928,313 35.5% Missouri City (Fort Bend Co.) 5,360 16,309 23.8% $1,630,922,044 $967,348,395 $2,598,270,439 22.3% Misouri City (Total) 5,867 17,994 24.1 % 1,796,217,434 1,075,981,318 2,872,198,752 23.2 % Morgan's Point (Harris Co.) 75 152 44.0% $112,161,712 $118,710,485 $230,872,197 88.0% Nassau Bay 600 1,514 37.5% $426,460,790 $278,060,981 $704,521,771 43.1 % Pasadena 21,148 78,008 50.9% $7,225,285,050 $5,124,260,122 $12,349,545,173 54.9% Pearland (Harris Co.) 560 3,602 68.8% $209,487,505 $131,429,615 $340,917,121 48.1 % Piney Point Village 364 1,051 30.5% $335,050,052 $173,217,900 $508,267,952 28.0% Seabrook (Harris Co.) 2,119 6,757 47.3% $743,094,486 $445,713,030 $1,188,807,516 46.8% Shoreacres (Harris Co.) 405 995 61.7% $87,530,932 $43,765,466 $131,296,397 60.2% South Houston 3,766 13,202 75.1 % $946,441,093 $722,758,722 $1,669,199,815 77.2% Southside Place 155 590 31.4% $81,513,528 $40,838,933 $122,352,461 25.9% Spring Valley Village 508 1,457 1 33.6% $259,232,498 $162,775,762 $422,008,260 34.4% Stafford (Harris Co.) 24 83 P1 27.0% $4,333,858 $2,166,929 $6,500,787 27.0% Stafford (Fort Bend Co.) 2,410 8,240 45.8% $1,600,981,794 $1,413,615,069 $3,014,596,862 49.6% Stafford (total) 2,434 8,323 45.5% 1,605,315,651 1,415,781,998 3,021,097,649 49.5% Taylor Lake Village 542 1,413 39.0% $198,938,348 $100,218,234 $299,156,582 43.3% Tomball (Harris Co.) 714 2,093 17.8% $379,879,581 $303,540,999 $683,420,581 19.1% Waller (Harris Co.) 0 0 0.0% $0 $0 $0 0.0% Webster 1,042 4,066 36.3% $1,757,917,918 $1,703,418,723 $3,461,336,641 60.7% West University Place 1,611 4,553 29.0% A$716,892,600 $368,640,831 $1,085,533,432 29.2% unincorporated Harris County 187,650 000 624,814 1,804,422 32.6% $61,815,219,668 $41,241,685,716 $103,056,905,383 32.1% (1) U.S. Census Bureau 2018 estimated population downloaded from the The County Information Program, Texas Association of Counties website in July 2019. (2) Values based off of Harris Central Appraisal District data (2019), Fort Bend Central Appraisal District data (2018), Galveston Central Appraisal District data (2018), and Hazus v4.2 SP03 default general building stock data (Chambers and Waller counties). (3) Percent of residential buildings exposed multiplied by the Estimated Population. (4) Calculated using a Census block level, general building stock (GBS) analvsis in Hazus 4.2 SP03. (5) Calculated using a Census block level, general building stock (GBS) analysis in Hazus 4.2 SP03, and adjusted to reflect the estimated 000ulation. (6) Calculated using a user -defined (UDF) analysis (Harris, Fort Bend, Galveston) or a general building stock (GBS) analysis (Chambers, Waller) in Hazus 4.2 SP03. Flood Risk Assessment Harvey Jurisdiction Economic Impact Structure Debris (Tons) (4) Displaced Population (5) People Requiring Short -Term Shelter (5) Buildings Impacted (6) Value Structure in $ Damaged (6) Value Contents in $ Damaged (6) Total Value (Structure and Contents in $) Damaged % of Total Value Damaged Baytown (Harris Co.) 69,788 14,442 839 7,541 $274,900,831 $257,965,011 $532,865,842 5.3 % Baytown (Chambers Co.) 6,076 2,210 122 $84,087,000 $67,689,000 $151,776,000 11.0 % Baytown (Total) 75,864 16,652 961 7,541 358,987,831 325,654,011 684,641,842 6.0% Bellaire 31,038 6,005 236 2,749 $226,553,788 $162,942,481 $389,496,268 6.8% Bunker Hill Village 725 2 0 7 $649,119 $384,013 $1,033,132 0.1 % Deer Park 40,321 6,186 355 4,272 $294,523,955 $351,535,919 $646,059,874 11.1% EI Lago 5,666 698 44 533 $45,992,568 $28,484,687 $74,477,255 15.9% Friendswood (Harris Co.) 15,793 3,795 219 1,791 $125,532,540 $75,703,694 $201,236,235 12.3% Friendswood (Galveston Co.) 33,430 3,445 171 2,581 $241,868,327 $370,418,970 $612,287,297 13.4% Friendswood (Total) 49,223 7,240 390 4,372 367,400,867 446,122,665 813,523,532 13.2% Galena Park 7,245 2,012 85 1,266 $45,644,955 $71,827,129 $117,472,084 10.0% Hedwig Village 1,949 35 2 50 $7,523,056 $11,421,965 $18,945,021 1.7% Hilshire Village 4,853 504 30 233 $23,145,425 $13,793,316 $36,938,741 17.8% Houston (Harris Co.) 2,498,854 494,973 43,606 226,464 $15,166,942,440 $16,692,757,930 $31,859,700,370 6.5% Humble 32,402 3,421 241 1,979 $149,236,148 $252,134,792 $401,370,940 8.8% Hunters Creek Village 19,426 337 15 301 $55,298,891 $33,814,581 $89,113,472 5.0% Jacinto City 6,076 2,126 99 1,099 $33,196,382 $44,021,434 $77,217,816 6.1 % Jersey Village 12,373 1,269 79 804 $50,556,959 $62,283,207 $112,840,166 5.0% Katy (Harris Co.) 9,652 1,354 78 809 $30,899,187 $42,397,364 $73,296,550 3.9 % Katy (Fort Bend Co.) 998 316 21 276 $17,387,354 $35,482,468 $52,869,822 4.0% Katy (Waller Co.) 1,256 695 22 519 $11,137,000 $7,108,000 $18,245,000 8.3% Katy(Total) 11,906 2,365 120 1,604 59,423,541 84,987,832 144,411,373 4.3% LaPorte 36,693 8,965 430 5,625 $357,286,090 $406,771,718 $764,057,808 11.6% League City (Harris Co.) 1,554 175 13 78 $20,550,447 $15,898,467 $36,448,913 13.0% Missouri City (Harris Co.) 7,578 936 52 492 $21,809,153 $26,182,318 $47,991,471 6.2% Missouri City (Fort Bend Co.) 83,691 8,029 468 5,226 $271,020,640 $196,397,296 $467,417,936 4.0% Misouri City (Total) 91,269 8,965 519 5,718 292,829,794 222,579,614 515,409,408 4.2 % Morgan's Point (Harris Co.) 8 103 2 72 $27,028,167 $52,991,596 $80,019,762 30.5% Nassau Bay 18,187 707 54 493 $98,497,314 $89,298,426 $187,795,740 11.5% Pasadena 203,119 44,617 3,415 20,712 $1,510,675,754 $1,711,398,856 $3,222,074,610 14.3% Pearland (Harris Co.) 4,253 2,658 170 556 $81,043,792 $51,063,804 $132,107,596 18.6% Piney Point Village 23,770 581 34 352 $83,115,164 $51,358,178 $134,473,342 7.4% Seabrook (Harris Co.) 23,981 3,738 246 1,846 $224,502,653 $173,461,555 $397,964,207 15.7% Shoreacres (Harris Co.) 9,569 639 20 352 $46,543,471 $23,323,757 $69,867,228 32.0% South Houston 23,845 10,260 631 3,700 $151,176,978 $210,548,633 $361,725,611 16.7% Southside Place 2,471 331 15 148 $12,154,983 $7,292,368 $19,447,352 4.1% Spring Valley Village 10,966 662 33 502 $54,470,533 $46,275,412 $100,745,944 8.2 % Stafford (Harris Co.) 129 49 1 22 $533,097 $314,006 $847,103 3.5% Stafford (Fort Bend Co.) 24,815 5,561 394 2,373 $204,308,535 $377,201,666 $581,510,201 9.6 % Stafford (total) 24,945 5,610 395 2,395 204,841,632 377,515,671 582,357,303 9.5% Taylor Lake Village 13,865 598 27 524 $79,697,682 $43,741,775 $123,439,457 17.9% Tomball (Harris Co.) 12,877 669 50 705 $94,115,215 $137,435,706 $231,550,922 6.5% Waller (Harris Co.) 79 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 0.0% Webster 13,227 2,028 248 882 $267,698,690 $537,755,351 $805,454,041 14.1% West University Place 21,786 2,418 50 1,508 $104,258,798 $63,408,814 $167,667,612 4.5% Unincorporated Harris County 1,947,825 327,218 it 21,777 180,149 $11,234,253,423 i $9,775,522,239 is $21,009,775,663 6.5% (1) U.S. Census Bureau 2018 estimated population downloaded from the The County Information Program, Texas Association of Counties website in July 2019. (2) Values based off of Harris Central Appraisal District data (2019), Fort Bend Central Appraisal District data (2018), Galveston Central Appraisal District data (2018), and Hazus v4.2 SP03 default general building stock data (Chambers and Waller counties). (3) Percent of residential buildings exposed multiplied by the Estimated Population. (4) Calculated using a Census block level, general building stock (GBS) analvsis in Hazus 4.2 SP03. (5) Calculated using a Census block level, general building stock (GBS) analysis in Hazus 4.2 SP03, and adjusted to reflect the estimated 000ulation. (6) Calculated using a user -defined (UDF) analysis (Harris, Fort Bend, Galveston) or a general building stock (GBS) analysis (Chambers, Waller) in Hazus 4.2 SP03. Flood Risk Assessment Harvey Jurisdiction Number of Structures in Floodplain (2) Acres of Floodplain Residential Commercial Industrial Agriculture Religion Government Education Total Baytown (Harris Co.) 0 7,026 660 7 2 20 3 3 7721 Baytown (Chambers Co.) 0 1,279 56 84 3 7 0 1 1430 Baytown (Total) 0 8,305 716 91 5 27 3 4 9,151 Bellaire 0 2,911 46 0 2 3 0 1 2963 Bunker Hill Village 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 Deer Park 0 3,866 419 48 2 13 0 4 4352 ElLago 0 541 6 0 0 2 1 0 550 Friendswood (Harris Co.) 0 1,801 32 0 0 0 0 0 1833 Friendswood (Galveston Co.) 0 2,657 85 0 2 0 0 0 2744 Friendswood (Total) 0 4,458 117 0 2 0 0 0 4,577 Galena Park 0 1,165 101 4 0 8 0 14 1292 Hedwig Village 0 33 18 0 1 0 0 0 52 Hilshire Village 0 224 8 0 0 0 0 2 234 Houston (Harris Co.) 0 213,169 17,982 789 56 592 35 215 232838 Humble 0 1,660 311 29 4 5 1 0 2010 Hunters Creek Village 0 302 2 0 0 2 0 1 307 Jacinto City 0 1,048 77 0 0 4 1 0 1130 Jersey Village 0 799 33 0 0 1 0 0 833 Katy (Harris Co.) 0 716 135 3 0 2 3 0 859 Katy (Fort Bend Co.) 0 141 132 0 3 2 0 0 278 Katy (Waller Co.) 0 444 29 10 4 0 0 0 487 Katy (Total) 0 1,301 296 13 7 4 3 0 1,624 La Porte 0 5,231 618 13 1 13 1 5 5882 League City (Harris Co.) 0 75 7 0 0 1 0 0 83 Missouri City (Harris Co.) 0 490 17 0 0 0 0 0 507 Missouri City (Fort Bend Co.) 0 5,145 184 7 22 2 0 0 5360 Misouri City (Total) 0 5,635 201 7 22 2 0 0 5,867 Morgan's Point (Harris Co.) 0 66 6 3 0 0 0 0 75 Nassau Bay 0 564 36 0 0 0 0 0 600 Pasadena 0 18,903 2,104 65 6 49 4 17 21148 Pearland (Harris Co.) 0 544 13 3 0 0 0 0 560 Piney Point Village 0 362 1 0 0 1 0 0 364 Seabrook (Harris Co.) 0 1,941 171 2 2 2 1 0 2119 Shoreacres (Harris Co.) 0 405 0 0 0 0 0 0 405 South Houston 0 3,041 676 23 0 23 1 2 3766 Southside Place 0 154 1 0 0 0 0 0 155 Spring Valley Village 0 493 15 0 0 0 0 0 508 Stafford (Harris Co.) 0 24 0 0 0 0 0 0 24 Stafford (Fort Bend Co.) 0 1,775 612 16 2 5 0 0 2410 Stafford (total) 0 1,799 612 16 2 5 0 0 2,434 Taylor Lake Village 0 540 2 0 0 0 0 0 542 Tomball (Harris Co.) 0 522 177 4 3 3 1 4 714 Waller (Harris Co.) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Webster 0 644 381 2 7 5 1 2 1042 West University Place 0 1,588 20 0 1 2 0 0 1611 Unincorporated Harris County Total 0 r 176,871 467,995 9,444 35,30900 890 71 244 35 95 187650 r 000 (1) U.S. Census Bureau 2018 estimated population downloaded from the The County Information Program, Texas Association of Counties website in July 2019. (2) Values based off of Harris Central Appraisal District data (2019), Fort Bend Central Appraisal District data (2018), Galveston Central Appraisal District data (2018), and Hazus v4.2 SP03 default general building stock data (Chambers and Waller counties). (3) Percent of residential buildings exposed multiplied by the Estimated Population. (4) Calculated using a Census block level, general building stock (GBS) analvsis in Hazus 4.2 SP03. (5) Calculated using a Census block level, general building stock (GBS) analysis in Hazus 4.2 SP03, and adjusted to reflect the estimated 000ulation. (6) Calculated using a user -defined (UDF) analysis (Harris, Fort Bend, Galveston) or a general building stock (GBS) analysis (Chambers, Waller) in Hazus 4.2 SP03. Hurricane Risk Assessment 20-Year Probabilistic Jurisdiction Estimated Exposure Estimated Population (1) % Population Exposed Total Number of Buildings (2) Total Building Value (Structure and contents in $) (2) % of Total Value Exposed Baytown (Harris Co.) 72,879 100% 20,718 $10,081,462,691 100% Baytown (Chambers Co.) 4,145 100% 1,440 $1,376,644,000 100°% Baytown (Total) 77,024 100% 22,158 $11,458,106,691 100% Bellaire 18,966 100% 6,503 $5,726,227,131 100% Bunker Hill Village 3,982 100% 1,303 $1,322,346,729 100% Deer Park 33,931 100°% 11,370 $5,845,168,035 100% ElLago 2,727 100% 1,107 $469,295,696 100% Friendswood (Harris Co.) 11,575 100% 3,570 $1,631,453,165 100°% Friendswood (Galveston Co.) 28,606 100% 9,959 $4,553,773,509 100% Friendswood (Total) 40,181 100% 13,529 $6,185,226,675 100% Galena Park 10,931 100% 3,288 $1,178,706,765 100% Hedwig Village 2,669 100°% 909 $1,142,111,969 100°% Hilshire Village 819 100% 321 $207,926,478 100% Houston (Harris Co.) 2,278,069 100°% 592,166 $487,379,428,234 100°% Humble 16,041 100% 4,890 $4,570,456,883 100% Hunters Creek Village 4,891 100°% 1,572 $1,787,651,957 100°% Jacinto City 10,625 100% 2,986 $1,261,111,221 100% Jersey Village 7,962 100°% 2,527 $2,275,428,136 100°% Katy (Harris Co.) 15,251 100% 4,249 $1,865,017,616 100% Katy (Fort Bend Co.) 2,159 100°% 811 $1,312,561,128 100°% Katy (Waller Co.) 1,806 100% 492 $218,939,000 100% Katy (Total 3,965 100% 1,303 $1,531,500,128 100% La Porte 35,423 100% 12,427 $6,575,613,440 100% League City (Harris Co.) 1,984 100% 394 $280,449,911 100% Missouri City (Harris Co.) 6,273 100% 1,876 $770,837,732 100% Missouri City (Fort Bend Co.) 68,432 100°% 22,450 $11,627,868,465 100% Missouri City (Total) 74,705 100% 24,326 $12,398,706,197 100% Morgan's Point (Harris Co.) 345 100°% 160 $262,314,866 100°% Nassau Bay 4,037 100% 1,574 $1,635,924,802 100% Pasadena 153,219 100% 40,639 $22,505,882,445 100% Pearland (Harris Co.) 5,237 100% 834 $709,046,327 100% Piney Point Village 3,449 100% 1,195 $1,817,131,583 100% Seabrook (Harris Co.) 14,291 100% 4,390 $2,537,671,414 100% Shoreacres (Harris Co.) 1,611 100°% 657 $218,188,519 100% South Houston 17,583 100% 5,001 $2,162,541,092 100% Southside Place 1,881 100°% 508 $471,918,214 100% Spring Valley Village 4,333 100% 1,509 $1,227,871,955 100% Stafford (Harris Co.) 309 100°% 89 $24,088,003 100% Stafford (Fort Bend Co.) 18,003 100% 4,966 $6,078,341,979 100 % Stafford (Total) 18,312 100% 5,055 $6,102,429,982 100% Taylor Lake Village 3,625 100% 1,390 $690,404,692 100% Tomball (Harris Co.) 11,761 100°% 3,649 $3,569,286,191 100°% Waller (Harris Co.) 600 100% 261 1 $221,680,638 100% Webster 11,201 100°% 2,387 $5,700,342,104 100°% West University Place 15,676 100% 5,525 $3,722,134,705 100% Unincorporated County I , 1,914,463 6ll, 100% 573,070 $321,033,774,612 100% Hurricane Risk Assessment 20-Year Probabilistic Jurisdiction Economic Impact Structure Debris (Tons) 3 Number of Displaced Households 3 People Requiring Short -Term Shelter 3 Value Structure in $ Damaged 3 Value Contents in $ Damaged 3 Total Value (Structure and Contents in $) Damaged 3 % of Total Value Damaged Baytown (Harris Co.) 22,903.85 207 156 $133,033,569 $25,474,750 $158,508,319 1.6 % Baytown (Chambers Co.) 26.51 0 0 $309,292 $35,302 $344,594 0.0% Baytown (Total) 22,930.36 207 156 $133,342,861 $25,510,052 $158,852,913 1.4% Bellaire 173.44 0 0 $2,406,753 $465,291 $2,872,044 0.1% Bunker Hill Village 12.27 0 0 $611,593 $216,738 $828,331 0.1% Deer Park 5,526.94 24 15 $32,574,719 $4,044,435 $36,619,153 0.6% ElLago 883.92 12 6 $5,363,374 $668,911 $6,032,294 1.3% Friendswood (Harris Co.) 626.12 3 2 $4,845,261 $681,267 $5,526,528 0.3% Friendswood (Galveston Co.) 1,938.94 0 0 $14,127,381 $2,045,501 $16,172,882 0.4% Friendswood (Total) 2,565.06 3 2 $18,972,641 $2,726,768 $21,699,410 0.4% Galena Park 375.53 0 0 $2,258,047 $233,956 $2,492,003 0.2% Hedwig Village 29.65 0 0 $326,695 $86,918 $413,613 0.0% Hilshire Village 6.71 0 0 $116,848 $36,451 $153,299 0.1% Houston (Harris Co.) 83,624.88 275 185 $552,491,545 $76,827,480 $629,319,025 0.1% Humble 2,696.22 12 10 $16,894,683 $3,758,583 $20,653,266 0.5% Hunters Creek Village 57.07 0 0 $1,214,141 $383,767 $1,597,908 0.1% Jacinto City 492.55 1 1 $2,858,554 $282,910 $3,141,464 0.2% Jersey Village 98.93 0 0 $765,475 $123,738 $889,214 0.0% Katy (Harris Co.) 0.00 0 0 $0 $0 $0 0.0% Katy (Fort Bend Co.) 28.16 0 0 $126,832 $652 $127.484 0.0% Katy (Waller Co.) 4.18 0 0 $59,124 $1,725 $60,848 0.0% Katy (Total 32.34 0 0 $185,956 $2,377 $188,333 0.0% La Porte 6,919.62 35 20 $40,938,745 $7,319,684 $48,258,429 6 0.7 % League City (Harris Co.) 118.63 0 0 $847,187 $127,283 $974,470 0.3% Missouri City (Harris Co.) 3.65 0 0 $65,416 $917 $66,333 0.0% Missouri City (Fort Bend Co.) 2,996.30 0 0 $21,086,591 $379,807 $21,466,399 0.2% Missouri City (Total) 2,999.95 0 0 $21,152,007 $380,725 $21,532,732 0.2% Morgan's Point (Harris Co.) 156.15 0 0 $967,823 $239,518 $1,207,341 0.5% Nassau Bay 2,753.26 24 10 $15,576,398 $1,750,533 $17,326,930 1.1 % Pasadena 17,161.20 102 82 $101,370,307 $11,530,631 $112,900,938 0.5% Pearland (Harris Co.) 101.04 0 0 $1,082,637 $154,430 $1,237,067 0.2% Piney Point Village 14.00 0 0 $869,824 $322,686 $1,192,510 0.1% Seabrook (Harris Co.) 4,463.91 41 21 $27,072,611 $4,205,378 $31,277,990 1.2 % Shoreacres (Harris Co.) 617.48 5 2 $3,774,960 $827,442 $4,602,402 2.1% South Houston 888.94 3 3 $5,099,679 $445,054 $5,544,733 0.3% Southside Place 18.06 0 0 $267,562 $35,405 $302,967 0.1% Spring Valley Village 39.58 0 0 $688,696 $214,725 $903,420 0.1% Stafford (Harris Co.) 0.13 0 0 $781 $11 $792 0.0% Stafford (Fort Bend Co.) 1,126.61 1 1 $4,953,705 $237,402 $5,191,108 0.1% Stafford (Total) 1,126.75 1 1 $4,954,486 $237,414 $5,191,900 0.1% Taylor Lake Village 1,176.73 12 6 $7,785,089 $1,502,025 $9,287,114 1.3% Tomball (Harris Co.) 193.32 0 0 $1,472,824 $327,539 $1,800,363 0.1% Waller (Harris Co.) 2.40 0 0 $32,621 $4,632 $37,253 0.0% Webster 3,604.46 25 14 $19,461,323 $2,153,484 $21,614,807 0.4% West University Place 179.17 0 0 $3,173,812 $510,566 $3,684,378 0.1% Unincorporated County TOTAL 81,266.17 243,307 301 1,083r 232 $595,516,966 $122,319,996 $717,836,962 0.2% Hurricane Risk Assessment 100•Year Probabilistic Jurisdiction Estimated Exposure Estimated Population (1) % Population Exposed Total Number of Buildings (2) Total Building Value (Structure and contents in $) (2) %of Total Value Exposed Baytown (Harris Co.) 72,879 100% 20,718 $10,081,462,691 100% Baytown (Chambers Co.) 4,145 100% 1,440 $1,376,644,000 100% Baytown (Total) 77,024 100% 22,158 $11,458,106,691 100% Bellaire 18,966 100% 6,503 $5,726,227,131 100% Bunker Hill Village 3,982 100% 1,303 $1,322,346,729 100% Deer Park 33,931 100% 11,370 $5,845,168,035 100% El Lago 2,727 100% 1,107 $469,295,696 100% Friendswood (Harris Co.) 11,575 100% 3,570 $1,631,453,165 100% Friendswood (Galveston Co.) 28,606 100% 9,959 $4,553,773,509 100% Friendswood (Total) 40,181 100% 13,529 $6,185,226,675 100% Galena Park 10,931 100% 3,288 $1,178,706,765 100% Hedwig Village 2,669 100% 909 $1,142,111,969 100% Hilshire Village 819 100% 321 $207,926,478 100% Houston (Harris Co.) 2,278,069 100% 592,166 $487,379,428,234 100% Humble 16,041 100% 4,890 $4,570,456,883 100% Hunters Creek Village 4,891 100% 1,572 $1,787,651,957 100% Jacinto City 10,625 100% 2,986 $1,261,111,221 100% Jersey Village 7,962 100% 2,527 $2,275,428,136 100% Katy (Harris Co.) 15,251 100% 4,249 $1,865,017,616 100% Katy (Fort Bend Co.) 2,159 100% 811 $1,312,561,128 100% Katy (Waller Co.) 1,806 100% 492 $218,939,000 100% Katy (Total) 3,965 100% 1,303 $1,531,500,128 100% La Porte 35,423 100% 12,427 $6,575,613,440 100% League City (Harris Co.) 1,984 100% 394 $280,449,911 100% Missouri City (Harris Co.) 6,273 100% 1,876 $770,837,732 100% Missouri City (Fort Bend Co.) 68,432 100% 22,450 $11,627,868,465 100% Missouri City (Total) 74,705 100% 24,326 $12,398,706,197 100% Morgan's Point (Harris Co.) 345 100% 160 $262,314,866 100% Nassau Bay 4,037 100% 1,574 $1,635,924,802 100% Pasadena 153,219 100% 40,639 $22,505,882,445 100% Pearland (Harris Co.) 5,237 100% 834 $709,046,327 100% Piney Point Village 3,449 100% 1,195 $1,817,131,583 100% Seabrook (Harris Co.) 14,291 100% 4,390 $2,537,671,414 100% Shoreacres (Harris Co.) 1,611 100% 657 $218,188,519 100% South Houston 17,583 100% 5,001 $2,162,541,092 100% Southside Place 1,881 100% 508 $471,918,214 100% Spring Valley Village 4,333 100% 1,509 $1,227,871,955 100% Stafford (Harris Co.) 309 100% 89 $24,088,003 100% Stafford (Fort Bend Co.) 18,003 100% 4,966 $6,078,341,979 100% Stafford (Total) 18,312 100% 5,055 $6,102,429,982 100% Taylor Lake Village 3,625 100% 1,390 $690,404,692 100% Tomball (Harris Co.) 11,761 100% 3,649 $3,569,286,191 100% Waller (Harris Co.) 600 100% 261 $221,680,638 100% Webster 11,201 100% 2,387 $5,700,342,104 100% West University Place 15,676 100% 5,525 $3,722,134,705 100% U nincorporated County 1,914,463 100% 573,070 $321,033,774,612 100% (1) U.S. Census Bureau 2018 estimated population downloaded from the The County Information Program, Texas Association of Counties website in Julv 2019. (2) Values based off of Harris Central Appraisal District data (2019), Fort Bend Central Appraisal District data (2018), Galveston Central Appraisal District data (2018), and Hazus v4.2 SP03 default general building stock data (Chambers and Waller MI Intl-i (3) Calculated using a Census tract level, general building stock (GBS) analvsis in Hazus 4.2 SP03. Hurricane Risk Assessment 100-Year Probabilistic Jurisdiction Economic Impact Structure Debris (Tons) (3) Number of Displaced Households (3) People Requiring Short- Term Shelter (3) Value Structure in $ Damaged (3) Value Contents in $ Damaged 3 Total Value (Structure and Contents in $) Damaged 3 % of Total Value Damaged Baytown (Harris Co.) 104,934.58 2,067 1,630 $702,129,625 $256,564,752 $958,694,377 9.5% Baytown (Chambers Co.) 606.50 7 4 $5,368,827 $2,225,540 $7,594,366 0.6% Baytown (Total) 105,541.08 2,074 1,635 $707,498,451 $258,790,292 $966,288,743 8.4% Bellaire 9,187.67 24 12 $67,873,600 $14,125,519 $81,999,118 1.4% Bunker Hill Village 1,743.50 4 2 $17,689,265 $5,928,609 $23,617,874 1.8% Deer Park 53,622.13 799 492 $364,557,451 $139,584,238 $504,141,689 8.6% El Lago 7,396.75 172 86 $52,630,448 $19,214,257 $71,844,705 15.3% Friendswood (Harris Co.) 14,366.24 240 135 $96,478,672 $32,728,351 $129,207,023 7.9 % Friendswood (Galveston Co.) 28,914.35 269 145 $178,778,369 $59,102,013 $237,880,381 5.2% Friendswood (Total) 43,280.59 509 281 $275,257,041 $91,830,363 $367,087,404 5.9% Galena Park 4,171.52 52 57 $27,265,313 $10,685,635 $37,950,947 3.2% Hedwig Village 1,746.75 7 4 $11,625,419 $2,422,305 $14,047,724 1.2% Hilshire Village 283.65 1 0 $2,230,264 $606,611 $2,836,875 1.4% Houston (Harris Co.) 1,205,561.75 14,442 10,363 $7,590,932,495 $1,747,832,737 $9,338,765,232 1.9% Humble 4,563.05 26 21 $27,589,267 $6,173,044 $33,762,310 0.7% Hunters Creek Village 2,633.33 5 3 $24,514,917 $7,335,870 $31,850,788 1.8 % Jacinto City 4,399.68 53 58 $27,914,926 $9,191,107 $37,106,033 2.9% Jersey Village 2,233.39 17 10 $14,073,056 $1,971,084 $16,044,140 0.7% Katy (Harris Co.) 796.53 1 1 $5,863,175 $934,195 $6,797,371 0.4% Katy (Fort Bend Co.) 235.24 4 2 $1,003,613 $132,443 $1,136,056 0.1 % Katy (Waller Co.) 110.43 1 0 $893,836 $306,298 $1,200,134 0.5% Katy (Total) 345.67 4 3 $1,897,449 $438,741 $2,336,190 0.2% La Porte 70,441.58 1,256 766 $526,991,078 $241,796,193 $768,787,272 11.7% League City (Harris Co.) 2,489.47 32 16 $17,413,312 $6,163,651 $23,576,964 8.4 % Missouri City (Harris Co.) 1,048.75 9 8 $6,094,387 $792,072 $6,886,459 0.9% Missouri City (Fort Bend Co.) 39,577.47 221 153 $208,556,424 $47,550,248 $256,106,672 2.2 % Missouri City (Total) 40,626.22 230 160 $214,650,812 $48,342,320 $262,993,131 2.1 % Morgan's Point (Harris Co.) 1,481.39 13 9 $13,527,268 $7,372,100 $20,899,368 8.0% Nassau Bay 20,723.39 373 156 $154,678,593 $59,092,066 $213,770,659 13.1% Pasadena 175,082.39 3,132 2,475 $1,203,242,990 $422,128,451 $1,625,371,441 7.2% Pearland (Harris Co.) 3,564.77 24 17 $23,433,183 $7,611,481 $31,044,664 4.4% Piney Point Village 2,256.56 3 2 $23,775,724 $7,930,276 $31,706,000 1.7% Seabrook (Harris Co.) 38,076.39 750 386 $271,888,968 $105,408,806 $377,297,774 14.9% Shoreacres (Harris Co.) 5,501.65 140 74 $36,022,372 $14,813,092 $50,835,463 23.3% South Houston 11,515.04 197 213 $74,889,121 $24,560,900 $99,450,021 4.6% Southside Place 824.82 4 2 $6,264,670 $1,233,392 $7,498,062 1.6% Spring Valley Village 1,676.34 4 3 $13,172,638 $3,579,298 $16,751,936 1.4% Stafford (Harris Co.) 25.24 0 0 $145,781 $18,145 $163,925 0.7% Stafford (Fort Bend Co.) 14,498.34 91 58 $72,100,002 $16,382,311 $88,482,313 1.5% Stafford (Total) 14,523.57 91 58 $72,245,783 $16,400,456 $88,646,238 1.5% Taylor Lake Village 11,665.22 201 103 $84,073,727 $33,824,948 $117,898,675 17.1% Tomball (Harris Co.) 797.59 1 1 $5,464,927 $941,787 $6,406,714 0.2% Waller (Harris Co.) 75.67 0 0 $551,352 $59,472 $610,824 0.3% Webster 39,159.58 674 370 $324,261,293 $139,372,781 $463,634,074 8.1% West University Place 7,500.92 26 14 $59,985,101 $13,666,584 $73,651,685 2.0% Unincorporated County • 430,158.74 3,452 2,715 r $2,933,228,680 $815,981,053 $3,749,209,732 1.2% (1) U.S. Census Bureau 2018 estimated population downloaded from the The County Information Program, Texas Association of Counties website in Julv 2019. (2) Values based off of Harris Central Appraisal District data (2019), Fort Bend Central Appraisal District data (2018), Galveston Central Appraisal District data (2018), and Hazus v4.2 SP03 default general building stock data (Chambers and Waller MI nti-i (3) Calculated using a Census tract level, general building stock (GBS) analvsis in Hazus 4.2 SP03. Hurricane Risk Assessment Alicia Jurisdiction Estimated Exposure Estimated Population (1) % Population Exposed Total Number of Buildings (2) Total Building Value (Structure and contents in $) (2) % of Total Value Exposed Baytown (Harris Co.) 72,879 100% 20,718 $10,081,462,691 100% Baytown (Chambers Co.) 4,145 100% 1,440 $1,376,644,000 100% Baytown (Total) 77,024 100% 22,158 $11,458,106,691 100% Bellaire 18,966 100% 6,503 $5,726,227,131 100% Bunker Hill Village 3,982 100% 1,303 $1,322,346,729 100% Deer Park 33,931 100% 11,370 $5,845,168,035 100% ElLago 2,727 100% 1,107 $469,295,696 100% Friendswood (Harris Co.) 11,575 100% 3,570 $1,631,453,165 100% Friendswood (Galveston Co.) 28,606 100% 9,959 $4,553,773,509 100% Friendswood (Total) 40,181 100% 13,529 $6,185,226,675 100% Galena Park 10,931 100% 3,288 $1,178,706,765 100% Hedwig Village 2,669 100% 909 $1,142,111,969 100% Hilshire Village 819 100% 321 $207,926,478 100% Houston (Harris Co.) 2,278,069 100% 592,166 $487,379,428,234 100% Humble 16,041 100% 4,890 $4,570,456,883 100% Hunters Creek Village 4,891 100% 1,572 $1,787,651,957 100% Jacinto City 10,625 100% 2,986 $1,261,111,221 100% Jersey Village 7,962 100% 2,527 $2,275,428,136 100% Katy (Harris Co.) 15,251 100% 4,249 $1,865,017,616 100% Katy (Fort Bend Co.) 2,159 100% 811 $1,312,561,128 100% Katy (Waller Co.) 1,806 100% 492 $218,939,000 100% Katy(Total) 3,965 100% 1,303 $1,531,500,128 100% La Porte 35,423 100% 12,427 $6,575,613,440 100% League City (Harris Co.) 1,984 100% 394 $280,449,911 100% Missouri City (Harris Co.) 6,273 100% 1,876 $770,837,732 100% Missouri City (Fort Bend Co.) 68,432 100% 22,450 $11,627,868,465 100% Missouri City (Total) 74,705 100% 24,326 $12,398,706,197 100% Morgan's Point (Harris Co.) 345 100% 160 $262,314,866 100% Nassau Bay 4,037 100% 1,574 $1,635,924,802 100% Pasadena 153,219 100% 40,639 $22,505,882,445 100% Pearland (Harris Co.) 5,237 100% 834 $709,046,327 100% Piney Point Village 3,449 100% 1,195 $1,817,131,583 100% Seabrook (Harris Co.) 14,291 100% 4,390 $2,537,671,414 100% Shoreacres (Harris Co.) 1,611 100% 657 $218,188,519 100% South Houston 17,583 100% 5,001 $2,162,541,092 100% Southside Place 1,881 100% 508 $471,918,214 100% Spring Valley Village 4,333 100% 1,509 $1,227,871,955 100% Stafford (Harris Co.) 309 100% 89 $24,088,003 100% Stafford (Fort Bend Co.) 18,003 100% 4,966 $6,078,341,979 100% Stafford (Total) 18,312 100% 5,055 $6,102,429,982 100% Taylor Lake Village 3,625 100% 1,390 $690,404,692 100% Tomball (Harris Co.) 11,761 100% 3,649 $3,569,286,191 100% Waller (Harris Co.) 600 100% 261 $221,680,638 100% Webster 11,201 100% 2,387 $5,700,342,104 100% West University Place 15,676 100% 5,525 $3,722,134,705 100% Unincorporated County 1 1,914,463 1 100% 573,070 1 $321,033,774,612 L 100% (1) U.S. Census Bureau 2018 estimated population downloaded from the The County Information Program, Texas Association of Counties website in Julv 2019. (2) Values based off of Harris Central Appraisal District data (2019), Fort Bend Central Appraisal District data (2018), Galveston Central Appraisal District data (2018), and Hazus v4.2 SP03 default general building stock data (Chambers and wauar - -fi-I (3) Calculated using a Census tract level, general building stock (GBS) analvsis in Hazus 4.2 SP03. Hurricane Risk Assessment Alicia Jurisdiction Economic Impact Structure Debris xTons 3 Number of Displaced Households (3) People Requiring Short -Term Shelter (3) Value Structure in $ Damaged 3 Value Contents in $ Damaged 3 Total Value (Structure and Contents in $) Damaged 3 % of Total Value Damaged Baytown (Harris Co.) 15,301.04 1 113 86 $87,550,431 $13,537,135 $101,087,567 1.0% Baytown (Chambers Co.) 98.90 0 0 $829,921 $153,476 $983,397 0.1% Baytown (Total) 15,399.93 114 86 $88,380,352 $13,690,611 $102,070,963 0.9% Bellaire 6,449.15 12 5 $48,142,317 $8,442,681 $56,584,998 1.0% Bunker Hill Village 1,510.56 3 1 $15,682,418 $5,102,406 $20,784,824 1.6% Deer Park 8,543.49 48 30 $49,393,142 $8,045,862 $57,439,004 1.0% ElLago 1,206.53 17 9 $7,380,687 $1,136,284 $8,516,971 1.8% Friendswood (Harris Co.) 3,541.00 33 19 $21,649,813 $4,360,022 $26,009,836 1.6% Friendswood (Galveston Co.) 10,307.68 44 23 $59,364,627 $13,817,125 $73,181,752 1.6% Friendswood (Total) 13,848.68 77 42 $81,014,441 $18,177,147 $99,191,588 1.6% Galena Park 1,099.23 6 6 $6,142,036 $1,237,697 $7,379,733 0.6% Hedwig Village 1,521.32 5 3 $10,118,851 $2,011,618 $12,130,470 1.1% Hilshire Village 224.72 0 0 $1,830,433 $469,359 $2,299,792 1.1% Houston (Harris Co.) 757,640.68 7,069 4,922 $4,462,908,346 $687,639,674 $5,150,548,021 1.1% Humble 4,542.53 24 19 $27,331,813 $6,122,075 $33,453,889 0.7% Hunters Creek Village 1,984.38 3 2 $19,175,882 $5,421,506 $24,597,388 1.4% Jacinto City 1,337.34 6 7 $7,380,630 $1,310,661 $8,691,291 0.7% Jersey Village 2,565.05 21 12 $15,999,893 $2,304,562 $18,304,455 0.8% Katy (Harris Co.) 1,646.66 5 4 $10,470,861 $1,821,151 $12,292,012 0.7% Katy (Fort Bend Co.) 134.62 2 1 $548,851 $46,374 $595,225 0.0% Katy (Waller Co.) 35.85 0 0 $295,376 $54,318 $349,694 0.2 % Katy (Total) 170.47 2 1 $844,227 $100,693 $944,919 0.1 % LaPorte 9,018.65 54 34 $53,991,120 $11,229,379 $65,220,499 1.0% League City (Harris Co.) 576.64 4 2 $3,567,213 $743,328 $4,310,541 1.5% Missouri City (Harris Co.) 1,130.67 9 8 $6,558,252 $900,285 $7,458,537 1.0% Missouri City (Fort Bend Co.) 16,714.04 45 31 $83,981,946 $10,138,257 $94,120,203 0.8% Missouri City (Total) 17,844.71 54 39 $90,540,198 $11,038,542 $101,578,740 0.8% Morgan's Point (Harris Co.) 164.44 0 0 $1,025,942 $266,170 $1,292,112 0.5% Nassau Bay 5,570.64 60 25 $33,055,603 $5,588,015 $38,643,618 2.4% Pasadena 37,254.64 342 288 $215,614,242 $34,815,402 $250,429,643 1.1% Pearland (Harris Co.) 1,243.89 4 3 $7,714,684 $1,649,895 $9,364,579 1.3 % Piney Point Village 1,830.78 2 1 $19,622,526 $6,361,302 $25,983,828 1.4% Seabrook (Harris Co.) 6,160.72 64 32 $37,700,143 $6,858,551 $44,558,694 1.8 % Shoreacres (Harris Co.) 711.41 6 3 $4,354,322 $1,015,127 $5,369,449 2.5% South Houston 3,234.77 31 33 $17,866,251 $2,972,671 $20,838,921 1.0% Southside Place 552.34 2 1 $4,179,657 $651,629 $4,831,286 1.0% Spring Valley Village 1,328.69 3 2 $10,813,106 $2,769,882 $13,582,988 1.1% Stafford (Harris Co.) 30.09 0 0 $177,330 $26,882 $204,212 0.8% Stafford (Fort Bend Co.) 6,468.57 28 17 $28,671,624 $3,695,436 $32,367,061 0.5% Stafford (Total) 6,498.66 28 17 $28,848,954 $3,722,319 $32,571,272 0.5% Taylor Lake Village 1,862.10 20 10 $11,936,896 $2,663,855 $14,600,751 2.1 % Tomball (Harris Co.) 2,539.66 12 7 $15,041,278 $2,911,143 $17,952,421 0.5% Waller (Harris Co.) 260.93 0 0 $1,580,438 $269,938 $1,850,375 0.8% Webster 9,612.97 98 53 $58,019,942 $10,531,088 $68,551,029 1.2% West University Place 4,621.98 10 5 $37,845,806 $7,023,021 $44,868,827 1.2 % Unincorporated County 345,295.31 1,662 1,220 $2,209,444,864 $410,580,584 $2,620,025,448 ri 0.8% r% (1) U.S. Census Bureau 2018 estimated population downloaded from the The County Information Program, Texas Association of Counties website in Julv 2019. (2) Values based off of Harris Central Appraisal District data (2019), Fort Bend Central Appraisal District data (2018), Galveston Central Appraisal District data (2018), and Hazus v4.2 SP03 default general building stock data (Chambers and wauar nfi-I (3) Calculated using a Census tract level, general building stock (GBS) analvsis in Hazus 4.2 SP03. Wildfire Risk Assessment Ignition Density Very High (3) Jurisdiction Estimated Population (1) Total Number of Buildings (2) Total Number of Residential Buildings (2) Total Building Value (Structure and contents in $) (2) Baytown (Harris Co.) 72,879 20,718 19,029 $10,081,462,691 Baytown (Chambers Co.) (see Note 1) 4,145 1,440 1,280 $1,376,644,000 Baytown (Total) 77,024 22,158 20,309 $11,458,106,691 Bellaire 18,966 6,503 6,307 $5,726,227,131 Bunker Hill Village 3,982 1,303 1,302 $1,322,346,729 Deer Park 33,931 11,370 10,575 $5,845,168,035 El Lago 2,727 1,107 1,078 $469,295,696 Friendswood (Harris Co.) 11,575 3,570 3,479 $1,631,453,165 Friendswood (Galveston Co.) 28,606 9,959 9,593 $4,553,773,509 Friendswood (Total) 40,181 13,529 13,072 $6,185,226,675 Galena Park 10,931 3,288 3,032 $1,178,706,765 Hedwig Village 2,669 909 818 $1,142,111,969 Hilshire Village 819 321 311 $207,926,478 Houston (Harris Co.) 2,278,069 592,166 544,150 $487,379,428,234 Humble 16,041 4,890 3,979 $4,570,456,883 Hunters Creek Village 4,891 1,572 1,552 $1,787,651,957 Jacinto City 10,625 2,986 2,745 $1,261,111,221 Jersey Village 7,962 2,527 2,348 $2,275,428,136 Katy (Harris Co.) 15,251 4,249 3,929 $1,865,017,616 Katy (Fort Bend Co.) 2,159 811 548 $1,312,561,128 Katy (Waller Co.) 1,806 492 444 $218,939,000 Katy (Total) 19,216 5,552 4,921 3,396,517,744 La Porte 35,423 12,427 11,467 $6,575,613,440 League City (Harris Co.) 1,984 394 386 $280,449,911 Missouri City (Harris Co.) 6,273 1,876 1,824 $770,837,732 Missouri City (Fort Bend Co.) 68,432 22,450 21,588 $11,627,868,465 Missouri City (Total) 74,705 24,326 23,412 $12,398,706,197 Morgan's Point (Harris Co.) 345 160 150 $262,314,866 Nassau Bay 4,037 1,574 1,504 $1,635,924,802 Pasadena 153,219 40,639 37,128 $22,505,882,445 Pearland (Harris Co.) 5,237 834 791 $709,046,327 Piney Point Village 3,449 1,195 1,188 $1,817,131,583 Seabrook (Harris Co.) 14,291 4,390 4,105 $2,537,671,414 Shoreacres (Harris Co.) 1,611 657 656 $218,188,519 South Houston 17,583 5,001 4,050 $2,162,541,092 Southside Place 1,881 508 491 $471,918,214 Spring Valley Village 4,333 1,509 1,466 $1,227,871,955 Stafford (Harris Co.) 309 89 89 $24,088,003 Stafford (Fort Bend Co.) 18,003 4,966 3,878 $6,078,341,979 Stafford (Total) 18,312 5,055 3,967 $6,102,429,982 Taylor Lake Village 3,625 1,390 1,385 $690,404,692 Tomball (Harris Co.) 11,761 3,649 2,933 $3,569,286,191 Waller (Harris Co.) 600 261 197 $221,680,638 Webster 11,201 2,387 1,774 $5,700,342,104 West University Place 15,676 5,525 5,468 $3,722,134,705 Unincorporated County 11914,463 573,070 541,942 $321,033,774,612 .I I (1) U.S. Census Bureau 2018 estimated population downloaded from the The County Information Program, Texas Association of Counties website in Julv 2019. (2) Values based off of Harris Central Appraisal District data (2019), Fort Bend Central Appraisal District data (2018), Galveston Central Appraisal District data (2018), and Hazus v4.2 SP03 default general building stock data lChamhurs and Waller miintiasl (3) Wildfire ignition density data downloaded from Texas Wildfire Risk Assessment Portal (TXWrap). (4) Percent of residential buildings exposed multiplied by the Estimated Population. NOTE: Unable to determine the building exposure for the Chambers County portion of Baytown due to the census block aggregation level of the general building stock data. The majority of Chambers County portion of Baytown is in the Inw innifinn rl-ity rat-nm Wildfire Risk Assessment Ignition Density Very High (3) Jurisdiction Estimated Exposure Estimated Buildings Exposed (2) Population Exposed (4) % of Population Exposed Value Structure in $ Exposed (2) Value Contents in $ Exposed (2) Value (Structure and contents in $) Exposed (2) % of Total Value Baytown (Harris Co.) 0 0 0.0% $0 $0 $0 0.0% Baytown (Chambers Co.) (see Note 1) 0 0 0.0% $0 $0 $0 0.0% Baytown (Total) 0 0 0.0% $0 $0 $0 0.0% Bellaire 0 0 0.0% $0 $0 $0 0.0% Bunker Hill Village 0 0 0.0% $0 $0 $0 0.0% Deer Park 0 0 0.0% $0 $0 $0 0.0°% Ell -ago 0 0 0.0% $0 $0 $0 0.0°% Friendswood (Harris Co.) 0 0 0.0% $0 $0 $0 0.0°% Friendswood (Galveston Co.) 0 0 0.0% $0 $0 $0 0.0°% Friendswood (Total) 0 0 0.0% $0 $0 $0 0.0% Galena Park 0 0 0.0% $0 $0 $0 0.0% Hedwig Village 0 0 0.0% $0 $0 $0 0.0°% Hilshire Village 0 0 0.0% $0 $0 $0 0.0°% Houston (Harris Co.) 0 0 0.0% $0 $0 $0 0.0°% Humble 0 0 0.0% $0 $0 $0 0.0°% Hunters Creek Village 0 0 0.0% $0 $0 $0 0.0% Jacinto City 0 0 0.0% $0 $0 $0 0.0% Jersey Village 0 0 0.0% $0 $0 $0 0.0% Katy (Harris Co.) 0 0 0.0% $0 $0 $0 0.0°% Katy (Fort Bend Co.) 0 0 0.0% $0 $0 $0 0.0% Katy (Waller Co.) 0 0 0.0% $0 $0 $0 0.0% Katy (Total) 0 0 0.0% 0 0 0 0.0% La Porte 0 0 0.0% $0 $0 $0 0.0°% League City (Harris Co.) 0 0 0.0% $0 $0 $0 0.0°% Missouri City (Harris Co.) 0 0 0.0% $0 $0 $0 0.0°% Missouri City (Fort Bend Co.) 0 0 0.0% $0 $0 $0 0.0°% Missouri City (Total) 0 0 0.0% $0 $0 $0 0.0% Morgan's Point (Harris Co.) 0 0 0.0°% $0 $0 $0 0.0°% Nassau Bay 0 0 0.0% $0 $0 $0 0.0°% Pasadena 0 0 0.0% $0 $0 $0 0.0°% Pearland (Harris Co.) 0 0 0.0% $0 $0 $0 0.0°% Piney Point Village 0 0 0.0% $0 $0 $0 0.0°% Seabrook (Harris Co.) 0 0 0.0% $0 $0 $0 0.0°% Shoreacres (Harris Co.) 0 0 0.0% $0 $0 $0 0.0°% South Houston 0 0 0.0% $0 $0 $0 0.0°% Southside Place 0 0 0.0% $0 $0 $0 0.0% Spring Valley Village 0 0 0.0% $0 $0 $0 0.0°% Stafford (Harris Co.) 0 0 0.0% $0 $0 $0 0.0°% Stafford (Fort Bend Co.) 0 0 0.0% $0 $0 $0 0.0% Stafford (Total) 0 0 0.0% $0 $0 $0 0.0% Taylor Lake Village 0 0 0.0% $0 $0 $0 0.0% Tomball (Harris Co.) 0 0 0.0% $0 $0 $0 0.0% Waller (Harris Co.) 0 0 0.0% $0 $0 $0 0.0°% Webster 0 0 0.0% $0 $0 $0 0.0°% West University Place 0 0 0.0% $0 $0 1 $0 0.0°% Unincorporated County 11243 4,384 0.2°% $549,809,652 $275,178,423 $824,988,075 0.3 (1) U.S. Census Bureau 2018 estimated population downloaded from the The County Information Program, Texas Association of Counties website in Julv 2019. (2) Values based off of Harris Central Appraisal District data (2019), Fort Bend Central Appraisal District data (2018), Galveston Central Appraisal District data (2018), and Hazus v4.2 SP03 default general building stock data lChamhurs and Waller rnuntiasl (3) Wildfire ignition density data downloaded from Texas Wildfire Risk Assessment Portal (TXWraD). (4) Percent of residential buildings exposed multiplied by the Estimated Population. NOTE: Unable to determine the building exposure for the Chambers County portion of Baytown due to the census block aggregation level of the general building stock data. The majority of Chambers County portion of Baytown is in the Inw innifinn rl-ity rat-nm Wildfire Risk Assessment Ignition Density Very High (3) Jurisdiction Number of Structures in Ignition Denisty Very High' (2) Residential Commercial Industrial Agriculture Religion Government Education Total Baytown (Harris Co.) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Baytown (Chambers Co.) (see Note 1) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Baytown (Total) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Bellaire 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Bunker Hill Village 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Deer Park 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 El Lago 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Friendswood (Harris Co.) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Friendswood (Galveston Co.) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Friendswood (Total) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Galena Park 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Hedwig Village 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Hilshire Village 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Houston (Harris Co.) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Humble 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Hunters Creek Village 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Jacinto City 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Jersey Village 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 Katy (Harris Co.) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Katy (Fort Bend Co.) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Katy (Waller Co.) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Katy (Total) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 La Porte 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 League City (Harris Co.) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Missouri City (Harris Co.) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Missouri City (Fort Bend Co.) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Missouri City (Total) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Morgan's Point (Harris Co.) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Nassau Bay 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pasadena 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pearland (Harris Co.) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Piney Point Village 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Seabrook (Harris Co.) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Shoreacres (Harris Co.) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 South Houston 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Southside Place 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spring Valley Village 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Stafford (Harris Co.) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Stafford (Fort Bend Co.) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Stafford (Total) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Taylor Lake Village 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Tomball (Harris Co.) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Waller (Harris Co.) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Webster 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 West University Place 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Unincorporated County 1.241 2 0 0 0 I 0 rIN 0 1,243 (1) U.S. Census Bureau 2018 estimated population downloaded from the The County Information Program, Texas Association of Counties website in Julv 2019. (2) Values based off of Harris Central Appraisal District data (2019), Fort Bend Central Appraisal District data (2018), Galveston Central Appraisal District data (2018), and Hazus v4.2 SP03 default general building stock data lChamhurs and Waller miintiasl (3) Wildfire ignition density data downloaded from Texas Wildfire Risk Assessment Portal (TXWrap). (4) Percent of residential buildings exposed multiplied by the Estimated Population. NOTE: Unable to determine the building exposure for the Chambers County portion of Baytown due to the census block aggregation level of the general building stock data. The majority of Chambers County portion of Baytown is in the Inw innifinn rl—ity rat—nm Wildfire Risk Assessment Ignition Density High (3) Jurisdiction Estimated Population (1) Total Number of Buildings (2) Total Number of Residential Buildings (2) Total Building Value (Structure and contents in $) (2) Baytown (Harris Co.) 72,879 20,718 19,029 $10,081,462,691 Baytown (Chambers Co.) (see Note 1) 4,145 1,440 1,280 $1,376,644,000 Baytown (Total) 77,024 22,158 20,309 $11,458,106,691 Bellaire 18,966 6,503 6,307 $5,726,227,131 Bunker Hill Village 3,982 1,303 1,302 $1,322,346,729 Deer Park 33,931 11,370 10,575 $5,845,168,035 El Lago 2,727 1,107 1,078 $469,295,696 Friendswood (Harris Co.) 11,575 3,570 3,479 $1,631,453,165 Friendswood (Galveston Co.) 28,606 9,959 9,593 $4,553,773,509 Friendswood (Total) 40,181 13,529 13,072 $6,185,226,675 Galena Park 10,931 3,288 3,032 $1,178,706,765 Hedwig Village 2,669 909 818 $1,142,111,969 Hilshire Village 819 321 311 $207,926,478 Houston (Harris Co.) 2,278,069 592,166 544,150 $487,379,428,234 Humble 16,041 4,890 3,979 $4,570,456,883 Hunters Creek Village 4,891 1,572 1,552 $1,787,651,957 Jacinto City 10,625 2,986 2,745 $1,261,111,221 Jersey Village 7,962 2,527 2,348 $2,275,428,136 Katy (Harris Co.) 15,251 4,249 3,929 $1,865,017,616 Katy (Fort Bend Co.) 2,159 811 548 $1,312,561,128 Katy (Waller Co.) 1 1,806 492 444 $218,939,000 Katy (Total) 19,216 5,552 4,921 3,396,517,744 La Porte 35,423 12,427 11,467 $6,575,613,440 League City (Harris Co.) 1,984 394 386 $280,449,911 Missouri City (Harris Co.) 6,273 1,876 1,824 $770,837,732 Missouri City (Fort Bend Co.) 68,432 22,450 21,588 $11,627,868,465 Missouri City (Total) 74,705 1 24,326 23,412 $12,398,706,197 Morgan's Point (Harris Co.) 345 160 150 $262,314,866 Nassau Bay 4,037 1,574 1,504 $1,635,924,802 Pasadena 153,219 40,639 37,128 $22,505,882,445 Pearland (Harris Co.) 5,237 834 791 $709,046,327 Piney Point Village 3,449 1,195 1,188 $1,817,131,583 Seabrook (Harris Co.) 14,291 4,390 4,105 $2,537,671,414 Shoreacres (Harris Co.) 1,611 657 656 $218,188,519 South Houston 17,583 5,001 4,050 $2,162,541,092 Southside Place 1,881 508 491 $471,918,214 Spring Valley Village 4,333 1,509 1,466 $1,227,871,955 Stafford (Harris Co.) 309 89 89 $24,088,003 Stafford (Fort Bend Co.) 18,003 4,966 3,878 $6,078,341,979 Stafford (Total) 18,312 5,055 3,967 $6,102,429,982 Taylor Lake Village 3,625 1,390 1,385 $690,404,692 Tomball (Harris Co.) 11,761 3,649 2,933 $3,569,286,191 Waller (Harris Co.) 600 261 197 $221,680,638 Webster 11,201 2,387 1,774 $5,700,342,104 West University Place 1 15,676 5,525 1 5,468 1 $3,722,134,705 Unincorporated County 11914,463 573,070 541,942 $321,033,774,612 .I I (1) U.S. Census Bureau 2018 estimated population downloaded from the The County Information Program, Texas Association of Counties website in Julv 2019. (2) Values based off of Harris Central Appraisal District data (2019), Fort Bend Central Appraisal District data (2018), Galveston Central Appraisal District data (2018), and Hazus v4.2 SP03 default general building stock data lChamhurs and Waller muntiasl (3) Wildfire ignition density data downloaded from Texas Wildfire Risk Assessment Portal (TXWrap). (4) Percent of residential buildings exposed multiplied by the Estimated Population. NOTE: Unable to determine the building exposure for the Chambers County portion of Baytown due to the census block aggregation level of the general building stock data. The majority of Chambers County portion of Baytown is in the Inw innifinn rl-ity rat-nm Wildfire Risk Assessment Ignition Density High (3) Jurisdiction Estimated Exposure Estimated Buildings Exposed (2) Population Exposed (4) % of Population Exposed Value Structure in $ Exposed (2) Value Contents in $ Exposed (2) Value (Structure and contents in $) Exposed (2) % of Total Value Baytown (Harris Co.) 0 0 0.0% $0 $0 $0 0.0% Baytown (Chambers Co.) (see Note 1) 0 0 0.0% $0 $0 $0 0.0% Baytown (Total) 0 0 0.0% $0 $0 $0 0.0% Bellaire 0 0 0.0% $0 $0 $0 0.0% Bunker Hill Village 0 0 0.0% $0 $0 $0 0.0% Deer Park 0 0 0.0% $0 $0 $0 0.0°% Ell -ago 0 0 0.0% $0 $0 $0 0.0°% Friendswood (Harris Co.) 0 0 0.0% $0 $0 $0 0.0°% Friendswood (Galveston Co.) 0 0 0.0% $0 $0 $0 0.0°% Friendswood (Total) 0 0 0.0% $0 $0 $0 0.0% Galena Park 0 0 0.0% $0 $0 $0 0.0% Hedwig Village 0 0 0.0% $0 $0 $0 0.0°% Hilshire Village 0 0 0.0% $0 $0 $0 0.0°% Houston (Harris Co.) 58 230 0.0% $114,414,888 $76,478,429 $190,893,317 0.0°% Humble 0 0 0.0% $0 $0 $0 0.0°% Hunters Creek Village 0 0 0.0% 1 $0 $0 $0 0.0% Jacinto City 0 0 0.0% $0 $0 $0 0.0% Jersey Village 0 0 0.0% $0 $0 $0 0.0% Katy (Harris Co.) 0 0 0.0% $0 $0 $0 0.0°% Katy (Fort Bend Co.) 0 0 0.0% $0 $0 $0 0.0% Katy (Waller Co.) 0 0 0.0% $0 $0 $0 0.0% Katy (Total) 0 0 0.0% 0 0 0 0.0% La Porte 0 0 0.0% 1 $0 $0 $0 0.0°% League City (Harris Co.) 0 0 0.0% $0 $0 $0 0.0°% Missouri City (Harris Co.) 0 0 0.0% $0 $0 $0 0.0°% Missouri City (Fort Bend Co.) 0 0 0.0% $0 $0 $0 0.0°% Missouri City (Total) 0 0 0.0% $0 $0 $0 0.0% Morgan's Point (Harris Co.) 0 0 0.0°% $0 $0 $0 0.0°% Nassau Bay 0 0 0.0% $0 $0 $0 0.0°% Pasadena 0 0 0.0% 1 $0 $0 $0 0.0°% Pearland (Harris Co.) 0 0 0.0% $0 $0 $0 0.0°% Piney Point Village 0 0 0.0% $0 $0 $0 0.0°% Seabrook (Harris Co.) 0 0 0.0% $0 $0 $0 0.0°% Shoreacres (Harris Co.) 0 0 0.0% $0 $0 $0 0.0°% South Houston 0 0 0.0% $0 $0 $0 0.0°% Southside Place 0 0 0.0% $0 $0 $0 0.0% Spring Valley Village 0 0 0.0% $0 $0 $0 0.0°% Stafford (Harris Co.) 0 0 0.0% $0 $0 $0 0.0°% Stafford (Fort Bend Co.) 0 0 0.0% $0 $0 $0 0.0% Stafford (Total) 0 0 0.0% $0 $0 $0 0.0% Taylor Lake Village 0 0 0.0% $0 $0 $0 0.0% Tomball (Harris Co.) 0 0 0.0% $0 $0 $0 0.0% Waller (Harris Co.) 0 0 0.0% $0 $0 $0 0.0°% Webster 0 0 0.0% $0 $0 $0 0.0°% West University Place 0 0 0.0% $0 $0 $0 0.0°% Unincorporated County 11943 6,765 0.4°% $975,127,683 $511,462,353 $1,486,590,036 0.5°% II 1" I I (1) U.S. Census Bureau 2018 estimated population downloaded from the The County Information Program, Texas Association of Counties website in Julv 2019. (2) Values based off of Harris Central Appraisal District data (2019), Fort Bend Central Appraisal District data (2018), Galveston Central Appraisal District data (2018), and Hazus v4.2 SP03 default general building stock data lChamhurs and Waller rnuntiasl (3) Wildfire ignition density data downloaded from Texas Wildfire Risk Assessment Portal (TXWraD). (4) Percent of residential buildings exposed multiplied by the Estimated Population. NOTE: Unable to determine the building exposure for the Chambers County portion of Baytown due to the census block aggregation level of the general building stock data. The majority of Chambers County portion of Baytown is in the Inw innifinn rl-ity rat-nm Wildfire Risk Assessment Ignition Density High (3) Jurisdiction Number of Structures in Ignition Denisty High (2) Residential Commercial Industrial Agriculture Religion Government Education Total Baytown (Harris Co.) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Baytown (Chambers Co.) (see Note 1) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Baytown (Total) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Bellaire 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Bunker Hill Village 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Deer Park 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 El Lago 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Friendswood (Harris Co.) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Friendswood (Galveston Co.) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Friendswood (Total) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Galena Park 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 Hedwig Village 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Hilshire Village 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Houston (Harris Co.) 55 3 0 0 0 0 0 58 Humble 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Hunters Creek Village 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Jacinto City 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Jersey Village 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Katy (Harris Co.) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Katy (Fort Bend Co.) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Katy (Waller Co.) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Katy (Total) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 La Porte 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 League City (Harris Co.) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Missouri City (Harris Co.) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Missouri City (Fort Bend Co.) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Missouri City (Total) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Morgan's Point (Harris Co.) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Nassau Bay 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pasadena 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 Pearland (Harris Co.) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Piney Point Village 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Seabrook (Harris Co.) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Shoreacres (Harris Co.) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 South Houston 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Southside Place 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spring Valley Village 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Stafford (Harris Co.) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Stafford (Fort Bend Co.) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Stafford (Total) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Taylor Lake Village 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Tomball (Harris Co.) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Waller (Harris Co.) 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 Webster 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 West University Place 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Unincorporated County 1,915 I 24 0 1 2 1 0 I 1,943 II (1) U.S. Census Bureau 2018 estimated population downloaded from the The County Information Program, Texas Association of Counties website in Julv 2019. (2) Values based off of Harris Central Appraisal District data (2019), Fort Bend Central Appraisal District data (2018), Galveston Central Appraisal District data (2018), and Hazus v4.2 SP03 default general building stock data lChamhurs and Waller miintiasl (3) Wildfire ignition density data downloaded from Texas Wildfire Risk Assessment Portal (TXWrap). (4) Percent of residential buildings exposed multiplied by the Estimated Population. NOTE: Unable to determine the building exposure for the Chambers County portion of Baytown due to the census block aggregation level of the general building stock data. The majority of Chambers County portion of Baytown is in the Inw innifinn rl—ity rat—nm Wildfire Risk Assessment Ignition Density Moderate (3) Jurisdiction Estimated Population (1) Total Number of Buildings (2) Total Number of Residential Buildings (2) Total Building Value (Structure and contents in $) (2) Baytown (Harris Co.) 72,879 20,718 19,029 $10,081,462,691 Baytown (Chambers Co.) (see Note 1) 4,145 1,440 1,280 $1,376,644,000 Baytown (Total) 77,024 22,158 20,309 $11,458,106,691 Bellaire 18,966 6,503 6,307 $5,726,227,131 Bunker Hill Village 3,982 1,303 1,302 $1,322,346,729 Deer Park 33,931 11,370 10,575 $5,845,168,035 El Lago 2,727 1,107 1,078 $469,295,696 Friendswood (Harris Co.) 11,575 3,570 3,479 $1,631,453,165 Friendswood (Galveston Co.) 28,606 9,959 9,593 $4,553,773,509 Friendswood (Total) 40,181 13,529 13,072 $6,185,226,675 Galena Park 10,931 3,288 3,032 $1,178,706,765 Hedwig Village 2,669 909 818 $1,142,111,969 Hilshire Village 819 321 311 $207,926,478 Houston (Harris Co.) 2,278,069 592,166 544,150 $487,379,428,234 Humble 16,041 4,890 3,979 $4,570,456,883 Hunters Creek Village 4,891 1,572 1,552 $1,787,651,957 Jacinto City 10,625 2,986 2,745 $1,261,111,221 Jersey Village 7,962 2,527 2,348 $2,275,428,136 Katy (Harris Co.) 15,251 4,249 3,929 $1,865,017,616 Katy (Fort Bend Co.) 2,159 811 548 $1,312,561,128 Katy (Waller Co.) 1,806 492 444 $218,939,000 Katy (Total) 19,216 5,552 4,921 3,396,517,744 La Porte 35,423 12,427 11,467 $6,575,613,440 League City (Harris Co.) 1,984 394 386 $280,449,911 Missouri City (Harris Co.) 6,273 1,876 1,824 $770,837,732 Missouri City (Fort Bend Co.) 68,432 22,450 21,588 $11,627,868,465 Missouri City (Total) 74,705 24,326 23,412 $12,398,706,197 Morgan's Point (Harris Co.) 345 160 150 $262,314,866 Nassau Bay 4,037 1,574 1,504 $1,635,924,802 Pasadena 153,219 40,639 37,128 $22,505,882,445 Pearland (Harris Co.) 5,237 834 791 $709,046,327 Piney Point Village 3,449 1,195 1,188 $1,817,131,583 Seabrook (Harris Co.) 14,291 4,390 4,105 $2,537,671,414 Shoreacres (Harris Co.) 1,611 657 656 $218,188,519 South Houston 17,583 5,001 4,050 $2,162,541,092 Southside Place 1,881 508 491 $471,918,214 Spring Valley Village 4,333 1,509 1,466 $1,227,871,955 Stafford (Harris Co.) 309 89 89 $24,088,003 Stafford (Fort Bend Co.) 18,003 4,966 3,878 $6,078,341,979 Stafford (Total) 18,312 5,055 3,967 $6,102,429,982 Taylor Lake Village 3,625 1,390 1,385 $690,404,692 Tomball (Harris Co.) 11,761 3,649 2,933 $3,569,286,191 Waller (Harris Co.) 600 261 197 $221,680,638 Webster 11,201 2,387 1,774 $5,700,342,104 West University Place 15,676 5,525 5,468 $3,722,134,705 Unincorporated County 11914,463 573,070 541,942 $321,033,774,612 .I I (1) U.S. Census Bureau 2018 estimated population downloaded from the The County Information Program, Texas Association of Counties website in Julv 2019. (2) Values based off of Harris Central Appraisal District data (2019), Fort Bend Central Appraisal District data (2018), Galveston Central Appraisal District data (2018), and Hazus v4.2 SP03 default general building stock data lChamhurs and Waller miintiasl (3) Wildfire ignition density data downloaded from Texas Wildfire Risk Assessment Portal (TXWrap). (4) Percent of residential buildings exposed multiplied by the Estimated Population. NOTE: Unable to determine the building exposure for the Chambers County portion of Baytown due to the census block aggregation level of the general building stock data. The majority of Chambers County portion of Baytown is in the Inw innifinn rl-ity rat-nm Wildfire Risk Assessment Ignition Density Moderate (3) Jurisdiction Estimated Exposure Estimated Buildings Exposed (2) Population Exposed (4) % of Population Exposed Value Structure in $ Exposed (2) Value Contents in $ Exposed (2) Value (Structure and contents in $) Exposed (2) % of Total Value Baytown (Harris Co.) 0 0 0.0% $0 $0 $0 0.0% Baytown (Chambers Co.) (see Note 1) 0 0 0.0% $0 $0 $0 0.0% Baytown (Total) 0 0 0.0% $0 $0 $0 0.0% Bellaire 0 0 0.0% $0 $0 $0 0.0% Bunker Hill Village 0 0 0.0% $0 $0 $0 0.0% Deer Park 0 0 0.0% $0 $0 $0 0.0°% Ell -ago 0 0 0.0% $0 $0 $0 0.0°% Friendswood (Harris Co.) 0 0 0.0% $0 $0 $0 0.0°% Friendswood (Galveston Co.) 0 0 0.0% $0 $0 $0 0.0°% Friendswood (Total) 0 0 0.0% $0 $0 $0 0.0% Galena Park 0 0 0.0% $0 $0 $0 0.0% Hedwig Village 0 0 0.0% $0 $0 $0 0.0°% Hilshire Village 0 0 0.0% $0 $0 $0 0.0°% Houston (Harris Co.) 283 1,143 0.1% $238,324,746 $273,121,095 $511,445,841 0.1°% Humble 0 0 0.0% $0 $0 $0 0.0°% Hunters Creek Village 0 0 0.0% $0 $0 $0 0.0% Jacinto City 0 0 0.0% $0 $0 $0 0.0°% Jersey Village 0 0 0.0% $0 $0 $0 0.0°% Katy (Harris Co.) 27 105 0.7% $5,206,717 $2,603,358 $7,810,075 0.4°% Katy (Fort Bend Co.) 0 0 0.0% $0 $0 $0 0.0% Katy (Waller Co.) 0 0 0.0% $0 $0 $0 0.0% Katy(Total) 27 105 0.5% 5,206,717 2,603,358 7,810,075 0.2% La Porte 0 0 0.0% $0 $0 $0 0.0°% League City (Harris Co.) 0 0 0.0% $0 $0 $0 0.0°% Missouri City (Harris Co.) 0 0 0.0% $0 $0 $0 0.0°% Missouri City (Fort Bend Co.) 151 472 0.7% $37,514,402 $19,009,393 $56,523,794 0.5°% Missouri City (Total) 151 472 0.6% $37,514,402 $19,009,393 $56,523,794 0.5% Morgan's Point (Harris Co.) 0 0 0.0°% $0 $0 $0 0.0°% Nassau Bay 0 0 0.0% $0 $0 $0 0.0°% Pasadena 0 0 0.0% $0 $0 $0 0.0°% Pearland (Harris Co.) 0 0 0.0% $0 $0 $0 0.0°% Piney Point Village 0 0 0.0% $0 $0 $0 0.0°% Seabrook (Harris Co.) 0 0 0.0% $0 $0 $0 0.0°% Shoreacres (Harris Co.) 0 0 0.0% $0 $0 $0 0.0°% South Houston 0 0 0.0% $0 $0 $0 0.0°% Southside Place 0 0 0.0% $0 $0 $0 0.0% Spring Valley Village 0 0 0.0% $0 $0 $0 0.0°% Stafford (Harris Co.) 0 0 0.0% $0 $0 $0 0.0°% Stafford (Fort Bend Co.) 0 0 0.0% $0 $0 $0 0.0% Stafford (Total) 0 0 0.0% $0 $0 $0 0.0% Taylor Lake Village 0 0 0.0% $0 $0 $0 0.0% Tomball (Harris Co.) 0 0 0.0% $0 $0 $0 0.0% Waller (Harris Co.) 0 0 0.0% $0 $0 $0 0.0°% Webster 0 0 0.0% $0 $0 $0 0.0°% West University Place 0 0 0.0% $0 $0 $0 0.0°% Unincorporated County 7,037 23,520 1.20% $3,536,400,752 $2,3 .6,687,845 $5,883,088,597 1.80% (1) U.S. Census Bureau 2018 estimated population downloaded from the The County Information Program, Texas Association of Counties website in Julv 2019. (2) Values based off of Harris Central Appraisal District data (2019), Fort Bend Central Appraisal District data (2018), Galveston Central Appraisal District data (2018), and Hazus v4.2 SP03 default general building stock data lChamhurs and Waller rnuntiasl (3) Wildfire ignition density data downloaded from Texas Wildfire Risk Assessment Portal (TXWraD). (4) Percent of residential buildings exposed multiplied by the Estimated Population. NOTE: Unable to determine the building exposure for the Chambers County portion of Baytown due to the census block aggregation level of the general building stock data. The majority of Chambers County portion of Baytown is in the Inw innifinn rl-ity rat-nm Wildfire Risk Assessment Ignition Density Moderate (3) Jurisdiction Number of Structures in Ignition Density Moderate (2) Residential Commercial Industrial Agriculture Religion Government Education Total Baytown (Harris Co.) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Baytown (Chambers Co.) (see Note 1) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Baytown (Total) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Bellaire 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Bunker Hill Village 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Deer Park 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 El Lago 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Friendswood (Harris Co.) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Friendswood (Galveston Co.) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Friendswood (Total) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Galena Park 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 Hedwig Village 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Hilshire Village 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Houston (Harris Co.) 273 10 0 0 0 0 0 283 Humble 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Hunters Creek Village 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Jacinto City 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Jersey Village 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 Katy (Harris Co.) 27 0 0 0 0 0 0 27 Katy (Fort Bend Co.) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Katy (Waller Co.) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Katy (Total) 27 0 0 0 0 0 0 27 La Porte 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 League City (Harris Co.) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Missouri City (Harris Co.) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Missouri City (Fort Bend Co.) 149 2 0 0 0 0 0 151 Missouri City (Total) 149 2 0 0 0 0 0 151 Morgan's Point (Harris Co.) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Nassau Bay 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pasadena 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pearland (Harris Co.) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Piney Point Village 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Seabrook (Harris Co.) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Shoreacres (Harris Co.) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 South Houston 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Southside Place 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spring Valley Village 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Stafford (Harris Co.) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Stafford (Fort Bend Co.) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Stafford (Total) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Taylor Lake Village 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Tomball (Harris Co.) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Waller (Harris Co.) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Webster 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 West University Place 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Unincorporated County 6,658 307 36 17 16 0 3 7,037 I (1) U.S. Census Bureau 2018 estimated population downloaded from the The County Information Program, Texas Association of Counties website in Julv 2019. (2) Values based off of Harris Central Appraisal District data (2019), Fort Bend Central Appraisal District data (2018), Galveston Central Appraisal District data (2018), and Hazus v4.2 SP03 default general building stock data lChamhurs and Waller miintiasl (3) Wildfire ignition density data downloaded from Texas Wildfire Risk Assessment Portal (TXWrap). (4) Percent of residential buildings exposed multiplied by the Estimated Population. NOTE: Unable to determine the building exposure for the Chambers County portion of Baytown due to the census block aggregation level of the general building stock data. The majority of Chambers County portion of Baytown is in the Inw innifinn rl—ity rat—nm Wildfire Risk Assessment Wildfire Threat (Low) (3) Jurisdiction Estimated Population (1) Total Number of Buildings (2) Total Number of Residential Buildings (2) Total Building Value (Structure and contents in $ 2 Baytown (Harris Co.) 72,879 20,718 19,029 $10,081,462,691 Baytown (Chambers Co.) (see Note 1) 4,145 1,440 1,280 $1,376,644,000 Baytown (Total) 77,024 22,158 20,309 11,458,106,691 Bellaire 18,966 6,503 6,307 $5,726,227,131 Bunker Hill Village 3,982 1,303 1,302 $1,322,346,729 Deer Park 33,931 11,370 10,575 $5,845,168,035 El Lago 2,727 1,107 1,078 $469,295,696 Friendswood (Harris Co.) 11,575 3,570 3,479 $1,631,453,165 Friendswood (Galveston Co.) 28,606 9,959 9,593 $4,553,773,509 Firendswood (Total) 40,181 13,529 13,072 6,185,226,675 Galena Park 10,931 3,288 3,032 $1,178,706,765 Hedwig Village 2,669 909 818 $1,142,111,969 Hilshire Village 819 321 311 $207,926,478 Houston (Harris Co.) 2,278,069 592,166 544,150 $487,379,428,234 Humble 16,041 4,890 3,979 $4,570,456,883 Hunters Creek Village 4,891 1,572 1,552 $1,787,651,957 Jacinto City 10,625 2,986 2,745 $1,261,111,221 Jersey Village 7,962 2,527 2,348 $2,275,428,136 Katy (Harris Co.) 15,251 4,249 3,929 $1,865,017,616 Katy (Fort Bend Co.) 2,159 811 548 $1,312,561,128 Katy (Waller Co.) (see Note 1) 1,806 492 444 $218,939,000 Katy (Total) 19,216 5,552 4,921 3,396,517,744 La Porte 35,423 12,427 11,467 $6,575,613,440 League City (Harris Co.) 1,984 394 386 $280,449,911 Missouri City (Harris Co.) 6,273 1,876 1,824 $770,837,732 Missouri City (Fort Bend Co.) 68,432 22,450 21,588 $11,627,868,465 Missouri City (Total) 74,705 24,326 23,412 12,398,706,197 Morgan's Point (Harris Co.) 345 160 150 $262,314,866 Nassau Bay 4,037 1,574 1,504 $1,635,924,802 Pasadena 153,219 40,639 37,128 $22,505,882,445 Pearland (Harris Co.) 5,237 834 791 $709,046,327 Piney Point Village 3,449 1,195 1,188 $1,817,131,583 Seabrook (Harris Co.) 14,291 4,390 4,105 $2,537,671,414 Shoreacres (Harris Co.) 1,611 657 656 $218,188,519 South Houston 17,583 5,001 4,050 $2,162,541,092 Southside Place 1,881 508 491 $471,918,214 Spring Valley Village 4,333 1,509 1,466 $1,227,871,955 Stafford (Harris Co.) 309 89 89 $24,088,003 Stafford (Fort Bend Co.) 18,003 4,966 3,878 $6,078,341,979 Stafford (Total) 18,312 5,055 3,967 6,102,429,982 Taylor Lake Village 3,625 1,390 1,385 $690,404,692 Tomball (Harris Co.) 11,761 3,649 2,933 $3,569,286,191 Waller (Harris Co.) 600 261 197 $221,680,638 Webster 11,201 2,387 1,774 $5,700,342,104 West University Place 15,676 5,525 1 5,468 $3,722,134,705 Unincorporated County 1,914,463 573,070 541,942 $321,033,774,612 (1) U.S. Census Bureau 2018 estimated population (2) Values based off of Harris Central Appraisal District data (2019), Fort Bend Central Appraisal District data (2018), Galveston Central Appraisal District data (2018), and Hazus v4.2 SP03 default general building stock data r(:h-hcrc anr1 Wauar miinfi-1 (3) Wildfire theat data downloaded from Texas Wildfire Risk Assessment Portal (TxWraD). (4) Percent of residential buildings exposed multiplied by the Estimated Population. NOTE: Unable to determine the building exposure for the Chambers County portion of Baytown and the Waller County portion of Katy due to the census block aggregation level of the general huildino stock data Wildfire Risk Assessment Wildfire Threat (Low) (3) Jurisdiction Wildfire Threat Low Category (3) Estimated Exposure Estimated Buildings Exposed (2) Population Exposed (4) % of Population Exposed Value Structure in $ Exposed (2) Value Contents in $ Exposed (2) Value (Structure and contents in $) Exposed (2) % of Total Value Baytown (Harris Co.) 4,229 15,032 20.63°% 1,530,877,041 1,054,985,188 2,585,862,229 25.64967°% Baytown (Chambers Co.) (see Note 1) 0 0 0.00°% 0 0 0 0.00000°% Baytown (Total) 4,229 15,032 19.52% 1,530,877,041 1,054,985,188 2,585,862,229 22.56797% Bellaire 0 0 0.00°% 0 0 0 0.00000°% Bunker Hill Village 0 0 0.00% 0 0 0 0.00000°% Deer Park 2,825 8,291 24.43°% 978,373,551 750,187,869 1,728,561,420 29.57248°% EI Lago 0 0 0.00% 0 0 0 0.00000°% Friendswood (Harris Co.) 2,357 7,556 65.28% 824,156,730 459,945,000 1,284,101,730 78.70908% Friendswood (Galveston Co.) 5,597 16,177 56.55% 1,619,592,482 977,291,751 2,596,884,233 57.02708°% Firendswood(Total) 7,954 23,733 59.07% 2,443,749,211 1,437,236,751 3,880,985,962 62.74606% Galena Park 896 3,129 28.63% 141,477,599 89,991,264 231,468,862 19.63753°% Hedwig Village 0 0 0.00% 0 0 0 0.00000% Hilshire Village 0 0 0.00% 0 0 0 0.00000% Houston (Harris Co.) 62,572 244,879 10.75% 26,184,617,819 18,328,243,169 44,512,860,989 9.13310% Humble 3,337 11,631 72.51% 1,516,854,784 1,236,413,838 2,753,268,622 60.24056% Hunters Creek Village 0 0 0.00% 0 0 0 0.00000% Jacinto City 839 3,201 30.13% 114,069,755 62,099,041 176,168,797 13.96933% Jersey Village 0 0 0.00% 0 0 0 0.00000% Katy (Harris Co.) 2,754 10,201 66.89% 712,531,972 434,657,892 1,147,189,864 61.51094% Katy (Fort Bend Co.) 761 2,037 94.34°% 503,071,470 415,172,391 918,243,861 69.95818°% Katy (Waller Co.) (see Note 1) 0 0 0.00% 0 0 0 0.00000°% Katy (Total) 3,515 12,238 63.69% 1,215,603,442 849,830,283 2,065,433,725 60.81033% LaPorte 3,510 9,684 27.34°% 1,459,984,403 1,133,722,938 2,593,707,341 39.44434% League City (Harris Co.) 377 1,897 95.60°% 178,502,383 93,163,532 271,665,914 96.86789 % Missouri City (Harris Co.) 192 592 9.43% 66,697,572 45,426,030 112,123,603 14.54568 % Missouri City (Fort Bend Co.) 7,769 23,495 34.33°% 2,668,983,839 1,792,075,609 4,461,059,448 38.36524°% Missouri City (Total) 7,961 24,087 32.24 % 2,735,681,411 1,837,501,639 4,573,183,051 36.88436 % Morgan's Point (Harris Co.) 0 0 0.00°% 0 0 0 0.00000°% Nassau Bay 52 140 3.46°% 17,154,404 8,577,202 25,731,607 1.57291°% Pasadena 4,326 16,879 11.02% 2,218,801,361 1,572,321,647 3,791,123,008 16.84503% Pearland (Harris Co.) 617 3,814 72.82% 321,467,557 260,146,487 581,614,044 82.02765% Piney Point Village 0 0 0.00°% 0 0 0 0.00000°% Seabrook (Harris Co.) 902 2,883 20.17% 362,010,837 228,125,154 590,135,992 23.25502% Shoreacres (Harris Co.) 274 673 41.77% 65,256,637 32,628,319 97,884,956 44.86256% South Houston 0 0 0.00% 0 0 0 0.00000°% Southside Place 0 0 0.00% 0 0 0 0.00000% Spring Valley Village 0 0 0.00% 0 0 0 0.00000% Stafford (Harris Co.) 0 0 0.00% 0 0 0 0.00000% Stafford (Fort Bend Co.) 361 1,156 6.42% 181,202,243 154,820,661 336,022,904 5.52820°% Stafford (Total) 361 1,156 6.31 % 181,202,243 154,820,661 336,022,904 5.50638 % Taylor Lake Village 353 921 25.42°% 119,767,995 59,965,638 179,733,633 26.03308°% Tomball (Harris Co.) 2,687 9,110 77.46°% 1,438,945,986 1,297,330,273 2,736,276,259 76.66172°% Waller (Harris Co.) 258 597 99.49°% 121,767,177 81,449,232 203,216,409 91.67080°% Webster 824 4,180 37.32°% 690,744,797 537,107,039 1,227,851,836 21.53997°% West University Place 0 0 0.00°% 0 0 0 0.00000°% Unincorporated County 224,708 754,948 39.43°% 75,262,423,020 47,772,123,054 123,034,546,074 38.32449°% (1) U.S. Census Bureau 2018 estimated population (2) Values based off of Harris Central Appraisal District data (2019), Fort Bend Central Appraisal District data (2018), Galveston Central Appraisal District data (2018), and Hazus v4.2 SP03 default general building stock data lChamharc and Waller munficcl (3) Wildfire theat data downloaded from Texas Wildfire Risk Assessment Portal (TxWraD). (4) Percent of residential buildings exposed multiplied by the Estimated Population. NOTE: Unable to determine the building exposure for the Chambers County portion of Baytown and the Waller County portion of Katy due to the census block aggregation level of the general huildino stock data Wildfire Risk Assessment Wildfire Threat (Low) (3) Jurisdiction Number of Structures inWildfire Threat Low Cate gory(2) Residential Commercial Industrial Agriculture Religion Government Education Total Baytown (Harris Co.) 3,925 287 2 3 9 1 2 4,229 Baytown (Chambers Co.) (see Note 1) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Baytown (Total) 3,925 287 2 3 9 1 2 4,229 Bellaire 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Bunker Hill Village 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Deer Park 2,584 192 45 0 2 0 2 2,825 El Lago 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Friendswood (Harris Co.) 2,271 84 1 0 1 0 0 2,357 Friendswood (Galveston Co.) 5,425 162 1 9 0 0 0 5,597 Firendswood (Total) 7,696 246 2 9 1 0 0 7,954 Galena Park 868 19 1 2 0 3 0 4 896 Hedwig Village 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Hilshire Village 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Houston (Harris Co.) 58,493 3,636 246 32 113 14 38 62,572 Humble 2,885 399 35 3 13 1 1 3,337 Hunters Creek Village 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Jacinto City 827 10 0 0 2 0 0 839 Jersey Village 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Katy (Harris Co.) 2,628 114 3 1 6 2 0 2,754 Katy (Fort Bend Co.) 517 224 0 17 3 0 0 761 Katy (Waller Co.) (see Note 1) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Katy (Total) 3,145 338 3 18 9 2 0 3,515 La Porte 3,135 338 27 3 4 0 3 3,510 League City (Harris Co.) 369 7 0 0 1 0 0 377 Missouri City (Harris Co.) 172 20 0 0 0 0 0 192 Missouri City (Fort Bend Co.) 7,412 305 22 26 4 0 0 7,769 Missouri City (Total) 7,584 325 22 26 4 0 1 0 7,961 Morgan's Point (Harris Co.) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Nassau Bay 52 0 0 0 0 0 0 52 Pasadena 4,090 200 29 0 5 2 0 4,326 Pearland (Harris Co.) 576 29 12 0 0 0 0 617 Piney Point Village 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Seabrook (Harris Co.) 828 73 0 1 0 0 0 902 Shoreacres (Harris Co.) 274 0 0 0 0 0 0 274 South Houston 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Southside Place 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spring Valley Village 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Stafford (Harris Co.) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Stafford (Fort Bend Co.) 249 103 5 2 2 0 0 361 Stafford (Total) 249 103 5 2 2 0 0 361 Taylor Lake Village 352 1 0 0 0 0 0 353 Tomball (Harris Co.) 2,272 369 26 1 10 0 9 2,687 Waller (Harris Co.) 196 61 0 0 0 1 0 258 Webster 662 153 2 6 1 0 0 824 West University Place 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Unincorporated County 213,709 9,658 808 108 272 38 115 224,708 (1) U.S. Census Bureau 2018 estimated population (2) Values based off of Harris Central Appraisal District data (2019), Fort Bend Central Appraisal District data (2018), Galveston Central Appraisal District data (2018), and Hazus v4.2 SP03 default general building stock data lChamharc and Waller munficcl (3) Wildfire theat data downloaded from Texas Wildfire Risk Assessment Portal (TxWraD). (4) Percent of residential buildings exposed multiplied by the Estimated Population. NOTE: Unable to determine the building exposure for the Chambers County portion of Baytown and the Waller County portion of Katy due to the census block aggregation level of the general huildino stock data REPETITIVE LOSS PROPERTY ANALYSIS Jurisdiction Total Residential Non- Residential Total Loss Count Total Paid Baytown 0 0 0 0 $0 Bellaire 183 172 11 461 $28,688,973 Bunker Hill Village 53 53 1 0 144 1 $5,894,567 Deer Park 0 0 0 0 $0 Ell -ago 43 38 5 153 $8,757,473 Friendswood 327 321 6 1,300 $66,481,807 Galena Park 12 12 0 41 $1,076,001 Hedwig Village 22 22 0 63 $2,447,266 Hilshire Village 1 1 0 3 $211,347 Houston 9,434 8,846 588 29,913 $1,746,534,815 Humble 48 34 14 141 $9,084,232 Hunters Creek Village 30 29 1 78 $4,415,659 Jacinto City 15 12 3 37 $1,564,940 Jersey Village 155 152 3 479 $32,557,871 Katy 80 73 7 166 $16,064,196 La Porte 307 294 13 961 $32,160,805 League City 366 357 9 1,104 $40,462,256 Missouri City 48 48 0 150 $2,565,113 Morgan's Point 1 1 0 2 $14,838 Nassau Bay 160 158 2 570 $38,725,382 Pasadena 402 376 26 1,712 $61,282,112 Pearland 316 303 13 1,155 $43,188,700 Piney Point Village 52 50 2 159 $11,299,283 Seabrook 209 160 49 704 $31,270,532 Shoreacres 117 115 2 341 $18,914,506 South Houston 65 62 3 269 $8,799,970 Southside Place 2 2 0 6 $262,448 Spring Valley Village 7 7 0 19 $797,236 Stafford 11 10 1 24 $409,970 Taylor Lake Village 81 81 0 335 $12,236,042 Tomball 14 10 4 63 $2,171,228 Waller 8 8 0 23 $466,225 Webster 25 17 8 85 $4,170,330 West University Place 35 33 2 99 $3,293,435 Unincorporated Harris County 5,316 5,139 177 16,480 $868,276,283 Total 17,945 1 16,996 1 949 1 57,240 $3,104,545,841 Repetitive loss data as of 2/28/2018. Data provided by the Harris County Flood Control District (HCFCD). Data includes repetitive loss properties in counties adjacent to Harris County for jurisdictions that are in multiple counties including Harris County. Note 1: 366 properties of the 17,945 properties in the HCFCD dataset were not geocoded. It could not be determined if these properties are located in the FEMA 100-year or Hurricane Harvey flood zones. REPETITIVE LOSS PROPERTY ANALYSIS Jurisdiction Mitigated Non- Mitigated Insured Insured SDF Not Insured Baytown 0 0 0 0 0 Bellaire 10 173 144 3 36 Bunker Hill Village 4 49 1 19 3 31 Deer Park 0 0 0 0 0 El Lago 12 31 18 1 24 Friendswood 119 208 117 20 190 Galena Park 0 12 7 2 3 Hedwig Village 1 21 10 1 11 Hilshire Village 0 1 1 0 0 Houston 859 8,575 5,501 699 3,234 Humble 1 47 19 3 26 Hunters Creek Village 3 27 17 2 11 Jacinto City 2 13 4 0 11 Jersey Village 4 151 85 33 37 Katy 0 80 77 0 3 La Porte 57 250 121 12 174 League City 84 282 223 6 137 Missouri City 2 46 19 4 25 Morgan's Point 0 1 0 0 1 Nassau Bay 17 143 104 18 38 Pasadena 94 308 98 16 288 Pearland 85 231 113 26 177 Piney Point Village 0 52 29 5 18 Seabrook 90 119 104 8 97 Shoreacres 47 70 57 7 53 South Houston 0 65 30 3 32 Southside Place 1 1 1 0 1 Spring Valley Village 1 6 3 0 4 Stafford 0 11 3 0 8 Taylor Lake Village 26 55 41 10 30 Tomball 2 12 5 0 9 Waller 0 8 7 0 1 Webster 1 24 11 5 9 West University Place 1 34 19 1 15 Unincorporated Harris County 1,102 4,214 2,663 264 21389 Total 2,625 1 15,320 1 9,670 1,152 7,123 Repetitive loss data as of 2/28/2018. Data provided by the Harris County Flood Control District (HCFCD). Data includes repetitive loss properties in counties adjacent to Harris County for jurisdictions that are in multiple counties including Harris County. Note 1: 366 properties of the 17,945 properties in the HCFCD dataset were not geocoded. It could not be determined if these properties are located in the FEMA 100-year or Hurricane Harvey flood zones. REPETITIVE LOSS PROPERTY ANALYSIS Jurisdiction In FEMA 100- year Zone (note 1) In Hurricane Harvey Flood Zone (note 1) Baytown 0 0 Bellaire 168 153 Bunker Hill Village 1 5 Deer Park 0 0 El Lago 24 16 Friendswood 190 274 Galena Park 1 9 Hedwig Village 0 4 Hilshire Village 1 1 Houston 5,423 6,971 Humble 16 31 Hunters Creek Village 11 15 Jacinto City 0 11 Jersey Village 143 57 Katy 42 53 La Porte 132 170 League City 106 286 Missouri City 0 35 Morgan's Point 1 0 Nassau Bay 149 114 Pasadena 133 262 Pearland 206 244 Piney Point Village 17 31 Seabrook 198 136 Shoreacres 114 65 South Houston 25 51 Southside Place 2 2 Spring Valley Village 1 0 Stafford 0 9 Taylor Lake Village 70 57 Tomball 1 6 Waller 7 3 Webster 10 16 West University Place 24 17 Unincorporated Harris County 3,020 3,869 Total 10,236 12,973 Repetitive loss data as of 2/28/2018. Data provided by the Harris County Flood Control District (HCFCD). Data includes repetitive loss properties in counties adjacent to Harris County for jurisdictions that are in multiple counties including Harris County. Note 1: 366 properties of the 17,945 properties in the HCFCD dataset were not geocoded. It could not be determined if these properties are located in the FEMA 100-year or Hurricane Harvey flood zones. ALL CRITICAL FACILITIES, BY JURISDICTION Baytown 15 4 7 29 11 Bellaire 6 2 1 10 6 Bunker Hill Village 2 0 0 2 0 Deer Park 10 4 2 34 1 El Lago 2 0 1 0 0 Friendswood 3 5 5 2 1 Galena Park 6 3 2 13 1 Hedwig Village 1 2 1 2 0 Hilshire Village 1 0 0 0 0 Houston 492 133 471 1,180 249 Humble 4 5 9 21 10 Hunters Creek Village 1 0 0 1 0 Jacinto City 2 2 1 3 1 Jersey Village 1 3 1 10 0 Katy 4 2 3 11 3 La Porte 8 4 6 29 1 League City 0 7 7 1 0 Missouri City 0 5 0 2 1 Morgan's Point 0 1 0 6 1 Nassau Bay 0 5 1 1 1 Pasadena 39 11 59 60 13 Pearland 0 3 2 2 0 Piney Point Village 2 1 0 2 0 Seabrook 2 2 6 6 0 Shoreacres 1 4 0 0 0 South Houston 6 2 3 16 0 Southside Place 0 1 1 1 0 Spring Valley Village 0 2 1 2 1 Stafford 2 3 1 0 0 Taylor Lake Village 0 1 0 2 0 Tomball 6 4 5 13 14 Waller 1 2 1 0 0 Webster 2 4 2 12 11 West University Place 1 2 1 1 1 Unincorporated County 561 83 483 1,216 94 Total 1,181 312 1,083 2,690 421 ALL CRITICAL FACILITIES, Baytown 72 22 3 163 Bellaire 10 1 1 37 Bunker Hill Village 5 1 0 10 Deer Park 22 10 2 85 El Lago 0 0 1 4 Friendswood 0 2 1 19 Galena Park 9 14 1 49 Hedwig Village 1 2 0 9 Hilshire Village 4 0 0 5 Houston 1,822 1,083 74 5,504 Humble 40 7 1 97 Hunters Creek Village 1 2 0 5 Jacinto City 7 5 0 21 Jersey Village 2 10 2 29 Katy 11 1 0 35 La Porte 30 32 2 112 League City 2 0 1 18 Missouri City 1 6 4 19 Morgan's Point 0 0 1 9 Nassau Bay 3 0 3 14 Pasadena 82 87 5 356 Pearland 2 3 1 13 Piney Point Village 5 3 1 14 Seabrook 6 4 1 27 Shoreacres 0 2 0 7 South Houston 7 11 1 46 Southside Place 0 1 0 4 Spring Valley Village 4 2 0 12 Stafford 0 0 0 6 Taylor Lake Village 1 0 0 4 Tomball 11 2 1 56 Waller 2 1 0 7 Webster 19 5 1 56 West University Place 6 2 1 15 Unincorporated County 717 714 681 4,549 Total 2,904 2,035 790 11,416 Lake Conroe Dam Failure Baytown 0 0 0 0 0 Bellaire 0 0 0 0 0 Bunker Hill Village 0 0 0 0 0 Deer Park 0 0 0 0 0 El Lago 0 0 0 0 0 Friendswood 0 0 0 0 0 Galena Park 0 0 0 0 0 Hedwig Village 0 0 0 0 0 Hilshire Village 0 0 0 0 0 Houston 3 2 12 7 4 Humble 1 0 1 4 1 Hunters Creek Village 0 0 0 0 0 Jacinto City 0 0 0 0 0 Jersey Village 0 0 0 0 0 Katy 0 0 0 0 0 La Porte 0 0 0 0 0 League City 0 0 0 0 0 Missouri City 0 0 0 0 0 Morgan's Point 0 0 0 0 0 Nassau Bay 0 0 0 0 0 Pasadena 0 0 0 0 0 Pearland 0 0 0 0 0 Piney Point Village 0 0 0 0 0 Seabrook 0 0 0 0 0 Shoreacres 0 0 0 0 0 South Houston 0 0 0 0 0 Southside Place 0 0 0 0 0 Spring Valley Village 0 0 0 0 0 Stafford 0 0 0 0 0 Taylor Lake Village 0 0 0 0 0 Tomball 0 0 0 0 0 Waller 0 0 0 0 0 Webster 0 0 0 0 0 West University Place 0 0 0 0 0 Unincorporated County 1 1 24 13 0 Total 5 3 37 24 5 it Lake Conroe Dam Failure k- Baytown 0 0 0 0 Bellaire 0 0 0 0 Bunker Hill Village 0 0 0 0 Deer Park 0 0 0 0 El Lago 0 0 0 0 Friendswood 0 0 0 0 Galena Park 0 0 0 0 Hedwig Village 0 0 0 0 Hilshire Village 0 0 0 0 Houston 2 19 4 53 Humble 5 3 0 15 Hunters Creek Village 0 0 0 0 Jacinto City 0 0 0 0 Jersey Village 0 0 0 0 Katy 0 0 0 0 La Porte 0 0 0 0 League City 0 0 0 0 Missouri City 0 0 0 0 Morgan's Point 0 0 0 0 Nassau Bay 0 0 0 0 Pasadena 0 0 0 0 Pearland 0 0 0 0 Piney Point Village 0 0 0 0 Seabrook 0 0 0 0 Shoreacres 0 0 0 0 South Houston 0 0 0 0 Southside Place 0 0 0 0 Spring Valley Village 0 0 0 0 Stafford 0 0 0 0 Taylor Lake Village 0 0 0 0 Tomball 0 0 0 0 Waller 0 0 0 0 Webster 0 0 0 0 West University Place 0 0 0 0 Unincorporated County 1 13 12 65 Total 8 35 16 133 1% Annual Chance Flood Baytown 0 0 0 3 0 Bellaire 5 2 1 7 5 Bunker Hill Village 0 0 0 0 0 Deer Park 0 0 0 11 0 El Lago 0 0 1 0 0 Friendswood 1 0 1 0 0 Galena Park 0 1 0 2 0 Hedwig Village 0 0 0 0 0 Hilshire Village 0 0 0 0 0 Houston 62 15 117 156 38 Humble 0 0 0 1 0 Hunters Creek Village 0 0 0 0 0 Jacinto City 0 0 0 1 0 Jersey Village 1 0 0 0 0+ Katy 0 1 0 0 1 La Porte 1 0 3 2 0 League City 0 0 3 0 0 Missouri City 0 0 0 0 0 Morgan's Point 0 0 0 0 0 Nassau Bay 0 2 0 0 11 0 Pasadena 3 1 30 11 2 Pearland 0 1 2 1 0 Piney Point Village 0 0 0 0 0 Seabrook 2 1 6 5 0 Shoreacres 1 4 0 0 0 South Houston 2 0 1 8 0 Southside Place 0 1 1 1 0 Spring Valley Village 0 0 0 0 0 Stafford 0 0 0 0 0 Taylor Lake Village 0 0 0 0 0 Tomball 0 0 0 0 0 Waller 0 0 0 0 0 Webster 0 0 0 0 2 West University Place 1 0 0 0 0 Unincorporated County 37 11 123 182 4 Total 116 40 289 391 52 1% Annual Chance Flood Baytown 4 18 3 28 Bellaire 9 1 1 31 Bunker Hill Village 0 0 0 0 Deer Park 3 6 0 20 El Lago 0 0 0 1 Friendswood 0 2 0 4 Galena Park 0 6 1 10 Hedwig Village 0 0 0 0 Hilshire Village 0 0 0 0 Houston 230 648 23 1,289 Humble 1 2 0 4 Hunters Creek Village 0 2 0 2 Jacinto City 0 3 0 4 Jersey Village 1 7 1 10 Katy 0 1 0 3 La Porte 4 24 0 34 League City 2 0 0 5 Missouri City 0 3 0 3 Morgan's Point 0 0 0 0 Nassau Bay 3 0 1 6 Pasadena 8 70 1 126 Pearland 2 3 0 9 Piney Point Village 0 2 0 2 Seabrook 3 4 1 22 Shoreacres 0 2 0 7 South Houston 3 11 0 25 Southside Place 0 1 0 4 Spring Valley Village 0 2 0 2 Stafford 0 0 0 0 Taylor Lake Village 1 0 0 1 Tomball 0 0 0 0 Waller 0 1 0 1 Webster 1 2 0 5 West University Place 0 0 0 1 Unincorporated County 76 373 156 962 Total 351 1,194 188 2,621 Harvey Inundation Area Baytown 7 3 2 14 4 Bellaire 4 0 0 8 2 Bunker Hill Village 0 0 0 1 0 Deer Park 8 3 2 18 1 El Lago 1 0 0 0 0 Friendswood 1 1 1 0 1 Galena Park 6 1 2 2 1 Hedwig Village 1 2 1 1 0 Hilshire Village 1 0 0 0 0 Houston 241 43 259 600 104 Humble 0 0 3 8 5 Hunters Creek Village 0 0 0 0 0 Jacinto City 0 2 0 2 1 Jersey Village 0 2 0 5 0 Katy 2 1 0 8 1 La Porte 7 4 5 15 1 League City 0 3 6 1 0 Missouri City 0 1 0 2 1 Morgan's Point 0 1 0 4 1 Nassau Bay 0 2 1 1 0 Pasadena 29 8 35 35 5 Pearland 0 1 1 1 0 Piney Point Village 1 0 0 2 0 Seabrook 2 1 6 6 0 Shoreacres 1 4 0 0 0 South Houston 5 2 3 14 0 Southside Place 0 0 1 0 0 Spring Valley Village 0 0 0 0 0 Stafford 2 1 0 0 0 Taylor Lake Village 0 0 0 1 0 Tomball 1 2 2 4 3 Waller 0 0 0 0 0 Webster 1 3 1 7 8 West University Place 1 2 1 0 0 Unincorporated County 203 31 205 577 35 Total 525 124 537 1,337 174 Harvey Inundation Area Baytown 43 17 1 91 Bellaire 2 0 1 17 Bunker Hill Village 0 0 0 1 Deer Park 18 8 0 58 El Lago 0 0 0 1 Friendswood 0 2 0 6 Galena Park 6 9 1 28 Hedwig Village 0 2 0 7 Hilshire Village 3 0 0 4 Houston 962 845 32 3,086 Humble 20 5 0 41 Hunters Creek Village 1 1 0 2 Jacinto City 3 5 0 13 Jersey Village 1 9 1 18 Katy 4 1 0 17 La Porte 21 22 1 76 League City 2 0 0 12 Missouri City 0 5 3 12 Morgan's Point 0 0 1 7 Nassau Bay 2 0 2 8 Pasadena 50 72 4 238 Pearland 2 3 0 8 Piney Point Village 3 3 1 10 Seabrook 3 3 1 22 Shoreacres 0 2 0 7 South Houston 6 11 0 41 Southside Place 0 1 0 2 Spring Valley Village 2 2 0 4 Stafford 0 0 0 3 Taylor Lake Village 1 0 0 2 Tomball 2 2 1 17 Waller 0 1 0 1 Webster 12 5 0 37 West University Place 3 2 0 9 Unincorporated County 306 475 349 2,181 Total 1,478 1,513 399 6,087 Wildfire Ignition Density Very High Baytown 0 0 0 0 Bellaire 0 0 0 0 Bunker Hill Village 0 0 0 0 Deer Park 0 0 0 0 El Lago 0 0 0 0 Friendswood 0 0 0 0 Galena Park 0 0 0 0 Hedwig Village 0 0 0 0 Hilshire Village 0 0 0 0 Houston 0 0 0 0 Humble 0 0 0 0 Hunters Creek Village 0 0 0 0 Jacinto City 0 0 0 0 Jersey Village 0 0 0 0 Katy 0 0 0 0 La Porte 0 0 0 0 League City 0 0 0 0 Missouri City 0 0 0 0 Morgan's Point 0 0 0 0 Nassau Bay 0 0 0 0 Pasadena 0 0 0 0 Pearland 0 0 0 0 Piney Point Village 0 0 0 0 Seabrook 0 0 0 0 Shoreacres 0 0 0 0 South Houston 0 0 0 0 Southside Place 0 0 0 0 Spring Valley Village 0 0 0 0 Stafford 0 0 0 0 Taylor Lake Village 0 0 0 0 Tomball 0 0 0 0 Waller 0 0 0 0 Webster 0 0 0 0 West University Place 0 0 0 0 Unincorporated County 0 0 0 1 Total 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Wildfire Ignition Density Very High Baytown 0 0 0 0 Bellaire 0 0 0 0 Bunker Hill Village 0 0 0 0 Deer Park 0 0 0 0 El Lago 0 0 0 0 Friendswood 0 0 0 0 Galena Park 0 0 0 0 Hedwig Village 0 0 0 0 Hilshire Village 0 0 0 0 Houston 0 0 0 0 Humble 0 0 0 0 Hunters Creek Village 0 0 0 0 Jacinto City 0 0 0 0 Jersey Village 0 0 0 0 Katy 0 0 0 0 La Porte 0 0 0 0 League City 0 0 0 0 Missouri City 0 0 0 0 Morgan's Point 0 0 0 0 Nassau Bay 0 0 0 0 Pasadena 0 0 0 0 Pearland 0 0 0 0 Piney Point Village 0 0 0 0 Seabrook 0 0 0 0 Shoreacres 0 0 0 0 South Houston 0 0 0 0 Southside Place 0 0 0 0 Spring Valley Village 0 0 0 0 Stafford 0 0 0 0 Taylor Lake Village 0 0 0 0 Tomball 0 0 0 0 Waller 0 0 0 0 Webster 0 0 0 0 West University Place 0 0 0 0 Unincorporated County 0 0 1 2 Total 0 0 1 2 Wildfire Ignition Density High Baytown 0 0 0 0 0 Bellaire 0 0 0 0 0 Bunker Hill Village 0 0 0 0 0 Deer Park 0 0 0 0 0 El Lago 0 0 0 0 0 Friendswood 0 0 0 0 0 Galena Park 0 0 0 0 0 Hedwig Village 0 0 0 0 0 Hilshire Village 0 0 0 0 0 Houston 0 0 0 0 0 Humble 0 0 0 0 0 Hunters Creek Village 0 0 0 0 0 Jacinto City 0 0 0 0 0 Jersey Village 0 0 0 0 0 Katy 0 0 0 0 0 La Porte 0 0 0 0 0 League City 0 0 0 0 0 Missouri City 0 0 0 0 0 Morgan's Point 0 0 0 0 0 Nassau Bay 0 0 0 0 0 Pasadena 0 0 0 0 0 Pearland 0 0 0 0 0 Piney Point Village 0 0 0 0 0 Seabrook 0 0 0 0 0 Shoreacres 0 0 0 0 0 South Houston 0 0 0 0 0 Southside Place 0 0 0 0 0 Spring Valley Village 0 0 0 0 0 Stafford 0 0 0 0 0 Taylor Lake Village 0 0 0 0 0 Tomball 0 0 0 0 0 Waller 0 0 0 0 0 Webster 0 0 0 0 0 West University Place 0 0 0 0 0 Unincorporated County 2 0 2 1 0 Total 2 0 2 1 0 Wildfire Ignition Density High Baytown 0 0 0 0 Bellaire 0 0 0 0 Bunker Hill Village 0 0 0 0 Deer Park 0 0 0 0 El Lago 0 0 0 0 Friendswood 0 0 0 0 Galena Park 0 0 0 0 Hedwig Village 0 0 0 0 Hilshire Village 0 0 0 0 Houston 0 0 0 0 Humble 0 0 0 0 Hunters Creek Village 0 0 0 0 Jacinto City 0 0 0 0 Jersey Village 0 0 0 0 Katy 0 0 0 0 La Porte 0 0 0 0 League City 0 0 0 0 Missouri City 0 0 0 0 Morgan's Point 0 0 0 0 Nassau Bay 0 0 0 0 Pasadena 0 0 0 0 Pearland 0 0 0 0 Piney Point Village 0 0 0 0 Seabrook 0 0 0 0 Shoreacres 0 0 0 0 South Houston 0 0 0 0 Southside Place 0 0 0 0 Spring Valley Village 0 0 0 0 Stafford 0 0 0 0 Taylor Lake Village 0 0 0 0 Tomball 0 0 0 0 Waller 0 0 0 0 Webster 0 0 0 0 West University Place 0 0 0 0 Unincorporated County 0 0 1 6 Total 0 0 1 6 Wildfire Ignition Density Moderate Baytown 0 0 0 0 0 Bellaire 0 0 0 0 0 Bunker Hill Village 0 0 0 0 0 Deer Park 0 0 0 0 0 El Lago 0 0 0 0 0 Friendswood 0 0 0 0 0 Galena Park 0 0 0 0 0 Hedwig Village 0 0 0 0 0 Hilshire Village 0 0 0 0 0 Houston 0 0 0 1 0 Humble 0 0 0 0 0 Hunters Creek Village 0 0 0 0 0 Jacinto City 0 0 0 0 0 Jersey Village 0 0 0 0 0 Katy 0 0 0 0 0 La Porte 0 0 0 0 0 League City 0 0 0 0 0 Missouri City 0 0 0 0 0 Morgan's Point 0 0 0 0 0 Nassau Bay 0 0 0 0 0 Pasadena 0 0 0 0 0 Pearland 0 0 0 0 0 Piney Point Village 0 0 0 0 0 Seabrook 0 0 0 0 0 Shoreacres 0 0 0 0 0 South Houston 0 0 0 0 0 Southside Place 0 0 0 0 0 Spring Valley Village 0 0 0 0 0 Stafford 0 0 0 0 0 Taylor Lake Village 0 0 0 0 0 Tomball 0 0 0 0 0 Waller 0 0 0 0 0 Webster 0 0 0 0 0 West University Place 0 0 0 0 0 Unincorporated County 11 0 0 13 1 Total 11 0 0 14 1 Wildfire Ignition Density Moderate Baytown 0 0 0 0 Bellaire 0 0 0 0 Bunker Hill Village 0 0 0 0 Deer Park 0 0 0 0 El Lago 0 0 0 0 Friendswood 0 0 0 0 Galena Park 0 0 0 0 Hedwig Village 0 0 0 0 Hilshire Village 0 0 0 0 Houston 0 0 0 1 Humble 0 0 0 0 Hunters Creek Village 0 0 0 0 Jacinto City 0 0 0 0 Jersey Village 0 0 0 0 Katy 0 0 0 0 La Porte 0 0 0 0 League City 0 0 0 0 Missouri City 0 0 0 0 Morgan's Point 0 0 0 0 Nassau Bay 0 0 0 0 Pasadena 0 0 0 0 Pearland 0 0 1 1 Piney Point Village 0 0 0 0 Seabrook 0 0 0 0 Shoreacres 0 0 0 0 South Houston 0 0 0 0 Southside Place 0 0 0 0 Spring Valley Village 0 0 0 0 Stafford 0 0 0 0 Taylor Lake Village 0 0 0 0 Tomball 0 0 0 0 Waller 0 0 0 0 Webster 0 0 0 0 West University Place 0 0 0 0 Unincorporated County 3 0 12 40 Total 3 0 13 42 Wildfire Threat - Low Baytown 5 1 0 6 0 Bellaire 0 0 0 0 0 Bunker Hill Village 0 0 0 0 0 Deer Park 2 0 0 9 0 El Lago 0 0 0 0 0 Friendswood 1 3 5 2 1 Galena Park 1 0 0 2 0 Hedwig Village 0 0 0 0 0 Hilshire Village 0 0 0 0 0 Houston 49 21 115 206 13 Humble 3 2 7 15 6 Hunters Creek Village 0 0 0 0 0 Jacinto City 0 0 0 1 0 Jersey Village 0 0 0 0 0 Katy 3 1 3 8 1 La Porte 6 2 0 14 0 League City 0 4 7 1 0 Missouri City 0 2 0 1 0 Morgan's Point 0 0 0 1 0 Nassau Bay 0 0 0 0 0 Pasadena 2 2 25 16 3 Pearland 0 3 2 2 0 Piney Point Village 0 0 0 0 0 Seabrook 0 1 0 2 0 Shoreacres 1 2 0 0 0 South Houston 0 0 0 0 0 Southside Place 0 0 0 0 0 Spring Valley Village 0 0 0 0 0 Stafford 1 2 1 0 0 Taylor Lake Village 0 0 0 0 0 Tomball 5 1 1 10 10 Waller 1 1 1 0 0 Webster 0 0 0 3 1 West University Place 0 0 0 0 0 Unincorporated County 224 28 311 500 32 Total 304 76 478 799 67 Wildfire Threat - Low Baytown 11 9 0 32 Bellaire 0 0 0 0 Bunker Hill Village 0 0 0 0 Deer Park 2 2 0 15 El Lago 0 0 0 0 Friendswood 0 2 1 15 Galena Park 1 5 0 9 Hedwig Village 0 0 0 0 Hilshire Village 0 0 0 0 Houston 153 191 26 774 Humble 12 7 0 52 Hunters Creek Village 0 0 0 0 Jacinto City 2 5 0 8 Jersey Village 0 0 0 0 Katy 6 1 0 23 La Porte 8 18 2 50 League City 2 0 1 15 Missouri City 1 1 1 6 Morgan's Point 0 0 0 1 Nassau Bay 0 0 1 1 Pasadena 6 20 1 75 Pearland 2 3 0 12 Piney Point Village 0 0 0 0 Seabrook 0 1 0 4 Shoreacres 0 2 0 5 South Houston 0 0 0 0 Southside Place 0 0 0 0 Spring Valley Village 0 0 0 0 Stafford 0 0 0 4 Taylor Lake Village 1 0 0 1 Tomball 6 2 1 36 Waller 2 1 0 6 Webster 3 3 1 11 West University Place 0 0 0 0 Unincorporated County 274 320 312 2,001 Total 492 593 347 3,156 Harris County Multi -Hazard Mitigation Action Plan Appendix D. Detailed Planning Area Flood History D. DETAILED PLANNING AREA FLOOD HISTORY Widespread 09/1900 6,000 to $40,000,000 The Galveston Hurricane of 1900 struck on August 27, causing 8,000 widespread flooding in Harris County well into the month of region- September. wide Harris County, 1907 0 N/A A major storm floods much of Houston and Harris County. Houston Harris County, 12/1913 0 N/A A major Brazos River storm spread to Harris County, heavily impacting especially the the entire area. Many citizens were evacuated. Buffalo, White Oak, Brays and Greens Bayou areas Harris County, 08/1915 0 $56,000,000 Another Galveston -area hurricane caused major damage throughout Houston Harris County. Buffalo Bayou and widespread areas of Houston experienced heavy flooding. Harris County, 04/1929 0 N/A An enormous gulf storm with a duration of 14 hours descended on Houston, County- Harris County and specifically Houston. Many areas of the county wide reported rainfall close to 10 inches. Extensive damage was sustained by businesses and residences in almost all areas of the county. All bayous are reported to have been out of their banks. Harris County 05/1929 0 N/A Still recovering from the prior month's flooding, the Harris County area was hit by another major storm. Structural damage, heavy street flooding and widespread crop damage was reported. The San Jacinto River was reported to be 30 feet above normal. Harris County 05/1930 0 N/A A large rainstorm cell remained stationary over Harris County for three days. Rainfall amounts were reported to be as high as 12.5 inches in some areas. The average rainfall amount for the entire area was eight inches. Harris County, 08/1932 40 N/A A hurricane severely impacted Freeport. Widespread flooding especially Freeport occurred on all bayous throughout Harris County. Harris County, 12/1935 0 N/A A massive storm inundated Houston and Harris County. Buffalo Houston Bayou was reported to be 52 feet above normal. The overwhelming devastation lead to the creation of the Harris County Flood Control District in 1937. Northeast Harris 11/1940 0 10,000 head of Heavy rains lasted for five days in northeast Harris County. County cattle lost Harris County 07/1943 0 $16,500,000 A hurricane near Galveston caused extensive flooding in Harris County. Harris County 10/1943 0 N/A A hurricane near Freeport flooded more than 11,000 residences, 7 in Harris County. TETRA TECH D-1 Harris County Multi -Hazard Mitigation Action Plan; Volume 1—Area-Wide Elements Harris County 08/1945 0 N/A A hurricane affecting the area produced the heaviest rainfall previously recorded in Harris County: over 15 inches in 24 hours. Flooding was reported on all bayous and streams. Harris County, 02/1950 0 N/A A thunderstorm preceded a cold front resulting in Greens Bayou especially the running out of its banks. Area residents were evacuated from the Greens Bayou and area. Baytown reported flooding as well. Baytown areas Northern County 05/1955 0 N/A A major thunderstorm hits the northern portion of Harris County. Harris Residential flooding was reported in the area. Harris County 06/1957 0 N/A Hurricane Audrey crossed the Louisiana/ Texas coast, causing flooding in Harris County. Houston 10/1959 0 N/A A thunderstorm with heavy rains flooded more than 100 residences in the Houston area. Harris County, 06/1960 0 N/A A thunderstorm inundated many areas throughout Harris County. especially the Over 200 families were evacuated. Cypress Creek, Spring Creek and San Jacinto River areas Southern Harris 09/1961 34 in $300,000,000 Hurricane Carla pounded the Gulf Coast, taking 34 lives. Heavy County Texas region -wide flooding was reported in southern Harris County. Harris County 02/1969 0 $3,300,000 A thunderstorm, preceding a cold front, caused the flooding of 250 area residences and businesses. Northern Harris 03/1972 0 N/A A thunderstorm, preceding a cold front, caused the flooding of much County of northern Harris County. Over 700 families were evacuated. Harris County 06/1973 10 $50,000,000 A major storm hit Harris County, bringing 10 to 15 inches of rain. Sims and Greens bayous are reported out of banks. Harris County, 07/1979 0 $700,000,000 Tropical Storm Claudette brought record rainfall amounts to the area. especially Alvin, region -wide Forty-three inches of rain within a 24-hour period fell in Alvin — a and surrounding standing U.S. record. area Harris County 05/1983 0 $14,000,000 A large thunderstorm flooded areas along several creeks and bayous. Harris County and 08/1983 0 $1 billion region- Hurricane Alicia struck Galveston and Harris County. Most of the surrounding area wide damage was caused by wind. Harris County, 09/1983 0 $38,000,000 Nine inches of rain fell south of downtown Houston. More than 1,000 especially residences were flooded along Brays Bayou. downtown Houston and Brays Bayou Harris County 05/1989 0 N/A A major storm delivered seven to 14 inches of rain over much of Harris County. More than 1,400 residences were flooded. Harris County 06/1989 0 N/A A tropical storm named Allison dropped six to 12 inches of rain over portions of Harris County. Nearly 1,100 residences were flooded. Harris County, 03/1992 0 N/A A major storm flooded more than 1,500 residences and businesses. especially 1-10 Many bayous flooded out of banks. Much of Interstate 10 was under water. Austin, Brazoria, 10/16/1994 17 $900,000,000 A major storm inundated southeast Texas, with four to 29 inches of Chambers, - rain falling on Harris County within a three-day period. Colorado, Fort 10/18/1994 Bend, Galveston, Harris, D-2 TETRA TECH Appendix D. Detailed Planning Area Flood History Liberty, Matagorda, More than 13,000 people had to be evacuated during the floods and Montgomery, more than 3,400 residences in 90 subdivisions were damaged in Walker, Waller, Harris County. An estimated 22,000 residences were damaged Wharton region -wide. Harris, Houston, 09/18/1996 0 $1,500,000 Widespread street flooding in downtown Houston and Pasadena. Pasadena Homes and businesses in Pasadena were flooded. Harris, Houston 09/27/1996 0 $0 Street flooding in NE Houston. Southeast Harris 01/27/1997 0 $0 Widespread street flooding. County Harris, Houston 03/12/1997 0 $130,000 Training rains caused street flooding in south and southwest Houston. Training rains caused significant flooding throughout the Houston metropolitan area. Many bayous/streams were overbanks for much of the day. Widespread street flooding. Portions of 1-10 were shut down from 8 AM to 2 PM due to high waters. Harris, Houston 04/04/1997 0 $0 Street flooding in Houston. Harris, County- 04/25/1997 0 $250,000 A strong easterly fetch off the Gulf produced coastal flooding along Wide Houston, the upper Texas coast from April 25th-27th. The most extensive Jamaica Beach, flooding/damage occurred from High Island to Jamaica Beach along Nassau Bay, the Gulf and the western shore of Galveston Bay. Tides ran between Seabrook, 2-4 feet above astronomically predicted levels. Beach erosion, road Galveston damage, and foundation damage were common especially in Galveston County due to the high waters. In Seabrook (Harris County), high waters on Toddville road made its way into approximately 12 homes and voluntary evacuation of the immediate bayfront was requested. Many residents lost fishing piers adjacent to their lots. Nassau Bay (Harris County), also reported roads flooded along the waterfront. 5-7" rainfall caused street, bayou, and creek flooding. Harris, Houston 05/21/1997 1 $50,000 Street flooding in west Houston from 6-8" training rains. An elderly man drove into a flooded underpass (about 8 ft deep) where he drowned. Harris, Houston 05/24/1997 0 $250,000 Severe flooding in Houston. Fifty to 75 homes received flood damage. Harris, Houston 05/30/1997 0 $15,000 Street flooding due to 3- to 5-inch rains. Approximately 6 homes sustained water damage Harris, Webster 11/28/1997 0 $3,000 High water on feeder road at 1-45 & Nasa Rd 1. Harris, County- 12/20/1997 0 $20,000 Street flooding in Humble. Magnolia Bar & Grill (SW Houston) roof Wide, Humble, collapsed due to heavy rain. Houston Harris, Pasadena 01/04/1998 0 $3,000 Red Bluff in Pasadena flooded, feeder roads near Almeda Mall flooded Harris, Bellaire 01/06/1998 0 $5,000 Street flooding. Harris, Pasadena 01/21/1998 0 $5,000 Street flooding across the area, especially in the Pasadena area. Harris, County- 09/11/1998 0 $0 Flooding from T.S. Frances. Damage included in previous report. Wide Harris County, 09/1998 0 N/A Tropical Storm Frances caused extensive flooding along White Oak especially White Bayou and other bayous, causing flood damage to more than 1,300 Oak Bayou and residences. other bayous Harris, Baytown 09/14/1998 0 $5,000 High water on Desee Rd, Sterling Rd, and Main St. Harris 10/04/1998 0 $5,000 Feeder roads flooded along 1-45 in southern parts of the county. TETRA TECH D-3 Harris County Multi -Hazard Mitigation Action Plan; Volume 1—Area-Wide Elements Austin, Brazoria, 10/17/1998- 8 $418,000 Many areas received in excess of 10 inches of rainfall. Three hundred Brazos, Chambers, 10/18/1998 and fifty to 375 homes were impacted region -wide: four were Colorado, Fort destroyed, 143 sustained major damage, and 209 received minor Bend, Grimes, damage. Hundreds of livestock were lost and 7,500 acres of cropland Harris, Jackson, were damaged. Most of the damage within Harris County occurred in Liberty, Madison, the northern portion of the county. Matagorda, Montgomery, Waller, Wharton, Humble, County - Wide Austin, Brazoria, 11/12/1998- 0 $239,000 Rainfall amounts across the area averaged five to seven inches, with Brazos, Colorado, 11/14/1998 large areas receiving seven to nine inches. Isolated locations received Fort Bend, Harris, more than 10 inches of rain. Homes flooded in several communities. Jackson, Liberty, Most of the damage within Harris County occurred in the northern Madison, portion of the county. Matagorda, Montgomery, Polk, San Jacinto, Walker, Waller, Wharton Harris, Bellaire 03/19/1999 0 $300,000 Widespread flooding in southwest Houston. Numerous streets in the Bellaire area were flooded. Several on -ramps to U.S. 59, Loop 610, and U.S. 90, as well as the intersection of 1-10 and Beltway 8, were impassable due to high water. Harris 04/02/2000 0 $50,000 Significant over curb flooding in the Silverstone and Creekstone subdivisions along Mason Rd. An upper level disturbance spawned a large cluster of thunderstorms over the southern half of southeast Texas in the early morning of April 2nd. Harris, Liberty, and Montgomery counties were hardest hit with widespread reports of large hail, downburst wind damage and flooding. Harris, Liberty 05/19/2000 0 $10,400,000 Major flooding on Greens, Airtex, Rankin, and Aldine -Westfield Roads in Harris County. Four homes were damaged. Brazoria, 09/13/2000 0 $350,000 No specific details available for Harris County. Galveston, Harris Harris, Houston 03/28/2001 0 $35,000 Flooding on Interstate 10 between Washington Street and Interstate 610. Flooding on Milam and Travis Streets in downtown Houston. Harris County, 06/2001 22 $5,000,000 Referred to as "The Great Flood of 2001," Tropical Storm Allison hit Houston Harris County and Houston with a double punch, beginning June 5 and dealing a final blow three days later as the storm moved back into the Gulf of Mexico. The second pass produced extraordinary rainfall amounts northeast of downtown Houston. The Texas Medical Center was shutdown and the north portion of downtown Houston was decimated. Two million people were simultaneously affected by the storm. More than 70,000 residences were flooded. Brazoria, Fort 08/28/2001- 0 $1,463,000 Heavy rainfall caused street flooding and water in some homes. Some Bend, Galveston, 08/31/2001 roads were closed. Harris Harris, Houston, 04/08/2002 $70,000 There was extensive street flooding and road closures in Pasadena, Pasadena along Red Bluff, along State Highway 225, and at Spencer Highway. Street flooding 2 to 3 feet deep was reported at Dixie Farm Road and Beamer, and around San Jacinto College South located on Beamer. D-4 TETRA TECH Appendix D. Detailed Planning Area Flood History Brazoria, Galveston, Harris Harris, Houston, Bellaire, Jersey Village Harris, Pasadena, Deer Park Harris, Houston Brazoria, Galveston, Harris, Houston Fort Bend, Harris, Liberty, Houston Harris, Houston Harris, Pasadena Harris and surrounding area Harris, Houston, Memorial Village (The Villages), Pasadena Harris, Houston Harris, Houston Harris, Houston, Westfield Harris, Houston, Aldine Harris, Houston Harris, Houston, Clear Lake area Harris Harris Harris, Houston, Seabrook 08/15/2002 0 08/22/2002 0 09/08/2002 0 09/19/2002 0 10/24/2002 0 10/28/2002 0 $325,000 Numerous roads in Harris County were flooded. $10,000 Flooding from Bellaire to Jersey Village. $15,000 Flooding in Pasadena and Deer Park; many roads closed. $55,000 Many roads under water and impassable especially north of downtown Houston and near the west loop. $250,000 No specific details available for Harris County. $775,000 12/04/2002 0 $10,000 08/31/2003 0 $3,000 11/17/2003 1 $3,000,000 05/01/2004 0 $3,000 Widespread flooding across Harris County, resulting in many streets becoming impassable. Flooding in the Southwest Freeway and Hillcroft areas. Flooding in Pasadena. As much as nine inches of rain fell in the area causing several spots of localized flooding. Additionally, 13 tornados were reported. A total of 24 tornados touched down during this 15 hour period of severe weather in southeastern Texas on November 17, 2003. In addition to these tornados, a major flood developed over Harris and surrounding counties during the middle of this tornadic outbreak. Over 300 homes, along with hundreds of vehicles, were flooded. Southbound feeder of I-45 flooded at West Gulfbank; flooding also observed in and around Memorial Village and Pasadena. 05/13/2004 0 $7,000 Street flooding in and around Kingwood. 6/13/2004 0 $50,000 Numerous reports of street flooding in downtown Houston and the Medical Center area. 11/22/2004 0 $15,000 Flooding reported between the Interstate 45 northbound feeder and FM 1960. Clay Road covered with a foot and a half of water and impassable. 05/29/2005 0 $10,000 Flooding reported between the Interstate 45 northbound feeder and FM 1960. Clay Road covered with a foot and a half of water and impassable. 7/14/2005 0 $115,000 Flash flooding along Interstate 10 and also in and around Downtown Houston. Ten homes and two apartments in the Cloverleaf area had flood damage. 12/14/2005 0 $40,000 Flooding in and around the Houston area from 3.50 to 4.00 inches of rain. Water was up to one foot deep in Clear Lake area. 6/19/2006 0 $3,300,000 Approximately 3,370 homes were flooded. Homes along these bayous and creeks had flood water in them from 2 to 8 inches to as _ high as 18 to 20 inches. 6/22/2006 0 $200,000 40 vehicles were flooded. 10/16/2006 4 $750,000 Heavy rain caused widespread county and metro flooding of numerous roads. There were approximately 125 flooded homes and 92 flooded apartment units. There were four directly related drowning fatalities during this episode. Toddville Road in Seabrook was flooded. TETRA TECH D-5 Harris County Multi -Hazard Mitigation Action Plan; Volume 1—Area-Wide Elements Harris, Tomball, 10/26/2006 0 $150,000 Flooded furniture store with six inches of water. Few Tomball area Baytown businesses and homes were reported flooded. Houston Flood Control District rain gauges were measuring near 4-inch per hour rainfall rates. Training thunderstorms moving across eastern Texas created flooding problems as the ground was already saturated from earlier month and morning rainfall. Flood waters entered five homes. Harris, Houston, 5/10/2007 0 $650,000 Brickhouse Gully exceeded its banks. Total flooded northern Houston Cypress, Spring metro home count for the event was between 70 to 90 homes. Valley Village, Aldine, Southside Place Harris, Houston, 05/30/2007 0 $0 High water over Flintdale Street causing the road to close. Metro Hedwig Village, traffic reported several cars underwater at Old Greenhouse Road and Cypress Kieth Harrow Boulevard near Bear Creek. Harris, Houston 07/06/2007 0 $50,000 Numerous reports of street flooding around Houston metro. Reports of flooding at the intersection of Mesa Road and the Sam Houston Parkway. Flooding also reported around downtown Houston and northward up Interstate 45 toward the West Mont Houston area, where various roads were closed due to high water making them impassable. Harris, Deer Park, 8/16/2007 3 $750,000 Numerous roads flooded and impassable across the eastern half of Pasadena, La Harris County. Flooding in Deer Park, with two feet of water reported Porte, Clear Lake. over portions of East Boulevard. Pasadena area flooding, as well as Beltway 8 exits being closed due to high water. House flooding also occurred in Pasadena. At least a dozen schools, majority of these being in East Houston, received water damage. There were reports of Vince Bayou exceeding its banks. Homes and businesses were also flooded in the La Porte area where some structures were inundated with more than a foot of water. There were three fatalities. Two men died when heavy rainfall collapsed the roof of a grocery store in Clear Lake. A third fatality occurred when an eighteen-wheeler was accidentally driven into a 26 foot deep flooded retention pond in La Porte. Harris, Houston, 10/15/2007 0 $5,000 Flooding caused numerous road closures north of Houston. Road Humble closures were reported along FM 1960 and the Cypress Creek area. Harris, Houston, 09112- 25 $3,000,000,000 Storm tide ranged from 10 to 15 feet above mean sea level along the Clear Lake, 14/008 Galveston Bay, Clear Lake and associated tributaries which caused Shoreacres, Taylor major flooding of coastal areas. Number of injuries unknown. Lake Village, Shoreacres, Clear Lake Shores, Seabrook, and Taylor Lake Village Seabrook, County- were among the hard hit areas. There were at least 25 fatalities wide indirectly related to Ike. Harris, Houston, 10/15/2008 0 $20,000 Flash flooding occurred from east southeast of the Aldine area Aldine, Humble northeastward toward Humble. Several vehicles were partially submerged in the flood waters. D-6 TETRA TECH Appendix D. Detailed Planning Area Flood History Harris, Houston, 4/18/2009 5 $3,500,000 Heavy rainfall produced totals of 8 to 10 inches. Numerous roads Jersey Village, were closed in areas of the county. More than 350 homes were Houston Heights, flooded due to the heavy rains and flooding along bayous. In some La Porte, areas residential streets were reported to have more than one foot of Pasadena, Webster standing water. In the northern part of the county five children were and Hobby killed after the car they were riding in inadvertently drove into a drainage ditch that was filled with nine feet of water from the heavy rainfall. Two adults and one child were able to escape the floodwaters, but the five younger children, all under 7 years old, were not able to escape. Numerous roads were closed in areas of the county, including Jersey Village, Houston Heights, La Porte, Pasadena, Webster, and near the Houston Hobby airport. Harris, 4/24/2009 0 $1,000,000 Slow moving thunderstorms across the southern portion of Harris Friendswood, County produced widespread flooding and road closures. The Baytown heaviest rainfall fell along a line from Friendswood to Baytown, with totals of 7 to 8 inches during a 6 hour period. Many secondary roads along Interstate 45 became impassable for most of the evening. Forty to fifty homes received water damage from this event. Harris, Bellaire, 4/28/2009 1 $15,000,000 A large, slow moving thunderstorm produced widespread heavy Missouri City, rainfall across western portions of Harris County during the early morning hours. Many roads including portions of U.S. 59, Interstate 10 West, Beltway 8 West, and the 610 Loop were impassable for most of the morning rush hour, with numerous cars becoming stranded by high water. One fatality occurred when a vehicle was swept into the drainage system near the Katy Freeway (Interstate 10 W) and Beltway 8. In addition to the major disruption to the morning commute, over 2,100 homes received some amount of water intrusion from this event. This ranks as the fourth largest number of homes flooded in a single event for Harris County. Harris, Pasadena, 10/22/2009 0 $4,000 A line of thunderstorms associated with a slow moving cold front Baytown, La Porte, trained over a line from Friendswood to Pasadena to Baytown Nassau Bay, Clear producing some localized flash flooding. Lake, Friendswood Harris, Houston 10/29/2009 0 $16,000 A broken line of strong to severe thunderstorms developed west of the Houston metro area during the afternoon and moved eastward causing several reports of flash flooding and a few wind damage reports. Harris, Houston 05/14/2010 0 $5,000 Interstate 45 feeder roads were impassable due to high water over the roadway. One fatality occurred when a vehicle drove off the feeder road and into a retention pond. This occurred on the 6900 block of Interstate 45 between West Little York and West Parker Road. Harris, Houston 07/02/2010 0 $1,750,000 Heavy rainfall caused flooding of 40 homes in Harris County along Halls, Hunting, and Little White Oak bayous. Harris, Houston 01/09/2012 0 $20,000 Flash flooding lead to numerous high water rescues in and around the Houston area, especially across the southwest area. Harris, Houston 01/25/2012 0 $25,000 Numerous roads in and around the Houston area were closed due to heavy rains and flooding. TETRA TECH D-7 Harris County Multi -Hazard Mitigation Action Plan; Volume 1—Area-Wide Elements Harris, Houston 05/12/2012 0 $40,000 Rainfall totals of between five to ten inches produced widespread flooding. Street flooding was severe enough to force numerous road closures from northwestern Fort Bend County eastward into northern Galveston County. Homes and businesses flooded along Keegans Bayou from below Wilcrest Road to above Beltway 8. Thirteen to fifteen businesses flooded on the western bank of Keegans Bayou along West Bellfort Road between U.S. 59 and Wilcrest. This flooding was a direct result of the bayou over- topping its banks by 2 to 3 feet. Based on high water marks left on the Wilcrest bridge at least 1 foot of water was flowing over the top of the bridge deck. 1 house flooded along Keegans Bayou between Beltway 8 and U.S. 59 from local run- off then from the bayou when it rose above bank full. Harris, Houston 07/12/2012 $512,000 A stationary front focused thunderstorm development over the area on July 12 and 13 producing heavy rainfall and flooding. Water was reported in 71 homes in Harris County and 234 homes in Montgomery County. Spring, Willow and Little Cypress Creek watersheds were impacted. Harris County, 04/27/2013 0 $3,000,000 Heavy rain caused the flooding of numerous roads, that became Houston impassable, across southwestern Harris County into eastern Fort Bend County. There were 98 homes and 2 businesses that were flooded. The majority of the flooded homes were in the Westbury area. Widespread significant street flooding occurred along U.S. Highway 59, the south 610 loop, and State Highway 288. Harris, Houston 05/10/2013 0 $750,000 Clusters and lines of storms produced hail and flooding. In addition several homes and one individual were struck by lightning. There were numerous reports of flooding around the greater Houston metropolitan area. Harris, Houston, 09/20/2013 0 $75,000 Heavy rain occurred over western Houston that lead to flash flooding. Jersey Village There were numerous stalled cars in high water near the Highway 290 and 610 loop intersection and also along Chimney Rock road just south of Highway 59. Harris County Flood Control District rain gauges measured between 4 to 5 inches over those areas. Harris, Houston 10/31/2013 0 $0 A slow -moving storm system and associated frontal boundary generated heavy rainfall that led to flooding across portions of southeast Texas, especially in and around the Houston and Galveston areas. Harris, Houston, 05/26 - 0 $0 A shortwave disturbance produced slow moving clusters of Tomball 27/2014 thunderstorms that tracked north and east from the Gulf Coast the afternoon of May 26th and 27th. Harris, Houston 05/28/2014 0 $0 A shortwave disturbance passing around a southeastern Oklahoma - centered upper low initiated regional severe thunderstorms. Harris County 07/03/2014 0 $5,000 Heavy rainfall from this activity caused street flooding on the west side of Houston. Heavy rain caused several streets to flood in and around the Spring Branch area. Harris, Houston, 08/01/2014 0 $100,000 Heavy rain caused flooding to enter homes in the Aldine Bender area. Pasadena There were several flooded roadways in and around the northern Houston area, generally located inside the Sam Houston Beltway. Some notable one hour rainfall rates were 4.16 inches at Greens Bayou and Highway 59 and 3.96 inches at Jefferson and Highway 59. p_$ TETRA TECH Appendix D. Detailed Planning Area Flood History Harris, Houston 09/16/2014 0 $0 A highly moist air mass streaming in from a Pacific moisture plume, along with southwestern disturbances originating from western Pacific Hurricane Odile, initiated numerous areas of rain with embedded thunderstorms. Localized cells produced high rainfall rates over Houston that caused urban flooding. Harris, Sugar Land, 09/18/2014 0 $25,000 Numerous locations from the Cypress area to the Sugar Land area to Houston, Cypress, the Houston area were flooded, including the corner of Westheimer Hillshire Village, Road and Fountain View Drive, George Bush State Park in the Cinco The Village area, Ranch area, the Cypress area, the left exit lane of 610 South Loop Stafford, Hunters West, parts of Eldridge Parkway, portions of Hidalgo Street near the Creek Village Galleria area, parts of the Fairwood subdivision, the intersection of Bering Drive and Richmond Avenue, the Interstate 610 East Loop and Clinton Drive, Old Katy Road near the Hillshire Village area, and the 13600 block of FM 1092 near Stafford. The heavy rainfall did cause an old oak tree to collapse in Hunters Creek Village. Harris, Houston, 09/19/2014 0 $1,000 Flooding was reported from just east of the Katy area to the Bellaire Katy, Bellaire area. Flooded areas included Saums Road near the intersection of both Barker Cypress Road and Greenhouse Road, the intersection of Fondren Road and Bissonnet Street, the Cullen Park area, the Avenue D area between First Street and Sixth Street, the intersection of Gerrner Road and U.S. Highway 59, and Richmond Avenue in the Galleria area. Houston, Bellaire, 04/17/2015 0 $300,000 There were numerous reports of flooded roadways and stranded Pasadena, La Porte vehicles in high water in and around the city of Houston, Bellaire, Pasadena, La Porte and the Clear Lake/Webster areas. There were fire department high water rescues over the southeastern sector of the county. Impassable roads due to high flood waters include, but are not limited to, South Shepard Street, West Alabama Street, Westheimer Street, Bellaire Blvd, Spur 527 off of Highway 59, Scarsdale Blvd in Pasadena and southbound feeder roads of 1-45 around Hobby Airport. There was water in a home off of Scarsdale Blvd in Pasadena. There were approximately 40 flooded homes in the town of La Porte. Webster 5/12/2015 1 $800,000 Widespread street flooding occurred throughout the Webster area with 50 to 100 stranded or flooded vehicles. There was water in cars at a dealership at the intersection of El Dorado Blvd and Interstate 45. High water rescues were conducted in the Clear Lake area. There was one fatality when a male was swept away during one of the rescues. Flooding was reported at the Green Oaks Apartments at the intersection of Highway 3 and Pineloch Drive. There was a furniture store roof collapse due to the weight of the water. TETRA TECH D-9 Harris County Multi -Hazard Mitigation Action Plan; Volume 1—Area-Wide Elements ►I .1 -■ • �i7� . ifTiFi�C Houston, Orr 10/31/2015 2 $1,000,000 Countywide 04/18/2016 7 $35,000,000 Hurricane Harvey 08/26/2017 36 $10 Billion TOTAL 215a $16,211,752,000 There was widespread flooding across the city of Houston and surrounding areas. The worst flooding occurred across eastern and southern Houston and towns north and east of the city. Numerous roadways were flooded including all main lanes of Highway 288 north of Brays Bayou. High rainfall rates caused Brays Bayou to go out of banks and inundate the Lawndale Wayside part of eastern Houston. Four to five feet of water flowed over North Macgregor Way between Merry Lane and Wildwood Way. High water rescues were conducted by the fire department with a half a foot of water entering Fire Station 26 in southeast Houston near Telephone and Bellfort Streets. Highway 59 at Will Clayton Parkway south of Humble was impassable due to high water. Approximately 40 homes were flooded in the Cloverleaf subdivision near Interstate 10 and Beltway 8. Hunting Bayou went out of banks and flooded neighboring homes. High water rescues were performed on Autumnwood and Wood Shadows Drives near Hunting Bayou. A shopping district and surrounding parking lots were flooded in the Crosby and Barrett areas. Heavy rain caused extensive flooding especially over western half of the county where 10 to 15 inches of rain fell in less than a 12-hour period. An estimated 40,000 vehicles and 10,000 homes were flooded. Seven people in Harris County drowned in their vehicles when they drove into flooded roadways. There were numerous high- water rescues. Harvey made landfall as a category 4 hurricane near Rockport, Texas during the evening of August 25th. The storm then weakened to a tropical storm and slowed, looping back and tracking over SE Texas then back over the Gulf of Mexico making a second landfall along the Louisiana coast during the early morning hours of August 30th. Over that 5 day period over Southeast Texas TS Harvey produced catastrophic flooding with a large area of 30 to 60 inches of rain, 23 tornados, tropical storm force winds and a moderate storm surge near Matagorda Bay. In some of the heavier bands rain fell at a rate of over 5 inches per hour. This copious record amount of rain over a led to catastrophic flooding. Thousands of homes, businesses, and roads were flooded due to flash flooding and sheet flow from long duration intense rain. Main stem rivers and adjoining tributaries, creeks and bayous reached full capacity and came out of their banks and this also contributed to the massive flooding across southeastern Texas. D-10 TETRA TECH Harris County Multi -Hazard Mitigation Action Plan Appendix E. Plan Adoption Resolutions from Planning Partners PLAN ADOPTION RESOLUTIONS FROM PLANNING PARTNERS To Be Provided With Final Draft TETRA TECH E-1