DOCSLIB.ORG

(CDBG-MIT) Action Plan: Building Stronger for a Resilient Future

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
(CDBG-MIT) Action Plan: Building Stronger for a Resilient Future State of Texas CDBG Mitigation (CDBG-MIT) Action Plan: Building Stronger for a Resilient Future Amendment: Texas General Land Office George P. Bush, Commissioner Published: November 22, 2019 Public Comment Period: November 22, 2019 - January 6, 2020 HUD Approved: Further Additional Supplemental Appropriations for Disaster Relief Requirements Act, 2018 84 FR 45838 (August 30, 2019) TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 Executive Summary ................................................................................................................. 1 Executive Summary – Total Allocation Budget .................................................................. 4 2 Mitigation Needs Assessment – State of Texas ....................................................................... 5 Cumulative Impacts of Disasters ......................................................................................... 5 2.1.1 The 2015 Floods ....................................................................................................... 5 2.1.2 The 2016 Floods ....................................................................................................... 9 2.1.3 Hurricane Harvey .................................................................................................... 13 2.1.4 2018 & 2019 Floods and Tropical Storm ............................................................... 19 CDBG Mitigation............................................................................................................... 20 Resiliency Solutions and Mitigation Priorities .................................................................. 23 Demographic Profile of Impacted Counties ...................................................................... 24 Low- and Moderate-Income Analysis ............................................................................... 27 State Risks and Hazards Assessment ................................................................................. 28 2.6.1 State of Texas Hazard Mitigation Plan 2018 .......................................................... 29 2.6.2 FEMA Community Lifelines .................................................................................. 30 2.6.3 Hurricanes, Tropical Storms, and Depressions ....................................................... 32 2.6.4 FEMA’s Community Lifelines for Hurricanes, Tropical Storms, and Depressions 37 2.6.5 Severe Coastal and Riverine Flooding .................................................................... 54 2.6.6 FEMA’s Community Lifelines for Severe Coastal and Riverine Flooding ............ 56 2.6.7 Drought ................................................................................................................... 67 2.6.8 FEMA’s Community Lifelines for Drought ........................................................... 69 2.6.9 Hailstorms ............................................................................................................... 76 2.6.10 FEMA’s Community Lifelines for Hailstorms ....................................................... 77 2.6.11 Tornadoes ................................................................................................................ 83 2.6.12 FEMA’s Community Lifelines for Tornadoes ........................................................ 84 2.6.13 Severe Winds .......................................................................................................... 93 2.6.14 FEMA’s Community Lifelines for Severe Winds .................................................. 94 2.6.15 Wildfire ................................................................................................................. 101 State of Texas CDBG-MIT Action Plan i 2.6.16 FEMA’s Community Lifelines for Wildfire ......................................................... 102 2.6.17 Winter Weather ..................................................................................................... 111 2.6.18 FEMA’s Community Lifelines for Winter Weather ............................................. 111 2.6.19 Lightning ............................................................................................................... 119 2.6.20 FEMA’s Community Lifelines for Lightning ....................................................... 121 2.6.21 Extreme Cold ........................................................................................................ 126 2.6.22 FEMA’s Community Lifelines for Extreme Cold ................................................ 127 2.6.23 Extreme Heat ........................................................................................................ 132 2.6.24 FEMA’s Community Lifelines for Extreme Heat ................................................ 132 2.6.25 Additional Natural Hazards .................................................................................. 139 Hazards by County ........................................................................................................... 143 2.7.1 Composite Disaster Index Overview .................................................................... 143 2.7.2 CDI Methodology ................................................................................................. 143 2.7.3 Hazard Categories ................................................................................................. 144 2.7.4 Composite Disaster Index Result .......................................................................... 152 Social Vulnerability Index ............................................................................................... 154 Per Capita Market Value .................................................................................................. 156 Review of State Reports, Studies, and Legislation .......................................................... 158 2.10.1 The Texas Coastal Resiliency Master Plan ........................................................... 158 2.10.2 Governor’s Commission to Rebuild Texas ........................................................... 161 2.10.3 Texas at Risk Report ............................................................................................. 161 2.10.4 86th Texas Legislature .......................................................................................... 162 2.10.5 State Studies .......................................................................................................... 171 2.10.6 Additional Hurricane Harvey Studies ................................................................... 174 2.10.7 Other GLO Studies and Initiatives ........................................................................ 176 2.10.8 Federal, State, and Local Coordination & Mitigation Alignment ........................ 178 3 General Requirements ......................................................................................................... 189 Coordination of Mitigation Projects and Leverage .......................................................... 189 Displacement of Persons and/or Entities ......................................................................... 189 Maximum Assistance ....................................................................................................... 190 State of Texas CDBG-MIT Action Plan ii Natural Infrastructure ....................................................................................................... 190 Protection of People and Property ................................................................................... 191 3.5.1 Quality Construction Standards ............................................................................ 191 3.5.2 Housing Contractors Standards............................................................................. 191 Operation and Maintenance Plans ................................................................................... 192 Cost Verification .............................................................................................................. 192 Elevation Standards ......................................................................................................... 192 Appeals Processes ............................................................................................................ 193 Dam and Levee Requirements ......................................................................................... 194 Program Income ............................................................................................................... 194 Monitoring Standards....................................................................................................... 194 Broadband Infrastructure ................................................................................................. 195 Section 3 Compliance ...................................................................................................... 195 4 State Administered Mitigation Program .............................................................................. 196 Action Plan....................................................................................................................... 196 Connection to Mitigation Needs Assessment .................................................................. 196 Program Budget ............................................................................................................... 201 GLO Use of Funds ..........................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • TAS Program 2018.Pdf
    About The Texas Academy of Science History First founded by teachers as the Academy of Science in Texas in 1880, the organization as we know it now emerged around 1929 and included a physicist, a botanist, a mathematician and two biologists as its founding members. Now, TAS publishes a peer-reviewed journal (The Texas Journal of Science since 1949), conducts an annual meeting that highlights research across 17 sections across the sciences, provides substantial funding opportunities for students (~$25,000 awarded annually) and facilitates expert testimony on policy issues related to STEM or science education. TAS membership approaches 600 individuals, with a large portion of the membership as students. Mission As part of its overall mission, the Texas Academy of Science promotes scientific research in Texas colleges and universities, encourages research as a part of student learning and enhances the professional development of its professional and student members. TAS possesses a complex, intriguing and long-standing educational mission. Strategic Planning The Texas Academy of Science (TAS) Board of Directors recently approved a vision for a 5-year Strategic Plan: “to increase the visibility and effectiveness of TAS in promoting strong science in Texas.” As part of that initiative, the Academy seeks to reach out to foundations and organizations that support and benefit the Texas science community. We believe that a number of opportunities exist for strategic partnerships that could bolster the impact of organizations that raise the profile of science in Texas. Our ultimate goal will be to make TAS the premier state academy in the United States; however, this cannot be accomplished without funding from both individuals and corporations.
    [Show full text]
  • Austin, Texas: Managing for Growth, Healthy Landscapes, and Wildfire Risk Reduction
    January 2016 Austin, Texas: Managing For Growth, Healthy Landscapes, And Wildfire Risk Reduction Leaders in Wildfire Adaptation OVERVIEW Wildfires across the American West Introduction are increasing in frequency, size, and severity. The impacts from climate Austin, Texas, the state capital, is the the fastest growing big city in change and increasing growth within the country. Between 2013 and 2014, Austin added more than 25,000 the region’s Wildland-Urban Interface new residents, bringing the 2014 total population to 912,791 people.1 (WUI), further exacerbate the risks from Coupled with high growth, the city ranks third highest among 13 wildfires. western urban areas for homes at risk for wildfire damage,2 with more than 25 percent of its houses threatened by wildfires. Urban areas in the West are increasingly responding to the challenges of wildfire The City of Austin and surrounding Travis County are also home risk management through unique land to a geographically unique region of Texas known as the Balcones use planning tools which affect the pace, Escarpment, which separates the Edwards Plateau from the Blackland pattern, and scale of development. Prairie. As a result, the region contains diverse ecological landscapes, Austin, Texas is one of five communities which in turn brings particular considerations regarding how wildfire profiled by Headwaters Economics mitigation efforts are managed alongside other sustainability objectives, in a report identifying some of these such as habitat management and endangered species preservation. innovative land use planning strategies, including: • Close interdepartmental collaboration between the fire department and other city staff to conduct prescribed burns within the city limits, reducing fuel loading.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 10 Study Guide and Case Studies: Wildfires
    Chapter 10 Study Guide Chapter 10 Study Guide and Case Studies: Wildfires Key Concepts • Fire is the rapid combination of oxygen with organic material in a reaction that produces flames, heat and light. • Fire and respiration can be understood as the reverse process of photosynthesis where cellulose and oxygen are used to produce water and carbon dioxide. • The most important natural cause of wildfires is a lightning strike. Spontaneous combustion (e.g. in a heating pile of composting organic material) can also cause a fire. • Only 15% of wildfires have a natural cause, while the other 85% are caused by humans. • Human causes include arson but also unintended ignition through a car’s failing catalytic converter, improperly discarded cigarette butts, unattended camp fires, sparks from mechanical equipment and target shooting. Fires started for waste removal and fire suppression cause get out of control and grow into major wildfire. • The four stages of fire are preheating phase, pyrolysis, flaming combustion and glowing combustion. • Dry weather with very low relative humidity (e.g. less than 20%) removes water from living and dead plant material, thereby shortening stage 1 of a fire. Removal of water also accelerates the heating. • Chemically, combustion is a type of oxidation (oxygen is used to produce a new compound) • Since hot air rises, fires typically spread uphill faster than downhill, unless pushed by winds. • The fire triangle consists of fuel, oxygen and heat. Firefighters try to remove at least one leg of the triangle. For example water sprayed on a fire takes up its heat. A fire extinguisher cuts off the oxygen supply.
    [Show full text]
  • Land Use Planning to Reduce Wildfire Risk: Lessons from Five Western Cities
    A Research Paper by Land Use Planning to Reduce Wildfire Risk: Lessons from Five Western Cities BOULDER FLAGSTAFF SANTE FE SAN DIEGO AUSTIN COLORADO ARIZONA NEW MEXICO CALIFORNIA TEXAS January 2016 Land Use Planning to Reduce Wildfire Risk: Lessons from Five Western Cities January 2016 PUBLISHED ONLINE: http://headwaterseconomics.org ABOUT HEADWATERS ECONOMICS Headwaters Economics is an independent, nonprofit research group whose mission is to improve community development and land management decisions in the West. CONTACT INFORMATION Ray Rasker | [email protected] | 406-570-7044 Kimiko Barrett | [email protected] | 406-224-1837 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This report was made possible through generous support from the Kresge Foundation. In addition, we would like to thank the city departments and community leaders highlighted in this report that provided valuable background information and historical data. In particular, we want to acknowledge the City of Austin, Texas (Austin Fire Department, Office of Sustainability, and Development Services Department); Boulder County, Colorado (Land Use Department); City of Flagstaff, Arizona (Flagstaff Fire Department, Ecological Restoration Institute, Community Development Department, and Sustainability & Environmental Management Section); City of San Diego, California (San Diego Fire- Rescue Department and Planning Department); City of Santa Fe, New Mexico (Land Use Department, Fire Department, and Office of Emergency Management). Lastly, a special thanks to Carter Wilkinson for his time and contributions to this report. Any errors or omissions are solely the responsibility of Headwaters Economics. P.O. Box 7059 Bozeman, MT 59771 http://headwaterseconomics.org Cover Image: Headwaters Economics HEADWATERS ECONOMICS TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF PLANNING TOOLS USED ............................................ 1 II.
    [Show full text]
  • Three Centuries of Fire and Forest Vegetation Transitions Preceding Texas' Most Destructive Wildfire: Lost Pines Or Lost Oaks?
    Forest Ecology and Management 396 (2017) 91–101 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Forest Ecology and Management journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/foreco Three centuries of fire and forest vegetation transitions preceding Texas’ most destructive wildfire: Lost Pines or lost oaks? ⇑ Michael C. Stambaugh a, , Greg Creacy b, Jeff Sparks b, Molly Rooney a a University of Missouri, School of Natural Resources, Missouri Tree-Ring Laboratory, United States b Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, United States article info abstract Article history: In 2011, the most destructive wildfire in Texas history (Bastrop County Complex Fire, BCCF) burned Received 15 February 2017 34,000 acres including most of Bastrop State Park. We used dendrochronological analysis of vegetation Accepted 14 April 2017 paired with documentary information to reconstruct the historical fire regime, changes in forest compo- sition, and possible human influences leading up to this seemingly unique event. In addition, demograph- ics of fire-killed and immediate post-fire regenerating trees were determined through stem aging and a Keywords: regeneration census. Historical fire frequency was lower during the pre-EuroAmerican Settlement period Dendrochronology (pre-1830) compared to later time periods before the 1920s. Since the 1920s, fire occurrence has signif- Fire scar icantly decreased. Historical fire characteristics appeared to change with local and regional cultural and Post oak Woodlands land use changes. Within the BCCF area were extensive areas of very old (up to 359 yrs old) open-grown Drought post oaks (Quercus stellata) that had been overtopped by 60 year old loblolly pines (Pinus taeda). Historically, oak woodlands likely persisted in the study area due to recurring fire and, though less well documented, by grazing and selective logging for loblolly pines.
    [Show full text]