4.5.4.3 Past Occurrences
Historically, California has experienced severe drought conditions. The state’s available record for determining hydrologic risks is short, only going back about 100 years. Recent droughts affecting Kings County are summarized below.
• 1928‐1937—This drought affected the entire state and is the longest, most severe drought on record with a recurrence interval of greater than 80 years (Paulson et al, 1991). • 1947‐1950—Drought affected the entire state but was most extreme in Southern California. The drought in the winter of 1950 affected the area from the Kern River basin north to the American River basin. The drought caused two deaths and $33 million in damages (Paulson et al, 1991). • 1976‐1977—This drought was most severe in Northern and Central California, but the impact was experienced statewide because of the dependence of southern California on water transfers from the north. FEMA declared an emergency declaration for the County due to the effects of the drought. The water year 1977 was the driest year of record at almost all gauging stations in the affected area in California, and the water year 1976 was among the five driest in the central and northern Sierra Nevada. The two‐year deficiency in runoff accumulated during the drought is unequaled at gauging stations in the affected area, and this deficiency has a recurrence interval that exceeds 80 years. Crop damages statewide were $2.67 billion (Paulson et al 1991). • 1987‐1992—During this multiyear, multi‐county drought, the runoff from the San Joaquin Valley was 47 percent of the average. In 1991, the U.S. Department of Agriculture Economic Research Report Agricultural Outlook reported that the Kings River flow would be inadequate to provide sufficient water for agricultural uses for the fifth consecutive year. A USDA drought disaster declaration was declared (Economic Research Service 1992).
• 2004‐2005—On January 26, 2005, the USDA designated the County a primary disaster area due to drought that had occurred since January 1, 2004 (USDA 2005). • 2008‐2009—On June 12, 2008, The Governor proclaimed the County as a state disaster area due to the Central Valley Drought (Schwarzenegger 2008).
• 2012-2017 – The County was designated a disaster area in 2012 due to drought, prompting a state of emergency proclamation by the Governor in 2014 (Brown 2014). Severe impacts were felt, including widespread crop damage, dry wells, and land subsidence. The drought cost the agriculture industry $1 billion in lost revenue and caused $2.2 billion in statewide economic damage, with a one-third reduction in water for agriculture (NCICS 2019). The groundwater situation in California is described as a "slow-moving train wreck" (NCICS 2019). The state expended $6.6 billion in response and mitigation efforts by 2017, according to the 2018 California SHMP. • The USDA drought monitor compiles time series to communicate the extent and severity of drought over time. Figure 4-12 shows this data for Kings County.
Figure 4-12 USDA Drought Monitor Timeseries
Source: Drought Monitor 2023
May 23, 2024 Pg. 381
Kings County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
2023 Update Page 4-52
Kings County has experienced 15 USDA disaster declarations due to drought between 2012 and 2021 as detailed in Table 4-22 below.
Table 4-22 USDA Drought Declarations by Year in Kings County, 2012 – 2021
DECLARATION TYPE YEAR NUMBER OF
DECLARATIONS
Drought 2012 2
2014 1
2015 1
Drought-FAST TRACK 2012 1
2013 3
2014 1
2015 1
2016 1
2017 1
2019 1
2021 2
Grand Total 15
Source: USDA
4.5.4.4 Likelihood of Future Occurrence
Likely – Historical drought data for the County indicates there have been seven significant multi-year droughts, equating to roughly 30 years in drought conditions, in the last 100 years. This equates to a roughly 30% chance of a major drought in any given year. Given the historical occurrence of severe drought impacts throughout the County and across the State, drought is likely to continue to pose a high degree of risk to the entire planning area, potentially impacting crops, livestock, water resources, the natural environment, buildings, and infrastructure (from subsidence and compound hazards), and local economies. Drought will also intensify based on climate change trends associated with precipitation variability and increased temperatures.
4.5.4.5 Climate Change Considerations
Water resources in California are already experiencing stresses related to population growth, increased water demand, poor water quality, groundwater overdraft, and aging infrastructure. As temperatures warm, heat waves become more frequent, and precipitation becomes increasingly variable, drought conditions in California are likely to become more frequent and persistent. Recent drought conditions have underscored the need to examine water supply and distribution management, conservation, and use policies.
According to California’s Climate Adaptation Strategy, climate change is likely to significantly diminish California’s future water supply. In an average year, approximately 40 percent of the State’s total water supply comes from groundwater, and during a dry year, this increases to more than half of the State’s water supply, with groundwater acting as a critical buffer against the impacts of drought and climate change.
Table 4-23 details how climate change induced drought will impact multiple sectors.
Table 4-23 Climate Change, Droughts, and Impacts
CHALLENGE OBSERVED AND OR PROJECTED CHANGE
Agriculture and
outdoor watering
Increasing temperatures raise evapotranspiration by plants, lower soil moisture, alter growing seasons, and thus increase water demand.
Water supply
infrastructure
Changes in snowpack, streamflow timing, and hydrograph evolution may affect reservoir operations including flood control and storage. Changes in the timing May 23, 2024 Pg. 382
Kings County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
2023 Update Page 4-53
CHALLENGE OBSERVED AND OR PROJECTED CHANGE
and magnitude of runoff may affect the functioning of diversion, storage, and conveyance structures.
Legal water
systems
Earlier runoff may complicate prior appropriation systems and interstate water compacts, affecting which rights holders receive water and operations plans for reservoirs.
Water quality Although other factors have a large impact, “water quality is sensitive both to increased water temperatures and changes in patterns of precipitation” (US Climate Change Science Program Synthesis and Assessment Products 4.3, p. 149). For example, changes in the timing and hydrograph may affect sediment load and pollution, impacting human health.
Energy demand
and Operating
Costs
Warmer air temperatures may place higher demands on hydropower reservoirs for peaking power. Warmer lake and stream temperatures may affect water use by cooling power plants and other industries.
Interplay among
forests, hydrology,
wildland fires, and
pests
Changes in air, water, and soil temperatures may affect the relationships between forests, surface and groundwater, wildland fire, and insect pests.
Water-stressed trees, for example, may be more vulnerable to pests.
Soil moisture Increasing temperatures lead to increased evaporation of water from soil.
Parched soil dries out and becomes hardened, increasing flood risk when precipitation does occur, decreasing the likelihood of groundwater recharge.
Stream conditions Decreases in snowpack that melt earlier in the season will result in less stream water throughout the year, decreasing a critical water source for forests, agriculture, and the economy.
Groundwater
resources
Changes in long-term precipitation and soil moisture can affect groundwater recharge rates; coupled with demand issues, this may mean greater pressure on groundwater resources.
Source: Ray et al., 2008
California has a highly variable climate and projections from Cal-Adapt suggest that extended drought occurrence could become more pervasive in future decades (Cal-Adapt 2023). Cal-Adapt provides data for two 20-year drought scenarios derived from the downscaled simulations. Under a maximum temperature by water year under a drought from 2051-2070 (scenario that represents a late century dry spell from 2051-2070 identified from the RCP 8.5 simulation based on the average annual precipitation over 20 years), average temperatures will increase from 76.5 °F to 84.5°F. Figure 4-13 shows the projected extended drought from 2051 to 2070 based on maximum temperatures by water year.
May 23, 2024 Pg. 383
Kings County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
2023 Update Page 4-54
Figure 4-13 Projected Changes in Maximum Temperature by Water Year under 2051-2070 Drought Source: Cal-Adapt 2023
4.5.4.6 Magnitude and Severity
Critical – Drought impacts are wide-reaching and may be economic, environmental, and/or societal. The most significant impacts associated with drought in the planning area are those related to waterintensive activities such as agriculture and wildlife preservation. During a drought, water allocations may go down, resulting in reduced water availability. Voluntary water conservation measures may also be implemented during extended droughts.
A reduction in electric power generation and water quality deterioration are also potential problems that can occur as a result of drought conditions. The reduced demand for electrical power generation is commonly linked to higher electricity costs due to the loss of hydropower supplies. Water quality deterioration is due to lower levels of precipitation which allow pollutants to concentrate and limit water storage supply. Table 4-24 summarizes the historically observed impacts by category. Figure 4-14 provides the drought statistics for the County.
Table 4-24 Historically Observed Impacts by Drought Monitor Category in California
CATEGORY HISTORICALLY OBSERVED IMPACTS
D0 – Abnormally Dry • Soil is dry; irrigation delivery begins early • Dryland crop germination is stunted
• Active fire season begins
D1 – Moderate Drought
• Dryland pasture growth is stunted; producers give supplemental feed to cattle
• Landscaping and gardens need irrigation earlier; wildlife patterns begin to change
• Stock ponds and creeks are lower than usual
D2 –
Severe Drought
• Grazing land is inadequate
• Fire season is longer, with high burn intensity, dry fuels, and large fire spatial extent
May 23, 2024 Pg. 384
Kings County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
2023 Update Page 4-55
CATEGORY HISTORICALLY OBSERVED IMPACTS
• Trees are stressed; plants increase reproductive mechanisms; wildlife diseases increase
D3 – Extreme Drought
• Livestock need expensive supplemental feed; cattle and horses are sold; little pasture remains; fruit trees bud early; producers begin irrigating in the winter
• Fire season lasts year-round; fires occur in typically wet parts of the State; burn bans are implemented
• Water is inadequate for agriculture, wildlife, and urban needs; reservoirs are extremely low; hydropower is restricted
D4 – Exceptional Drought
• Fields are left fallow; orchards are removed; vegetable yields are low; honey harvest is small
• Fire season is very costly; number of fires and area burned are extensive
• Fish rescue and relocation begins; pine beetle infestation occurs; forest mortality is high; wetlands dry up; survival of native plants and animals is low; fewer wildflowers bloom; wildlife death is widespread; algae blooms appear
Source: U.S. Drought Monitor
Figure 4-14 Drought Statistics in Kings County: January 11, 2023 Source: U.S. Drought Monitor, NOAA National Center for Environmental Information, U.S. Geological Survey; drought.gov
4.5.4.7 Vulnerability Assessment
Impacts include water restrictions associated with domestic supplies, agricultural and livestock losses and economic impacts, hydroelectric power reductions, and increased costs for water. Secondary effects include susceptibility to wildfires and increased groundwater pumping that can contribute to land subsidence and degraded water quality.
People
Drought is one of the few hazards with the potential to impact all the citizens of the County through water restrictions, economic losses, and increased energy costs. The historical and potential impacts of drought on populations include agricultural sector job loss, secondary economic losses to local businesses and public recreational resources, increased cost to the local and state government for largescale water acquisition and delivery, water rationing, and water wells running dry for individuals and families.
Droughts are often accompanied by high temperatures, which can cause heat stress and dehydration, especially in vulnerable populations such as the elderly, children, and those with pre-existing medical conditions. Additionally, droughts can increase the risk of wildfires, which can release large amounts of smoke and pollutants into the air, leading to respiratory problems such as asthma, bronchitis, and May 23, 2024 Pg. 385
Kings County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
2023 Update Page 4-56
pneumonia. Droughts can also lead to crop failures, food shortages, and rising food prices, resulting in malnutrition and undernutrition, especially in low-income populations. Finally, droughts can cause significant stress and anxiety, especially for those who rely on agriculture for their livelihoods, and drought-related economic losses can also lead to social and psychological stress.
Communities in Kings County most likely to experience the range of these hazard impacts and vulnerabilities will include underserved communities, and DACs located within the rural communities around the northeast portion of the County. These unincorporated communities consist of Armona, Grangeville, Hardwick, Home Garden, Kettleman City, Lemoore Station, and Stratford. Socially vulnerable communities are also located in the cities of Avenal and Corcoran, and portions of the City of Hanford. Of the socially vulnerable populations, those households who receive water from smaller water suppliers, such as Community Service Districts (CSDs) or private water companies, and faculty and students at school facilities dependent on NTNCWS may be most vulnerable because these suppliers may not have WSCPs or procedures in place to monitor and track groundwater levels. Agricultural farmers and workforce housing on private groundwater wells may also be most susceptible to drought conditions.
Property
Between the years of 2007 and 2021, over 785,000 acres of USDA-insured crops were lost in the County due to drought, resulting in over $5 million in indemnity payments. Table 4-25 summarizes the total agricultural losses.
Table 4-25 Crop Loss Due to Drought, 2007 – 2021
YEAR CROP NET ACRES IDEMNITY AMOUNT
2007
Barley 1,082.68 $ 9,774.00
Wheat 15,351.79 $334,260.00
2008
Barley 2,248.90 $44,655.00
Wheat 4,546.66 $128,883.00
2009
Barley 1,912.74 $30,184.00
Wheat 5,200.18 $387,907.00
2010 Wheat 2,065.18 $98,314.00
2012
Barley 4,527.36 $336,738.00
Wheat 16,769.36 $1,416,535.00
2013
Barley 1,470.36 $68,899.00
Wheat 5,700.98 $560,696.00
2014
Barley 5,011.43 $293,190.10
Wheat 9,279.79 $869,086.53
2016 Cotton 182.50 $189,546.00
2021 Wheat 3,228.04 $416,938.80
Total 785,77.948 $5,185,606.43
Source: USDA RMA Crop Indemnity Reports, 2007-2021
Critical Facilities and Infrastructure
Severe to exceptional droughts can have significant consequences for water supply, water quality, firefighting, navigation, recreation, and other critical facilities. In some cases, when groundwater levels substantially decline, groundwater wells may need to be deepened in response. Subsidence related to groundwater withdrawal can impact linear infrastructure such as pipelines, roads, and levees.
Additionally, a higher demand on the water system infrastructure can lead to disruption of service due to line breakage. Possible losses to infrastructure include the loss of potable water.
Small water suppliers and rural communities were the hardest hit during the five-year drought that ended in 2016. In some of the rural communities, wells went dry and State and county authorities May 23, 2024 Pg. 386
Kings County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
2023 Update Page 4-57
provided bottled water and installed large water storage tanks for homes that went dry. Smaller water systems can therefore be more vulnerable to higher costs and water quality issues during prolonged dry periods. Unlike the larger water districts in Kings County, small water systems do not need to maintain drought contingency plans, and the lack of these plans have left small and rural water systems, rural water systems, and their stakeholders unaware of how to seek assistance. DWR publishes an online tool called the Drought and Water Shortage Risk Explorer Tool for small water suppliers and rural communities to use to identify and understand drought vulnerabilities.
According to the Drought and Water Shortage Vulnerability Explorer Tool for Small Water Suppliers, there are 11 water systems vulnerable to drought, which closely aligns with the 10 water systems identified by Kings County’s Public Health Department:
• Stratford Public Utility District
• Home Garden Community Service District
• Armona Community Service District
• Hardwick Water Company
• Island Union School
• Champions – Samuel House
• Kettleman City Community Service District
• City of Avenal
• Azcal Management Company
• Sunset Vista Estates
• Lemoore Naval Air Station
Based on the vulnerability profiles for these small water systems, many had high vulnerability scores (scores greater than 40 depicted by a dark purple color). The physical vulnerabilities are associated with dry years, groundwater overdraft, lack of emergency interties, and the fact that these small water systems rely on single and small water sources for supply. Similarly, based on the water shortage vulnerability scores, the water suppliers located in the northeast portion of Kings County had the highest physical vulnerability scores above 40, and Kings County had an average physical vulnerability score of 57.71. The physical vulnerability scores for Kings County’s state small and domestic wells are shown in Figure 4-15.
May 23, 2024 Pg. 387
Kings County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
2023 Update Page 4-58
Figure 4-15 Kings County State Small and Domestic Wells Water Shortage Physical Vulnerability Scores
Source: DWR Water Shortage Vulnerability Explorer 2023
The Water Shortage Vulnerability Explorer tools are designed to support small water suppliers and rural communities identify and understand their risk. These vulnerabilities are also intended to support drought task force discussions around water shortage preparedness for domestic wells and privately supplied homes and small state water systems. The information is also intended to support risk assessments as Kings County and the small water suppliers develop their Water Shortage Contingency Plans and the County Drought Resilience Plan that meet the requirements of SB 552.
Economy
Drought impacts on the local or regional economy can be difficult to quantify due to the extent to which most industries rely upon water. Many of the major industries in the County, such as grain and dairy farming, rely heavily on water and can be affected due to a lack of, or reduced quality of, water resources.
When water resources are limited, effects are more severe for industries that rely on large amounts of water, and prolonged droughts intensify these impacts. Agriculture often suffers the most financial losses from drought. Researchers at the University of California at Merced estimate that the 2020-2021 drought cost farms $1.2 billion in losses, with an additional $845 million loss incurred by the State’s food processing and manufacturing industries (UC Merced date). An estimated 12,000 agricultural jobs were also lost due to the drought (Medellín-Azuara et al. 2022). Based on USDA indemnity payments, the County loses are just over $343,000 in annualized average loss.
May 23, 2024 Pg. 388
Kings County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
2023 Update Page 4-59
Cultural, Historic and Natural Resources
In addition to groundwater, the County receives water from the Kings River. Sustained drought reduces waterflow in the river, depriving the region of valuable agricultural and recreational resources. Waterdependent habitats such as freshwater marshes and vernal pools native to the area suffer losses from droughts.
The Tulare Lake region contains numerous archeological artifacts important to the Yokut Tachi Tribe (Kings County MJHMP, 2012). It is unknown how drought will affect these resources.
In general, environmental impacts from drought are more likely at the interface of the human and natural world. The loss of crops or livestock due to drought can have far-reaching economic effects on communities. Wind and water erosion can alter the visual landscape, and dust can damage property.
Water-based recreational resources are also heavily affected by drought conditions.
Development Trends
Because Development Trends encompasses all forms of industry, infrastructure, critical facilities and all related populations and their functions, drought impacts on Development Trends will align with the historical and potential impacts on populations, property, natural environment, and critical facilities discussed above. With the County’s population projected to continue to steadily increase while climate change projections are showing an increase in the duration and intensity of drought events, it will be important for each new development application to be reviewed with existing and future water supplies in mind.
4.5.4.8 Risk Summary
• Due to widespread impacts in the area, drought is considered a high-significance hazard. • There have been seven significant multi-year droughts, equating to roughly 30 years in drought conditions, in the last 100 years. This equates to a roughly 30% chance of a major drought in any given year.
• 15 USDA Disaster Designations due to drought have been declared between 2012 and 2021. • Between the years of 2007 and 2021, over 785,000 acres of USDA-insured crops were lost in Kings County due to drought, resulting in over $5 million in indemnity payments. • Climate change projections show that extreme prolonged drought is likely to continue and will exacerbate existing water supply challenges. Under a maximum temperature scenario that represents a late century dry spell from 2051-2070, average temperatures will increase from 76.5 °F to
84.5°F.
• Underserved communities, and DACs located within the unincorporated communities of Armona, Grangeville, Hardwick, Home Garden, Kettleman City, Lemoore Station, and Stratford and those households who receive water from smaller water suppliers and faculty and students at school facilities dependent on NTNCWS are most vulnerable to drought because these suppliers may not have WSCPs or procedures in place to monitor and track groundwater levels. • Related Hazards – Extreme Heat, Land Subsidence, Wildfire, Agricultural Pest Infestation and Disease
JURISDICTION GEOGRAPHIC
AREA
PROBABILITY OF
FUTURE
OCCURRENCE
MAGNITUDE/
SEVERITY
OVERALL
SIGNIFICANCE
PRIORITY
HAZARD?
Kings County Extensive Likely Critical High Yes
City of Avenal Extensive Likely Critical High Yes
City of Corcoran Extensive Likely Critical High Yes
City of Hanford Extensive Likely Critical High Yes
City of Lemoore Extensive Likely Critical High Yes
4.5.5 EARTHQUAKE
4.5.5.1 Hazard Description
An earthquake is caused by a sudden slip on a fault. Stresses in the earth’s outer layer push the sides of the fault together. Stress builds up and the rocks slip suddenly, releasing energy in waves that travel through the earth’s crust and cause the shaking that is felt during an earthquake. The amount of energy released during an earthquake is usually expressed as a magnitude and is measured directly from the earthquake as recorded on seismographs. The magnitude of earthquakes is usually measured using the Richter Scale, a logarithmic scale calculated from the amplitude of the largest seismic wave recorded for the earthquake.
May 23, 2024 Pg. 389
Kings County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
2023 Update Page 4-60
Another measure of earthquake severity is intensity. Intensity is an expression of the amount of shaking at any given location on the ground surface. Seismic shaking is typically the greatest cause of damage to structures during earthquakes. Seismologists have developed the Mercalli scale to quantify the shaking intensity of an earthquake’s effects, which is measured by how an earthquake is felt by humans and the damage to buildings.
Earthquakes can cause structural damage, injury, and loss of life, as well as damage to infrastructure networks such as water, power, gas, communication, and transportation lines. Other damage-causing effects of earthquakes are surface rupture, fissuring, settlement, and permanent horizontal and vertical shifting of the ground. Secondary impacts can include landslides, seiches, liquefaction, and dam failure.
Liquefaction occurs when ground shaking causes the mechanical properties of some fine-grained, saturated soils to liquefy and act as a fluid. It is the result of a sudden loss of soil strength due to a rapid increase in soil pore water pressures caused by ground shaking, in areas of shallow groundwater (within 10’ of the surface or less). Liquefaction that produces surface effects generally occurs in the upper 40 to 50 feet of the soil column, although the phenomenon can occur deeper than 100 feet. The duration of ground shaking is also an important factor in causing liquefaction to occur. The larger the earthquake magnitude, and the longer the duration of strong ground shaking, the greater the potential for liquefaction to occur.
In populated areas, the greatest potential for loss of life and property damage can come as a result of ground shaking from a nearby earthquake. The degree of damage depends on many interrelated factors.
Among these are the moment magnitude, focal depth, distance from the causative fault, duration of shaking, type of surface deposits or bedrock, presence of high ground water, topography, and finally, the design, type, and quality of building construction.
4.5.5.2 Geographic Area
Limited – As mentioned in the County’s 2012 MJHMP, no major fault systems are known to exist in the County. Therefore, the potential for extensive surface rupture within the County is minimal. However, minor surface ruptures could occur in areas of minor faulting, which occur primarily in the southwestern part of the County along the Kettleman Hills. Ground shaking is the most likely damaging effect of an earthquake. During the preparation of the County’s 2012 MJHMP, the HMPC reported that shaking was felt during the Coalinga earthquake of magnitude 6.4 in 1983. The epicenter of the Coalinga earthquake was located approximately 20 miles from the County’s western border.
As shown in Figure 4-16, the San Andreas Fault is located less than four miles west of the Kings County line. The San Andreas occurs where the North American and Pacific plates come together and grind in a side‐by‐side motion relative to each other. The San Andreas Fault also falls within a Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. As defined by California Department of Conservation, Alquist-Priolo earthquake fault zones are regulatory zones surrounding the surface traces of active faults in California (CGS, n.d.).
Wherever an active fault exists, if it has the potential for surface rupture, a structure for human occupancy cannot be placed over the fault and must be a minimum distance from the fault (generally fifty feet).
Moreover, the Pond Poso fault is to the southeast of the County – about 8 miles from the Countyline.
Figure 4-16 shows the known faults and potential for ground shaking resulting from earthquakes in and near Kings County based on USGS probabilistic ground shaking with a 2% in 50-year occurrence, which is also known as 2500-year probabilistic ground shaking. In addition, as documented in the County’s 2012 MJHMP, another large known fault, the White Wolf fault, is located to the south near Arvin and Bakersfield and produced a severe M 7.7 earthquake in 1952. This fault is not shown in Figure 4-16 due to the extent of the map.
May 23, 2024 Pg. 390
Kings County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
2023 Update Page 4-61
Figure 4-16 Kings County Earthquake Ground Shaking Potential and Nearby Faults The potential for ground shaking is discussed in terms of the 2% percent probability of exceeding peak ground acceleration (% g) in the next 50 years. It varies from 30‐70% g in the northeastern and central portions of the County, including the cities of Hanford, Lemoore, Corcoran, and the central primary agricultural part of the County. Earthquake hazard is more severe in the southwest of the County and the City of Avenal. The potential for ground shaking in this area ranges from 60-100% g. The potential for ground shaking is particularly high at the southwestern County line, reaching 100% g and above.
Earthquakes can occur at any time of the day or night and any time of the year. Earthquakes are particularly dangerous due to their rapid onset, generally without warning. Aftershocks can occur for days, weeks, and even months following a major earthquake. This additional damage to structures already weakened by the main earthquake increases the danger to rescue and recovery personnel.
May 23, 2024 Pg. 391
Kings County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
2023 Update Page 4-62
Earthquakes can result in many secondary effects, including fires and landslides, which are covered in separate sections of this plan. Ground settlement and soil compaction also may occur as a result of seismic ground shaking. When unconsolidated valley sediments are saturated with water, water from voids is forced to the ground surface, where it emerges in the form of mud spouts or sand boils. If soil liquefies in this manner (liquefaction), it loses its supporting capacity, which can result in the minor displacement to the total collapse of structures. These types of unconsolidated sediments represent the poorest kind of soil condition for resisting seismic shock waves. However, according to California Department of Conservation’s most recent liquefaction data, there is no liquefaction zone located within or near Kings County.
4.5.5.3 Past Occurrences
Figure 4-17 depicts the epicenters of the historic earthquakes that occurred in Kings County from 1855 through 2021. As shown in the figure, most of the epicenters have occurred along the San Andreas fault, which falls within the Alquist-Priolo Fault Hazard Zone and is to the west of the County.
May 23, 2024 Pg. 392
Kings County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
2023 Update Page 4-63
Figure 4-17 Kings County Historic Earthquake Epicenters: 1855 – 2021 As noted in the County’s 2012 MJHMP, there have not been any damaging earthquakes greater than M
6.0 recorded in Kings County in over 200 years, though several have been close. The most recent large earthquake near Kings County was the Kettleman Hills earthquake of magnitude 5.6 on August 4, 1985, whose epicenter was located four miles from the Kings County border just north of Avenal. This earthquake was the third in a sequence of moderate earthquakes that occurred along a shallowly dipping thrust fault on the eastern border of the San Joaquin Basin. It was preceded by two earthquakes located approximately 20 miles from Kings County, the 1982 New Idria earthquake (M 5.4) and the 1983 Coalinga (M 5.2). The Kettleman Hills earthquake did not result in any surface rupture. There was a low level of ground shaking and low local magnitude reported, according to the 2012 Kings County MJHMP.
Major earthquakes have occurred near Kings County and resulted in ground shaking felt in the county.
The Fort Tejon earthquake in 1857 of M 7.9 was one of the greatest earthquakes ever recorded in the United States and the largest in California. It left an amazing surface rupture scar over 215 miles in length along the San Andreas Fault. The epicenter is now thought to have been located near Cholame, approximately 34 miles northwest of the Kings County border near Avenal. During the Fort Tejon May 23, 2024 Pg. 393
Kings County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
2023 Update Page 4-64
earthquake, strong shaking lasted from one to three minutes. As a result of the shaking, the current of the Kern River was turned upstream, and water ran four feet deep over its banks (SCEDC, 2012). The waters of Tulare Lake were thrown upon its shores, stranding fish miles from the original lakebed. Property loss was heavy at Fort Tejon, one of the only settlements at the time, an Army post in south‐central Kern County about four miles from the San Andreas fault. In 1857, two buildings were declared unsafe, three others were damaged extensively but were habitable, and still, others sustained moderate damage. One person was killed in the collapse of an adobe house at Gorman.
Figure 4-18 below is from the 2018 California State Hazard Mitigation Plan, which displays the common areas damaged by earthquakes based on historic evidence dating back to the year 1800. The occurrences are color-coded by damaging shaking intensity across California, and Kings County is enclosed within a red circle. The figure shows that per the MMI scale noting occurrences equal to or greater than an Intensity of VII, the County has experienced 1 to 2 earthquake events of this kind, mostly affecting the southwestern portion of the County, particularly the area encompassing the City of Avenal.
May 23, 2024 Pg. 394
Kings County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
2023 Update Page 4-65
Figure 4-18 Areas Damaged by Earthquakes from 1800 to 2017 Source: California SHMP, 2018
4.5.5.4 Likelihood of Future Occurrence
Occasional – The National Earthquake Information Center (U.S.) reports 12,000-14,000 earthquakes a year around the world, or 35 a day. Throughout the world, there are one "great" (magnitude 8.0 or more), 18 "major" (7.0-7.9), 120 "large" (6.0-6.9) and 1,000 "moderate" (5.0-5.9) earthquakes in an average year (CA Department of Conservation, n.d.). Each year, California generally gets two or three earthquakes large enough to cause moderate damage to structures (magnitude 5.5 and higher). Moreover, earthquakes can occur at any time of the year. A strong earthquake can cause major damage depending on the epicenter’s location with regards to populated areas, and can lead to billions of dollars in disasters, deaths, injuries, and disruptions in services and communities’ way of life.
May 23, 2024 Pg. 395
Kings County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
2023 Update Page 4-66
Along the San Andreas Fault, segments exist where no large earthquakes have occurred for long intervals of time. These areas accumulate potential energy and provide clues as to where the next earthquake may occur and when. Scientists term these segments “seismic gaps” and, in general, have been successful in forecasting the time when some of the seismic gaps will produce large earthquakes. As noted by USGS, geologic studies show that over the past 1,400 to 1,500 years, large earthquakes have occurred at about 150-year intervals on the southern San Andreas Fault. Based on the earthquake shaking potential mapped for Kings County, the proximity to the San Andreas Fault and the history of shaking but no surface rupture, the probability of damaging seismic ground shaking in Kings County is occasional.
4.5.5.5 Climate Change Considerations
Climate change is not expected to directly affect earthquake frequency or intensity, nor the Likelihood of Future Occurrence of seismic activity.
4.5.5.6 Magnitude and Severity
Catastrophic – For extent, the severity of an earthquake, or the amount of energy released during an earthquake is usually expressed in terms of intensity or magnitude as described further below.
Magnitude – Magnitude represents the amount of seismic energy released at the hypocenter of an earthquake. It is based on the amplitude of the earthquake waves recorded. Seismologists have developed several magnitude scales; one of the first was the Richter Scale, developed in 1932 by the late Dr. Charles F. Richter of the California Institute of Technology. The Richter Scale is numeric and has a logarithmic relationship between scale factors so that a difference of one scale number represents a tenfold increase in measured amplitude, which in turn corresponds to an approximate 31x energy release difference when compared to the next whole number value. The Moment Magnitude scale (Mw or M) is a measurement of energy released by the movement of a fault and is the modern method used by seismologists to measure earthquakes. Overall, as the amount of energy released by an earthquake increases, the potential for ground-shaking impacts also increases.
Intensity – Intensity represents the observed effects of ground shaking at any specified location and earthquake shaking decreases with distance from the earthquake epicenter. Intensity is an expression of the amount of shaking at any given location on the ground surface based on felt or observed effects.
Seismic shaking is typically the greatest cause of losses to structures during earthquakes. Intensity is measured with the Modified Mercalli Intensity (MMI) scale. The intensity of ground shaking at a particular site or structure is a function of many factors including 1) earthquake magnitude, 2) distance from the epicenter, 3) duration of strong ground motion, 4) local geologic conditions (soil type and topography), and 5) the fundamental period of the structure. A brief description of those factors is presented below.
The MMI scale and associated magnitude scales are summarized in Table 4-26, along with the effects associated with the MMI scale. Damage typically occurs in MMI of scale VII or above.
Table 4-26 Earthquake Magnitude and Intensity Measurements and Intensity Characteristics
MAGNITUDE MERCALLI
INTENSITY
EFFECTS FREQUENCY
Less than 2.0 I Microearthquakes, not felt or rarely felt; recorded by seismographs.
Continual
2.0-2.9 I to II Felt slightly by some people; damages to buildings. Over 1M per year
3.0-3.9 II to IV Often felt by people; rarely causes damage; shaking of indoor objects noticeable.
Over 100,000
per year
4.0-4.9 IV to VI Noticeable shaking of indoor objects and rattling noises; felt by most people in the affected area;
slightly felt outside; generally, no to minimal
damage.
10K to 15K
per year
5.0-5.9 VI to VIII Can cause damage of varying severity to poorly constructed buildings; at most, none to slight
damage to all other buildings. Felt by everyone.
1K to 1,500
per year
6.0-6.9 VII to X Damage to a moderate number of well-built structures in populated areas; earthquake-resistant
structures survive with slight to moderate damage;
poorly designed structures receive moderate to
severe damage; felt in wider areas; up to hundreds of
100 to 150
per year
May 23, 2024 Pg. 396
Kings County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
2023 Update Page 4-67
MAGNITUDE MERCALLI
INTENSITY
EFFECTS FREQUENCY
miles/kilometers from the epicenter; strong to
violent shaking in epicentral area.
7.0-7.9 VIII< Causes damage to most buildings, some to partially or completely collapse or receive severe damage;
well-designed structures are likely to receive
damage; felt across great distances with major
damage mostly limited to 250 km from epicenter.
10 to 20 per
year
8.0-8.9 VIII< Major damage to buildings, structures likely to be destroyed; will cause moderate to heavy damage to
sturdy or earthquake-resistant buildings; damaging
in large areas; felt in extremely large regions.
One per year
9.0 and
Greater
VIII< At or near total destruction – severe damage or
collapse to all buildings; heavy damage and shaking
extends to distant locations; permanent changes in
ground topography.
One per 10-
50 years
Source: USGS Volcanic Hazards Program
Distance from Epicenter – Earthquake energy generally dissipates (or attenuates) with distance from a fault. Over long distances, this loss of energy can be significant, resulting in a significant decrease in ground shaking with increased distance from the epicenter.
Duration of Strong Shaking – The duration of strong ground shaking constitutes a major role in determining the amount of structural damage and the potential for ground failure that can result from an earthquake. Larger magnitude earthquakes have longer durations than smaller earthquakes.
Local Geologic Conditions – The geologic and soil conditions at a particular site have the potential to substantially increase the effects of ground shaking. The thickness, density, and consistency of the soil, as well as shallow groundwater levels, have the potential to amplify the effects of ground shaking depending on the characteristics of the earthquake. In general, the presence of unconsolidated soils above the bedrock surface can amplify the ground shaking caused by an earthquake.
Fundamental Periods – Every structure has its fundamental period or natural vibration. If the vibration of ground shaking coincides with the natural vibration period of a structure, damage to the structure can be greatly increased. The extent of damage suffered during an earthquake can also depend on non-geologic factors. The type of building and its structural integrity will influence the severity of the damage suffered.
Generally, small, well-constructed, one- and two-story wood and steel frame buildings have performed well in earthquakes because of their light weight and flexibility. Reinforced concrete structures will also usually perform well. Buildings constructed from non-flexible materials, such as unreinforced brick and concrete, hollow concrete block, clay tile, or adobe, are more vulnerable to earthquake damage.
Effects of Ground Shaking – The primary effect of ground shaking is the damage or destruction of buildings, infrastructure, and possible injury or loss of life. Building damage can range from minor cracking of plaster to total collapse. Disruption of infrastructure facilities can include damage to utilities, pipelines, roads, and bridges. Ruptured gas and water lines can result in fire and produce scour/inundation damage to structures, as can fire from other causes, such as electrical damages.
Secondary effects can include geologic impacts such as co-seismic fault movement along nearby faults, seismically induced slope instability, liquefaction, lateral spreading, and other forms of ground failure and seismic response. These secondary effects were demonstrated in Oceano by the San Simeon 2003 earthquake (Hardebeck et al, 2004).
4.5.5.7 Vulnerability Assessment
Earthquake loss estimation for the 2023 MJHMP update utilized FEMA’s Hazus-MH 6.0 natural hazard loss estimation software. Hazus is a GIS-based, standardized, nationally applicable multi-hazard loss estimation methodology and software. Local, state, and federal government officials use Hazus for preparedness, emergency response, and mitigation planning. A Level 1 Hazus analysis was performed, which estimates damage based on an inventory database compiled at a national level aggregated to 2020 Census Tracts. As with any model, there are uncertainties, and the results should be considered approximate for planning purposes.
May 23, 2024 Pg. 397
Kings County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
2023 Update Page 4-68
To evaluate potential losses associated with earthquake activity in the County’s planning area, two Hazus scenarios were run for the County, including a Hazus 2,500-year probabilistic scenario and the ShakeMap Magnitude 7.2 – Great Valley 14 (Kettleman Hills) Scenario. The 2,500-year scenario considers multiple faults in the region. The methodology utilizes probabilistic seismic hazard contour maps developed by the USGS for the 2018 update of the National Seismic Hazard Maps that are included with Hazus-MH. The USGS maps provide estimates of potential ground acceleration and spectral acceleration at periods of 0.3 second and 1.0 second, respectively. The 2,500-year return period analyzes ground shaking estimates from the various seismic sources in the area with a 2 percent probability of being exceeded in 50 years.
The International Building Code uses this level of ground shaking for building design in seismic areas.
The Magnitude 7.2 – Great Valley 14 (Kettleman Hills) is a deterministic earthquake analysis that was modeled using Hazus for the County. A deterministic scenario predicts the outcome of a specific earthquake event. This deterministic scenario used USGS-provided ShakeMap datasets to model what a Magnitude 7.2 earthquake of the Great Valley Fault Thrust System would generate in terms of damages and losses for the chosen area of interest (i.e. Kings County). The datasets used to import into Hazus 6.0 for the scenario included four USGS-provided data layers in geospatial format: peak ground velocity, peak ground acceleration, peak spectral acceleration for 0.3 seconds (0.3 % g, or gravitational velocity), and peak ground acceleration for 1.0 seconds (1.0 % g).
Hazus estimates the number of people displaced, the number of buildings and facilities/infrastructure damaged, the number of casualties, and the damage to transportation systems and utilities. Results produced by Hazus are reported at the census tract level. These results and the estimated impacts are summarized below in the vulnerability assessment.
People
Loss of utility service would have major impacts on the people of the County, including socially vulnerable populations. The following tables indicate the number of projected households that would experience power and water loss, and the number of days the loss would last. As shown by Table 4-27 and Table 4-28 the 2,500-Year Probabilistic Scenario is expected to cause a longer delay in the recovery of potable water and electric power systems as well as cause more people to be without potable water or electric power compared to the Great Valley ShakeMap Scenario.
Table 4-27 Expected Potable Water and Electric Power System Performance – 2,500-Year Probabilistic Scenario
Source: Hazus-MH 6.0
Table 4-28 Expected Potable Water and Electric Power System Performance – Great Valley ShakeMap Scenario
Affected
Service
TOTAL
NUMBER OF
HOUSEHOLDS
NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS WITHOUT SERVICE
AT DAY 1 AT DAY 3 AT DAY 7 AT DAY 30 AT DAY 90
Potable
Water 44,100
8,513 6,254 2,238 0 0
Electric
Power
3,315 2,451 1,222 157 4
Source: Hazus-MH 6.0
Sheltering is another concern during an earthquake – people may be displaced from their homes due to the earthquake, and those displaced people may need accommodations in temporary public shelters.
Table 4-29 shows the projected total displacement and projected shelter needs for each scenario. The 2,500-Year Probabilistic Scenario is expected to result in many more displaced households and also people seeking shelter than the Great Valley ShakeMap Scenario.
AFFECTED
SERVICE
TOTAL NUMBER
OF
HOUSEHOLDS
NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS WITHOUT SERVICE
AT DAY 1 AT DAY 3 AT DAY 7 AT DAY 30 AT DAY 90
Potable
Water 44,100
36,567 36,100 35,057 24,608 0
Electric
Power
36,801 27,393 14,104 2,168 44
May 23, 2024 Pg. 398
Kings County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
2023 Update Page 4-69
Table 4-29 Shelter Requirements
TOTAL POPULATION TOTAL DISPLACED
HOUSEHOLDS
TOTAL SEEKING
SHELTER
2,500-YEAR PROBABILISTIC SCENARIO 152,486 2,371 1,588
GREAT VALLEY SHAKEMAP SCENARIO 152,486 121 96
Source: Hazus-MH 6.0
The Hazus modeled potential casualty numbers vary based on the magnitude and time of occurrence of the earthquake. Casualties are broken out by occupancy class, and severity is separated into one of four categories.
• Level 1 – Injuries will require medical attention, but hospitalization is not needed • Level 2 – Injuries will require hospitalization but are not considered life-threatening • Level 3 – Injuries will require hospitalization and can become life-threatening if not promptly treated • Level 4 – Victims are killed by the earthquake
Hazus estimates are provided for three times of day: 2 AM, 2 PM, and 5 PM. These times represent the periods of the day when different sectors of the community are at their peak occupancy loads. The 2 AM estimate considers that the residential occupancy load is maximum, the 2 PM estimate considers that the educational, commercial, and industrial sector loads are maximum, and 5 PM represents peak commute time. Table 4-30 shows casualty estimates for the different times of day for each scenario. The 2,500-Year Probabilistic Scenario is expected to result in much more casualties and also more severe casualties than the Great Valley ShakeMap Scenario, shown in Table 4-31.
Table 4-30 Casualty Estimates – 2,500-Year Probabilistic Scenario LEVEL 1 LEVEL 2 LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4
2 AM Commercial 6.42 1.78 0.28 0.56
Commuting 0.06 0.07 0.13 0.03
Educational 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hotels 0.07 0.02 0.00 0.01
Industrial 9.53 2.65 0.42 0.82
Other- Residential 294.52 72.12 9.25 17.88
Single Family 210.24 32.87 1.67 2.86
Total 521 110 12 22
2 PM Commercial 574.36 158.59 25.16 49.05
Commuting 0.54 0.67 1.20 0.23
Educational 230.38 62.92 10.17 19.90
Hotels 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00
Industrial 70.21 19.45 3.07 5.99
Other- Residential 126.17 31.09 4.21 7.84
Single Family 66.67 10.43 0.62 0.90
Total 1,068 283 44 84
5 PM Commercial 446.20 122.91 19.53 37.54
Commuting 9.31 11.45 20.50 3.91
Educational 20.32 5.64 0.93 1.81
Hotels 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00
Industrial 43.88 12.15 1.92 3.75
Other- Residential 113.14 27.77 3.65 6.79
Single Family 81.95 12.92 0.78 1.12
Total 715 193 47 55
Source: Hazus-MH 6.0
May 23, 2024 Pg. 399
Kings County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
2023 Update Page 4-70
Table 4-31 Casualty Estimates – Great Valley ShakeMap Scenario LEVEL 1 LEVEL 2 LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4
2 AM Commercial 0.29 0.06 0.01 0.01
Commuting 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Educational 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hotels 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Industrial 0.29 0.05 0.01 0.01
Other- Residential 42.29 8.89 1.04 2.01
Single Family 16.09 1.56 0.06 0.10
Total 59 11 1 2
2 PM Commercial 26.94 5.46 0.71 1.38
Commuting 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.01
Educational 14.37 3.13 0.45 0.88
Hotels 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Industrial 2.16 0.36 0.04 0.08
Other- Residential 18.01 3.89 0.49 0.92
Single Family 4.29 0.39 0.02 0.02
Total 66 13 2 3
5 PM Commercial 24.66 5.23 0.71 1.35
Commuting 0.22 0.28 0.49 0.09
Educational 0.34 0.04 0.00 0.00
Hotels 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Industrial 1.35 0.23 0.02 0.05
Other- Residential 16.09 3.42 0.41 0.77
Single Family 6.07 0.61 0.03 0.04
Total 49 10 2 2
Source: Hazus-MH 6.0
Populations most vulnerable to earthquake hazards would also be those that rely on specific services or electrical power which may not be available during or after an earthquake. Over three million Medicare beneficiaries rely on electricity-dependent durable medical and assistive equipment and devices to live independently in their homes (DHHS 2023). Severe weather, earthquakes, and other emergencies that result in prolonged power outages can be life threatening for these individuals. For example, of the 18,207 total beneficiaries in Kings County, 1,059 (5.8%) are at risk beneficiaries depending on medical equipment (DHHS 2023) Populations that are homeless, would also have a difficult time evacuating due to age or disability, in addition to those that cannot communicate easily because of limited English proficiency.
Given there are numerous underserved and DACs throughout the County’s unincorporated communities in the northeast and within portions of most of the four cities in the County, earthquake hazards are expected to have the greatest impact on the disadvantaged households that rely on electrical power for medical conditions.
Property
Unreinforced Masonry Building (URM)s – Unreinforced masonry building type structures consist of buildings made of unreinforced concrete and brick, hollow concrete blocks, clay tiles, and adobe.
Buildings constructed of these materials are heavy and brittle, and typically provide little earthquake resistance. In small earthquakes, unreinforced buildings can crack, and in strong earthquakes, they have a tendency to collapse. These types of structures pose the greatest structural risk to life and safety of all general building types. Due to the public safety risks that are posed by URM buildings, the California legislature passed SB 547 (Government Code Section 8875 et seq.). This legislation went into effect on January 1, 1987, and required all cities and counties located in Seismic Zone 4 to conduct an inventory of potentially hazardous structures, including unreinforced masonry buildings. The County is located within Zone 4.
Hazus estimates the number of buildings that will be damaged during a modeled earthquake, and these estimates are provided in the figures and tables below. According to Hazus results, under the 2,500-year May 23, 2024 Pg. 400
Kings County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
2023 Update Page 4-71
probabilistic scenario, the total building-related losses were $4.5 billion. By far, the largest loss was sustained by the residential occupancies which made up over 41% of the total loss. Under the Great Valley 14 (Kettleman Hills) ShakeMap Scenario, total building-related losses were $396 million. Here, the largest loss was also sustained by the residential occupancies, which made up over 41% of the total loss. Figure 4-19 and Figure 4-20 below provide summaries of the losses associated with the building damage under the two scenarios. The 2,500-Year Probabilistic Scenario is expected to result in much more economic losses than the Great Valley ShakeMap Scenario.
Figure 4-19 Earthquake Losses by Loss Type and Occupancy Type – 2,500 Probabilistic Scenario (in Millions of Dollars)
Figure 4-20 Earthquake Losses by Loss Type and Occupancy Type – Great Valley ShakeMap Scenario (in Millions of Dollars)
Table 4-32 and Table 4-33 show the expected building damage categorized by both building type and the degree of the expected damage. For each scenario, the majority of structures will either not be damaged or suffer slight to moderate damage. The 2,500-Year Probabilistic Scenario is expected to produce more severe building damage than the Great Valley ShakeMap Scenario.
May 23, 2024 Pg. 401
Kings County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
2023 Update Page 4-72
Table 4-32 Expected Building Damage by Occupancy – 2,500-Year Probabilistic Scenario
NONE SLIGHT MODERATE EXTENSIVE COMPLETE
COUNTY (%) COUNTY (%) COUNTY (%) COUNTY (%) COUNTY (%)
Agriculture 44.19 0.4
3 77.52 0.4
4 99.84 0.8
1 56.94 2.1
0 27.50 2.7
4 Commercial 288.25 2.8
0 481.07 2.71 799.30 6.4
7 529.91 19.
52 219.47 21.
85 Education 18.98 0.1
8 28.24 0.1
6 33.12 0.2
7 17.02 0.6
3 5.63 0.5
6 Government 10.07 0.1
0 15.52 0.0
9 23.61 0.1
9 16.26 0.6
0 6.54 0.6
5 Industrial 57.02 0.5
5 99.97 0.5
6 195.95 1.59 141.07 5.2
0 61.00 6.0
7 Other
Residential
759.39 7.3
7 1404.03 7.9
0 1278.72 10.3
5 612.66 22.
57 287.20 28.
60 Religion 30.92 0.3
0 49.54 0.2
8 67.86 0.5
5 43.78 1.61 17.91 1.78
Single
Family
9089.21 88.
26 15624.33 87.
87 9855.83 79.
78 1296.67 47.
77 378.95 37.
74 Total 10,298 17,780 12,354 2,714 1,004
Source: Hazus-MH 6.0
Table 4-33 Expected Building Damage by Occupancy – Great Valley ShakeMap Scenario
NONE SLIGHT MODERATE EXTENSIVE COMPLETE
COUNTY (%) COUNTY (%) COUNTY (%) COUNTY (%) COUNTY (%)
Agriculture 228.77 0.6
0 42.91 0.8
9 24.87 2.1
8 7.42 4.1
0 2.04 4.4
2 Commercial 1916.27 6.0
4 237.34 4.9
4 124.09 10.
89 32.57 18.
00 7.73 16.
79 Education 86.63 0.2
3 10.40 0.2
2 4.57 0.4
0 1.15 0.6
3 0.26 0.5
5 Government 58.47 0.1
5 7.63 0.1
6 4.19 0.3
7 1.32 0.7
3 0.39 0.8
4 Industrial 448.84 1.18 62.01 1.29 34.77 3.0
5 7.74 4.2
8 1.64 3.5
6 Other
Residential
3402.40 8.9
6 574.57 11.9
7 259.24 22.
75 82.89 45.
81 22.90 49.
74 Religion 171.49 0.4
5 22.96 0.4
8 11.46 1.01 3.27 1.81 0.81 1.7
7 Single
Family
31671.46 83.
38 3842.34 80.
05 676.35 59.
35 44.57 24.
63 10.27 22.
32 Total 37,984 4,800 1,140 181 46
Source: Hazus-MH 6.0
Figure 4-21 and Figure 4-22 below display the census tracts within the County that were analyzed in the two scenarios, color-coded by the amount of total building loss each tract experienced.
May 23, 2024 Pg. 402
Kings County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
2023 Update Page 4-73
Figure 4-21 Kings County Hazus 2,500-Year Probabilistic Scenario Total Building Loss (in Thousands of Dollars)
May 23, 2024 Pg. 403
Kings County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
2023 Update Page 4-74
Figure 4-22 Kings County Great Valley ShakeMap Scenario Total Building Loss (in Thousands of Dollars)
Economy
Depending on its location and magnitude, an earthquake could have a devastating impact on the County’s economy. Impacts would be related to debris cleanup and management, building and infrastructure damage, and losses related to business and infrastructure interruption. Hazus estimates the economic impacts of earthquakes. Losses estimated include building-related losses, and transportation and utility lifeline losses. The model estimates loss over a 15-year span after the incident.
Building losses are broken into two categories – direct building losses and business interruption losses.
The direct building losses are the estimated costs to repair or replace the damage caused to the building and its contents. Business interruption losses are the losses associated with the inability to operate a business because of the damage sustained during the earthquake. Business interruption losses also May 23, 2024 Pg. 404
Kings County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
2023 Update Page 4-75
include the temporary living expenses for those people displaced from their homes because of the earthquake. Table 4-34 shows the economic losses under the two scenarios broken down by loss categories and occupancy types. The 2,500-year probabilistic scenario is expected to cause much more economic losses.
Table 4-34 Economic Losses (Millions of Dollars)
2,500-YEAR PROBABILISTIC SCENARIO
Category Single
Family
Other
Residential
Commercial Industrial Others Total
Income Losses 132.51 70.22 403.1 35.6 75.57 717
Capital Stock
Losses
1,195.44 432.9 1,035.41 584.42 543 3,791.17
Total 1,327.95 503.12 1,438.51 620.02 618.57 4,508.17
GREAT VALLEY SHAKEMAP SCENARIO
Income Losses 6.9 6.09 28.87 2.54 6.98 51.37
Capital Stock
Losses
101.28 50.41 81.43 45.81 66.63 345.57
Total 108.18 56.5 110.3 48.36 73.6 396.94
Source: Hazus-MH 6.0
Moreover, the economic losses associated with the disruption of lifeline systems, specifically transportation and utility lifelines are shown in Table 4-35 and Table 4-36.
Table 4-35 Lifeline System Losses for 2,500-Year Probabilistic Scenario – Transportation and Utility (Millions of Dollars)
2,500-YEAR PROBABILISTIC SCENARIO
System Inventory Value Economic Loss
Highway $2,452 $5.24
Railways $1,162.69 $1.22
Light Rail $0 $0
Bus $4.3 $0.59
Ferry $0 $0
Port $0 $0
Airport $135 $14.69
Potable Water $130.34 $26.78
Wastewater $78.2 $13.45
Natural Gas $602.59 $70.2
Oil Systems $0.12 $0.03
Electrical Power $1,634.4 $1,338.7
Communication $0.47 $0.59
Source: Hazus-MH 6.0
Table 4-36 Lifeline System Losses for Great Valley ShakeMap Scenario – Transportation and Utility (Millions of Dollars)
GREAT VALLEY SHAKEMAP SCENARIO
SYSTEM INVENTORY VALUE ECONOMIC LOSS
Highway $3,898.68 $15.2
Railways $1,052.92 $4.28
Light Rail $0 $0
Bus $7.32 $0.79
Ferry $0 $0
Port $0 $0
Airport $158.47 $3.48
Potable Water $130.34 $6.06
May 23, 2024 Pg. 405
Kings County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
2023 Update Page 4-76
GREAT VALLEY SHAKEMAP SCENARIO
Wastewater $78.2 $3.05
Natural Gas $602.59 $41.47
Oil Systems $0.12 $0
Electrical Power $1,634.4 $392.76
Communication $0.47 $0.03
Source: Hazus-MH 6.0
The 2,500-Year Probabilistic Scenario is also expected to result in much more lifeline system losses than the Great Valley ShakeMap Scenario.
Critical Facilities and Infrastructure
Hazus breaks critical facilities into two groups: essential facilities and high potential loss (HPL) facilities.
Essential facilities include hospitals, medical clinics, schools, fire stations, police stations and emergency operations facilities. HPL facilities include dams, levees, military installations, nuclear power plants and hazardous material sites. There are 12 hospitals in Kings with a total bed capacity of 142 beds. There are also 71 schools, 18 fire stations, 9 police stations and one emergency operation facility. The inventory also includes no hazardous material sites, no military installations, and no nuclear power plants.
On the day of the earthquake in the 2,500-Year Probabilistic Scenario, the model estimates that only 24 hospital beds (17%) would be available for use by patients already in the hospital and those injured by the earthquake. After one week, 49% of the beds would be back in service. By 30 days, 83% will be operational. The expected damages from the earthquake event are provided in Table 4-37.
Table 4-37 Expected Damage to Essential Facilities – 2,500-Year Probabilistic Scenario Source: Hazus-MH 6.0
On the day of the earthquake for the Great Valley ShakeMap Scenario, the model estimates that 126 hospital beds (89%) would be available for use by patients already in the hospital and those injured by the earthquake. After one week, 98% of the beds would be back in service. By 30 days, 100% will be operational. The expected damages from the earthquake event are provided in Table 4-38.
May 23, 2024 Pg. 406
Kings County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
2023 Update Page 4-77
Table 4-38 Expected Damage to Essential Facilities – Great Valley ShakeMap Scenario Source: Hazus-MH 6.0
Within Hazus, the lifeline inventory is divided between transportation and utility lifeline systems. There are seven transportation systems that include highways, railways, light rail, bus, ports, ferry, and airports.
There are also six utility systems that include potable water, wastewater, natural gas, crude & refined oil, electric power, and communications. The transportation systems inventory and expected damages from the earthquake, in terms of the number of structures and locations affected, are provided in Table 4-39 and Table 4-40 for the two scenarios, while losses in millions of dollars are summarized in Table 4-41 and Table 4-42. The total value of the lifeline inventory is over $6.2 billion. This inventory includes over 300 miles of highways, 166 bridges, and 6,554 miles of pipes.
May 23, 2024 Pg. 407
Kings County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
2023 Update Page 4-78
Table 4-39 Expected Damage to the Transportation Systems – 2,500-Year Probabilistic Scenario Source: Hazus-MH 6.0
May 23, 2024 Pg. 408
Kings County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
2023 Update Page 4-79
Table 4-40 Expected Damage to the Transportation Systems – Great Valley ShakeMap Scenario Source: Hazus-MH 6.0
May 23, 2024 Pg. 409
Kings County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
2023 Update Page 4-80
Table 4-41 Transportation System Economic Losses (Millions of dollars) – 2,500-Year Probabilistic Scenario
Source: Hazus-MH 6.0
May 23, 2024 Pg. 410
Kings County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
2023 Update Page 4-81
Table 4-42 Transportation System Economic Losses (Millions of dollars) – Great Valley ShakeMap Scenario
Source: Hazus-MH 6.0
The replacement value of the transportation and utility lifeline systems is estimated to be $3.76 billion and $2.45 billion, respectively. The expected utility system facility damages in terms of total structures or systems affected, along with the inventory of this dataset, are summarized Table 4-43 and Table 4-44 for the two scenarios respectively. Economic losses in millions of dollars are found in Table 4-45 and Table 4-46.
May 23, 2024 Pg. 411
Kings County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
2023 Update Page 4-82
Table 4-43 Expected Utility System Facility Inventory and Damages – 2,500-Year Probabilistic Scenario
Source: Hazus-MH 6.0
May 23, 2024 Pg. 412
Kings County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
2023 Update Page 4-83
Table 4-44 Expected Utility System Facility Inventory and Damages – Great Valley ShakeMap Scenario
Source: Hazus-MH 6.0
May 23, 2024 Pg. 413
Kings County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
2023 Update Page 4-84
Table 4-45 Utility System Economic Losses in Millions of Dollars – 2,500-Year Probabilistic Scenario Source: Hazus-MH 6.0
May 23, 2024 Pg. 414
Kings County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
2023 Update Page 4-85
Table 4-46 Utility System Economic Losses in Millions of Dollars – Great Valley ShakeMap Scenario Source: Hazus-MH 6.0
Site specific expected utility system pipeline damages (including their inventory) are included in Table 4-47 and Table 4-48, while the potable water and electric power system performance limitations, damages, and inventory will be in Table 4-49 and Table 4-50.
May 23, 2024 Pg. 415
Kings County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
2023 Update Page 4-86
Table 4-47 Expected Utility System Pipeline Damage (Site Specific) – 2,500-Year Probabilistic Scenario
Source: Hazus-MH 6.0
Table 4-48 Expected Utility System Pipeline Damage (Site Specific) – Great Valley ShakeMap Scenario
Source: Hazus-MH 6.0
Table 4-49 Expected Potable Water and Electric Power System Performance – 2,500-Year Probabilistic Scenario
Source: Hazus-MH 6.0
Table 4-50 Expected Potable Water and Electric Power System Performance – Great Valley ShakeMap Scenario
Source: Hazus-MH 6.0
May 23, 2024 Pg. 416
Kings County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
2023 Update Page 4-87
In summary, a major earthquake would result in serious impacts on critical infrastructure. Hazus estimates impacts to critical facilities including hospitals, schools, Emergency Operation Centers (EOCs), police stations and fire stations. These impact estimates are shown in Table 4-51 and Table 4-52. As shown in the two tables, the 2,500-Year Probabilistic Scenario is expected to cause more damage and also more severe damage to critical facilities, as well as result in delays for the critical facilities to recover than the Great Valley ShakeMap Scenario. Major impacts on the critical facilities in the County will in turn result in significant impacts to socially vulnerable populations, particularly those communities in the northeast portion of the County and the unincorporated rural communities of Armona, Grangeville, Hardwick, Hanford, Kettleman City, Laton, and Stratford and portions of Avenal, Corcoran, and Lemoore that contain underserved communities and DACs that lack access to transportation or support systems and need to evacuate to neighboring counties for support. Any prolonged loss of power would also indirectly impact those at-risk populations that depending on electricity to operate medical and life-saving equipment.
Table 4-51 Expected Damage to Critical Facilities – 2,500-Year Probabilistic Scenario Classification Total Number of Facilities
At Least Moderate
Damage > 50%
Complete Damage
> 50%
With Functionality
> 50% on Day 1
Hospitals 2 1 0 0
Schools 71 32 0 0
EOCs 1 1 0 0
Police Stations 9 2 0 0
Fire Stations 18 1 0 0
Total 101 37 0 0
Source: Hazus-MH 6.0
Table 4-52 Expected Damage to Critical Facilities – Great Valley ShakeMap Scenario Classification Total Number of Facilities
At Least Moderate
Damage > 50%
Complete Damage
> 50%
With Functionality
> 50% on Day 1
Hospitals 2 0 0 2
Schools 71 0 0 0
EOCs 1 0 0 62
Police Stations 9 0 0 0
Fire Stations 18 0 0 1
Total 101 0 0 65
Source: Hazus-MH 6.0
Cultural, Historic and Natural Resources
Earthquake effects on the environment, natural resources, and historic and cultural assets could be very destructive depending on the type of seismic activity experienced and secondary/cascading effects from an event (e.g., wildfire). The biggest impact would likely be on older properties such as wooden or masonry buildings, though reinforced masonry structures would be much more resilient during earthquakes.
Development Trends
Development Trends in the County is not anticipated to significantly affect vulnerability to earthquakes when new construction is designed according to modern building codes. However, development will result in a slight increase in exposure of the population, building stock, and related infrastructure to earthquakes. Because all new development will be built to current California Building Code (CBC) requirements, development is not anticipated to increase the vulnerability of the community to earthquake hazards. However, older unreinforced masonry structures not inventoried in the County of four cities may be susceptible to seismic events.
May 23, 2024 Pg. 417
Kings County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
2023 Update Page 4-88
4.5.5.8 Risk Summary
• The County is located in a geologically complex and seismically active region, albeit less so than other areas of California. There is a couple of active and potentially active faults close to the County. The County does not have a history of significant damaging earthquakes. • The overall significance of earthquakes is High.
• A moderate earthquake occurring in or near Kings County could result in deaths, casualties, property damage, agricultural and environmental damage, and disruption of normal government and community services and activities.
• The location of the epicenter as well as the time of day and season of the year would have a profound effect on the number of deaths and casualties, as well as property damage. • The hazard of earthquakes varies from place to place, dependent upon the regional and local geology.
• Effects on people – Hazus 2,500-year probabilistic scenario modeling results in estimates of 122 to 317 people needing hospitalization and between 22 to 84 deaths depending on the time of day the earthquake hits; Hazus Great Valley ShakeMap Scenario modeling results in estimates of 12 to 15 people needing hospitalization and between 2 to 3 deaths depending on the time of day the earthquake hits.
• At-risk populations, particularly DACs in the northeast portion of the County; the unincorporated rural communities of Armona, Grangeville, Hardwick, Hanford, Kettleman City, Laton, and Stratford; and portions of Avenal, Corcoran, and Lemoore would be at most risk to major earthquakes, particularly those that lack access to transportation or support systems and dependent on electricity to operate medical and life-saving equipment.
• Effects on property – Hazus 2,500-year probabilistic scenario modeling indicates about 16,072 buildings will be at least moderately damaged, with approximately $4.51 billion in losses; Hazus Great Valley ShakeMap Scenario modeling indicates about 6,167 buildings will be at least moderately damaged, with approximately $0.4 billion in losses.
• Effects on economy – The total economic loss estimated under Hazus 2,500-year probabilistic scenario is over $5.7 billion, which includes building and lifeline related losses based on the region's available inventory. The total economic loss estimated under Hazus Great Valley ShakeMap Scenario is almost $0.9 billion, which includes building and lifeline related losses based on the region's available inventory.
• Effects on critical facilities and infrastructure – Under the Hazus 2,500-year probabilistic scenario essential facility damage (police, fire, school, medical) is predicted to be medium; only 24 hospital beds (17%) would be available during the earthquake. Under the Hazus Great Valley ShakeMap Scenario, essential facility damage (police, fire, school, medical) is predicted to be very low; 126 hospital beds (89%) would be available during the earthquake. • Cascading and Secondary Effects – Earthquakes can cause many cascading effects such as fires, flooding, hazardous materials spills, utility disruptions, liquefaction, landslides, and transportation emergencies. Ground shaking may cause seiches, the rhythmic sloshing of water in lakes or bays. • Related Hazards – Urban Fires, Landslides, Seiches
JURISDICTION GEOGRAPHIC
AREA
PROBABILITY
OF FUTURE
OCCURRENCE
MAGNITUDE/
SEVERITY
OVERALL
SIGNIFICANCE
PRIORITY
HAZARD?
Kings County Limited Occasional Catastrophic Medium Yes City of Avenal Significant Occasional Catastrophic High Yes City of Corcoran Limited Occasional Critical Medium Yes City of Hanford Limited Occasional Critical Medium Yes
City of Lemoore Limited Occasional Critical Medium Yes
May 23, 2024 Pg. 418
Kings County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
2023 Update Page 4-89
4.5.6 EXTREME TEMPERATURES: FREEZE AND HEAT
4.5.6.1 Hazard Description
Extreme temperature events, both cold and hot, can have severe impacts on human health and mortality, natural ecosystems, agriculture, and other economic sectors.
Freeze
Extreme cold temperatures pose significant risks to human health and safety, including hypothermia, frostbite, carbon monoxide poisoning, and slips and falls. In addition, extreme cold can cause damage to infrastructure, such as frozen pipes and power outages, as well as agriculture through crop and livestock damage. Furthermore, extreme cold can disrupt transportation and shipping, leading to economic losses.
In 2001, the NWS implemented an updated Wind Chill Temperature index shown in Figure 4-23. This index was developed to describe the relative discomfort/danger resulting from the combination of wind and temperature. Wind chill is based on the rate of heat loss from exposed skin caused by wind and cold.
As the wind increases, it draws heat from the body, driving down skin temperature and eventually the internal body temperature. Overall, freeze impacts would likely be limited in the planning area, with the greatest impact being on the agricultural industry.
Figure 4-23 NWS Wind Chill Chart Wind (mph)
Temperature ° F
20 15 10 5 0 -5 -10 -15 -20
5 13 7 1 -5 -11 -16 -22 -28 -34
10 9 3 -4 -10 -16 -22 -28 -35 -41
15 6 0 -7 -13 -19 -26 -32 -39 -45
20 4 -2 -9 -15 -22 -29 -35 -42 -48
25 3 -4 -11 -17 -24 -31 -37 -44 -51
30 1 -5 -12 -19 -26 -33 -39 -46 -53
35 0 -7 -14 -21 -27 -34 -41 -48 -55
40 -1 -8 -15 -22 -29 -36 -43 -50 -57
45 -2 -9 -16 -23 -30 -37 -44 -51 -58
50 -3 -10 -17 -24 -31 -38 -45 -52 -60
55 -3 -11 -18 -25 -32 -39 -46 -54 -61
60 -4 -11 -19 -26 -33 -40 -48 -55 -62
= Extreme Danger – Heatstroke stroke highly likely
= Danger – Heat cramps or heat exhaustion likely, and heat stroke possible with prolonged exposure and/or physical activity
= Extreme Caution – Heat stroke, heat cramps, or heat exhaustion possible with prolonged exposure and/or physical activity
Source: The National Weather Service
Extreme Heat
Extreme heat can pose serious risks to human health and safety. The most common risks associated with exposure to extreme heat include dehydration, heat exhaustion, and heat stroke. In addition to the risks to human health and safety, extreme heat can have significant impacts on infrastructure, the economy, and agriculture. For example, high temperatures can cause power outages and damage to roads and other infrastructure. In agriculture, extreme heat can damage crops and livestock, leading to lower yields and economic losses for farmers.
Figure 4-24 shows the Heat Index (HI) as a function of heat and relative humidity. The Heat Index describes how hot the heat‐humidity combination makes the air feel. As relative humidity increases, the May 23, 2024 Pg. 419
Kings County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
2023 Update Page 4-90
air seems warmer than it actually is because the body is less able to cool itself via evaporation of perspiration. As the Heat Index rises, so do health risks.
Figure 4-24 NWS Heat Index Relative Humidity %
Temperature ° F
80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120
0 73 78 83 87 91 95 99 105 107
5 74 79 84 88 93 97 102 107 111
10 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 111 116
15 76 81 86 91 97 102 108 115 123
20 77 82 87 93 99 105 112 120 130
25 77 83 88 94 101 109 117 127 139
30 78 84 90 96 104 113 123 135 148
35 79 85 91 98 107 118 130 143
40 80 86 91 101 110 123 137 151
45 80 87 93 104 115 129 143
50 81 88 95 107 120 135 150
55 81 89 97 110 126 142
60 82 90 100 114 132 149
65 82 91 103 119 138 95
70 83 93 105 124 144
75 84 95 109 130 150
80 84 97 113 136
85 85 99 117 140
90 86 102 122 150
95 86 105 127
100 87 108 132
= Extreme Danger – Heatstroke stroke highly likely
= Danger – Heat cramps or heat exhaustion likely, and heat stroke possible with prolonged exposure and/or physical activity
= Extreme Caution – Heat stroke, heat cramps, or heat exhaustion possible with prolonged exposure and/or physical activity
= Caution – Fatigue possible with prolonged exposure and/or physical activity Source: The National Weather Service
Table 4-53 summarizes temperature normals in the County with data from the National Weather Service (NWS).
Table 4-53 Kings County Temperature and Precipitation Summary METRIC HANFORD 1S
(043747)
Period of Record 1899-2016
Winter Average Minimum Temperature* 36.2°F
Winter Mean Temperature * 46.7°F
Summer Average Maximum Temperature** 95.1°F
May 23, 2024 Pg. 420
Kings County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
2023 Update Page 4-91
METRIC HANFORD 1S
(043747)
Summer Mean Temperature** 60.4°F
Average Annual Number of Days >90°F 105.1
Average Annual Number of Days <32°F 0.0
Mean Total Precipitation (in.) 8.38
Mean Snow Depth (in.) 0.0
Maximum Temperature 116°F on July 28, 1933
Minimum Temperature 14°F on January 6, 1913
Source: Western Regional Climate Center (WRCC)
*Winter = Dec., Jan., and Feb.
**Summer = Jun., Jul., and Aug
4.5.6.2 Geographic Area
Extensive – One of the defining features of temperature hazards is that they tend to be regional in nature, impacting a large geographical area simultaneously. This is due to the limited geographical extent of the County, which means that temperature hazards have the potential to affect most, if not all, of the planning area at the same time.
4.5.6.3 Past Occurrences
A search of records from 2000 to 2022 in the National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) Storm Events Database showed 161 extreme cold events and 52 extreme heat events in Kings County.
These events are broken down by event type in Table 4-54 below.
Table 4-54 Extreme Temperature Events, 2017-2021
EVENT TYPE
EVENT
COUNT (# OF
DAYS)
TOTAL
DEATHS
TOTAL
INJURIES
PROPERTY
DAMAGE
CROP
DAMAGE
Cold/Wind Chill 4 -- - -
Extreme Cold/Wind Chill 4 - - - -
Excessive Heat 7 - - $1,000,000 -
Frost/Freeze 150 - - - $216,720,000
Heat 45 - - - $106,600,00
0 Winter Weather 3 - - - -
Total 213 0 0 $1,000,000 $323,320,000
Source: NCEI, 2023
Since 1950, there have been three State emergency declarations in the County for freeze events (refer to Table 4-1) although there have been no events since 2017. There have been no State or federal emergency declarations for extreme heat. The SHELDUS database recorded six incidents of freezes and severe cold between 1970 and 2005 (Kings County 2012). No injuries or deaths are recorded but millions of dollars in crop damage have occurred.
There have been 4 USDA disaster designations due to extreme temperatures in Kings County since 2012.
They are summarized in Table 4-55.
Table 4-55 USDA Extreme Temperature Disaster Declarations, 2012-2021
YEAR DESCRIPTION OF DISASTER
2012 Freezing temperatures, high winds, excessive rain
May 23, 2024 Pg. 421
Kings County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
2023 Update Page 4-92
Hailstorm, rain, cold temperatures
2016 excessive rain, high winds, cold temperatures, and hail 2018 Freeze
Source: USDA
4.5.6.4 Likelihood of Future Occurrence
Highly Likely – In the past, severe freezes have occurred every few years. Based on the NCEI data, 161 extreme cold events have occurred over a 23-year period, which equates to seven major events every year.
This makes it highly likely that an extreme cold event will happen during any given year. Based on the NCEI data, 52 extreme heat events have occurred over a 23-year period, which equates to over two extreme heat events annually. This makes it highly likely that an extreme heat event will happen during any given year.
As climate change progresses, these events are likely to become more common. Future temperature estimates from Cal-Adapt for the County under high and low emission scenarios are shown in Figure 4-25.
The graph shows the number of days per year when daily maximum temperature is above the extreme heat threshold of 104.4 °F. Note: The threshold temperature used in Cal-Adapt is location specific, and in this case for the County. It is defined as the 98th percentile value of historical daily maximum/minimum temperatures (from 1961–1990, between April and October) observed in the County.
Figure 4-25 Future Extreme Heat Days in Kings County
Source: Cal-Adapt 2023
Regarding extreme cold temperatures, a study funded by NOAA’s Climate Program Office’s Modeling, Analysis, Predictions and Projections (MAPP) program, which used machine learning techniques to link extreme cold weather in the United States to Arctic warming, suggests that extreme cold events may increase as well (Cohen et al 2021). Accelerated Arctic warming has been evident since the 1990s as one of the more robust signs of global warming. MAPP program’s researchers concluded that Arctic warming and climate change are likely contributing to the increasing frequency of Arctic polar vortex stretching events, which deliver extreme cold from the north pole to the lower United States. One such event occurred in 2021 in Texas when a cold wave caused the collapse of the state’s infrastructure and resulted in approximately $80-130 billion in direct and indirect economic losses (Cohen et al 2021).
May 23, 2024 Pg. 422
Kings County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
2023 Update Page 4-93
4.5.6.5 Climate Change Considerations
Temperatures in California have risen almost 3°F since the beginning of the 20th century (Frankson et al, 2022). Under RCP 8.5, the average temperature is likely to be about 9°F hotter than the hottest year on record (Frankson et al, 2022). Increasing temperatures are likely to have the secondary effects of raising the snow line and increasing earlier snowpack melt, resulting in an increased likelihood that precipitation will fall as rain rather than snow, reducing water storage in the snowpack. Reduced snowpack availability has forced many agricultural producers to utilize groundwater, and over pumping has caused significant land subsidence in parts of the County.
Figure 4-26 below show the historic number of extreme heat days in the County, and Figure 4-27 shows the projected number of extreme heat days under the RCP 8.5 scenario anticipated by mid-century As shown, approximately 10 to 20 additional extreme heat days are anticipated by mid-century.
May 23, 2024 Pg. 423
Kings County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
2023 Update Page 4-94
Figure 4-26 Historical Number of Extreme Heat Days
May 23, 2024 Pg. 424
Kings County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
2023 Update Page 4-95
Figure 4-27 Projected Mid-Century Number of Extreme Heat Days
4.5.6.6 Magnitude and Severity
Limited – Extreme temperatures occur often in the County. According to the NCEI database, in the years between 2000 and 2022, extreme temperatures caused at least $1 million in property damage and over $323 million in crop damage. This equates to about $14 million in direct annualized loss due to extreme temperatures.
While there were no recorded deaths or injuries associated with these events, there are potential secondary impacts associated with lost time, maintenance costs, and damaged building contents. Even a minor event of extreme temperatures can have a significant impact on city resources, necessitating the activation of shelters, severe weather plans, and other measures.
May 23, 2024 Pg. 425
Kings County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
2023 Update Page 4-96
4.5.6.7 Vulnerability Assessment
People
Heat kills by taxing the human body beyond its abilities, usually from heat stroke. In a normal year, more than 600 people in the United States are killed by extreme heat (CDC 2022). The average annual temperature increases in California have already exceeded 3°F in some places (Frankson et al 2022). The daily maximum average temperature, an indicator of extreme temperature shifts, is expected to rise 4.4°F – 5.8°F by 2050 and 5.6°F – 8.8°F by 2100 (Bedsworth et al, 2018). Heat waves that result in public health impacts, also referred to as heat-health events, are projected to worsen. By 2050, average heat-health events are projected to last two weeks longer in the Central Valley (Bedsworth et al 2018).
Heat disorders refer to a range of conditions that occur when the body's ability to regulate its temperature through circulation and sweating becomes compromised, or when there is an imbalance in the body's salt levels caused by excessive sweating. This imbalance may result from an inability to compensate for fluids and salt lost through perspiration or when heat gain exceeds the body's ability to remove it. When the core temperature of the body rises due to these factors, heat-related illnesses may develop. The 2018 California SHMP notes the 2006 heat wave led to 650 deaths in a 13-day period and in the past 15 years heat waves have claimed more lives in California than all other declared disaster events combined (CRNA 2018). Heat waves are projected to cause two to three times more heat-related deaths by mid-century (CNRA 2021).
Extreme cold temperatures can be very dangerous for human health and safety. The most common risks associated with exposure to extreme cold include hypothermia, frostbite, carbon monoxide poisoning, and slips and falls. Hypothermia can occur when the body loses heat faster than it can produce it, which can result in a dangerous drop in body temperature that may lead to unconsciousness or even death if left untreated. Frostbite is a condition in which the skin and underlying tissues freeze due to prolonged exposure to cold temperatures, and it can cause permanent tissue damage and even require amputation in severe cases. Carbon monoxide poisoning is also a danger, as people may use fuel-burning heaters or generators to stay warm in extreme cold, but if these appliances are not used properly or ventilated correctly, they can release dangerous levels of CO. Slips and falls are also a risk due to snow and ice on the ground, which can make walking and driving more difficult.
In the United States, cold weather-related deaths are more common than deaths from lightning, hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, or earthquakes (NWS, n.d.). Overall, a total of more than 19,000 Americans have died from cold-related causes since 1979, according to death certificates (EPA 2022). In recent years, U.S. death rates in winter months have been 8 to 12 percent higher than in non-winter months (EPA 2022). Much of this increase relates to seasonal changes in behavior and the human body, as well as increased exposure to respiratory diseases. Cold temperatures can also worsen pre-existing medical conditions such as cardiovascular and respiratory diseases.
Traditionally, the very young and very old are considered at higher risk of the effects of extreme temperatures, as are people in poor physical health; but any populations outdoors in the weather are exposed, including otherwise healthy adults and persons experiencing homelessness. Arguably, the young-and-otherwise-healthy demographic may be more exposed and experience a higher vulnerability because of the increased likelihood that they will be out in the extreme temperatures, whether due to commuting for work or school, working outdoors such as construction, utilities, snow removal, or for recreational reasons.
While everyone is vulnerable to extreme temperature incidents, some at-risk populations are more vulnerable than others. For example, extreme heat poses the greatest danger for the County’s outdoor laborers, who support the County’s agriculture economy and are exposed to extreme temperatures and are at higher risk of heat-related illnesses than other populations of the County. At-risk populations or DACs that rely on electricity-dependent medical equipment and devices are also greater risk during prolonged power outages associated with heat waves. In short, climate-vulnerable communities will experience the worst of these effects.
Additionally, according to the Extreme Heat Action Plan prepared by the State, heat risk is associated and correlated with physical, social, political, and economic factors (CNRA 2021). When combined with existing health inequities and poverty, linguistic isolation, and housing insecurities, this hazard puts these individuals at a disproportionately high risk of heat-related illness. These socially vulnerable communities are dispersed throughout the County, but a higher concentration is located in the northeastern, southern, and central portions of the County within the northeast portion of the County around Lemoore and the unincorporated communities of Armona, Grangeville, Hardwick, Hanford, Kettleman City, Laton, and Stratford.
May 23, 2024 Pg. 426
Kings County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
2023 Update Page 4-97
Property
All property is vulnerable during severe weather events, but property and buildings are less likely to be vulnerable to extreme temperature events the same way as other severe weather events, like wind and hail. However, as temperature variances occur separate from larger hazards or outside of the expected seasons, it is important to examine them as stand-alone hazards.
Extreme heat may overload demands for electricity due to the need to run air conditioners in homes and businesses during prolonged periods of exposure. Problems with power loss and water distribution also occur during periods of extreme heat. Power outages and rolling brownouts can result when high temperatures increase air conditioner use. Power outages can prevent water‐pumping stations from operating.
Extreme cold temperatures impact structures when pipes or water mains freeze and burst, causing damage. Cold temperatures can also, in the most extreme of circumstances, make materials more fragile and breakable. Extreme cold temperatures may also lead to higher electricity and natural gas demands to maintain appropriate indoor heating levels combined with damages caused to the delivery infrastructure such as frozen lines and pipes.
Critical Facilities and Lifelines
Extreme heat has direct impacts on critical infrastructure, including road surfaces, power lines, and water pumping stations. During extreme heat events, road infrastructure may become damaged and buckle, while power lines may sag and experience power surges. Water pumping stations that rely on public utility systems may also be affected, leading to impacts on critical infrastructure. In addition, extreme heat can accelerate wear and tear on natural gas and electrical infrastructure (CNRA 2018a). As temperatures continue to rise, projected increases in summer demand may exceed the capacity of existing energy infrastructure, including substations and distribution line infrastructure and systems. This may result in peak demand exceeding the local utility's capacity for supply, which can lead to blackout conditions or Public Safety Power Shutoffs (PSPS).
Extreme cold events can have secondary impacts on a community's infrastructure, similar to those of extreme heat events. When extreme cold is accompanied by high winds or ice storms, power lines can be downed, causing a disruption in the transmission of power and shutting down electric furnaces, which may lead to frozen pipes in homes and businesses. Cold temperatures can also affect transportation, with exposed populations at risk while waiting for public transportation, particularly when combined with wind chill. In addition, some vehicles may not start, affecting the commute of the workforce and, in worst-case scenarios, the movement of emergency services personnel. Moreover, the loss of utilities or power outages during extreme cold events can have adverse secondary impacts on sensitive and at-risk populations. Hospitals and clinics may experience a reduction in response or care capabilities due to electrical power outages. Medicare beneficiaries that rely on electricity-dependent medical equipment and devices to live independently in their homes may also be at risk, as any extreme heat or extreme cold event that results in a prolonged power outages can be life-threatening.
Economy
The County has a large agricultural economy. As noted previously, outdoor laborers who are exposed to extreme heat are at a high risk of heat-related illnesses, and a long-term heat event could cause work interruptions. Crops are also impacted by heat events and could have an impact on the overall economy in the County. Prolonged freezing temperatures can also damage or destroy crops, affecting the economy and agricultural jobs in the County.
Between the years of 2017 and 2021, 12,972.9 acres of USDA-insured crops were lost in the County due to extreme heat and freeze events, resulting in over $13 million in indemnity payments. Of these payments, $8.8 million and 10,041.2 acres were due to heat, and $4.8 million and 2,931.7 acres were due to frost, freeze, and cold winter. This results in an annualized loss of $2.7 million for extreme weather events. Table 4-56 summarizes these agricultural losses.
Table 4-56 Crop Loss Due to Extreme Temperatures, 2017 – 2021
ROW LABELS SUM OF DETERMINED ACRES SUM OF INDEMNITY AMOUNT Heat 10,041.2 $8,874,778.14
2017 1,757.5 $2,827,625.35
2018 676.2 $365,000.10
May 23, 2024 Pg. 427
Kings County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
2023 Update Page 4-98
ROW LABELS SUM OF DETERMINED ACRES SUM OF INDEMNITY AMOUNT 2019 104.2 $73,516.60
2020 1,091.3 $169,330.49
2021 6,412.0 $5,439,305.60
Frost/Freeze/Cold Winter 2,931.7 $4,837,850.97
2017 300.8 $315,462.00
2018 2,165.0 $3,536,578.31
2019 111.2 $210,005.56
2020 26.4 $497,612.10
2021 328.3 $278,193.00
Grand Total 12,972.9 $13,712,629.11
Source: USDA RMA Crop Indemnity Reports, 2017-2021
Cultural, Historic and Natural Resources
Extreme cold can have significant effects on environmental resources, including water, soil, plant, and wildlife resources. In water bodies such as lakes, rivers, and ponds, extreme cold can cause ice cover to form, which can limit the amount of oxygen that is available for aquatic organisms and negatively impact aquatic ecosystems and wildlife. Soil can also freeze during extreme cold temperatures, affecting its health and nutrient availability, which can impact agricultural production. Furthermore, cold temperatures can damage or kill plants, particularly sensitive crops, leading to decreased growth rates and affecting agricultural production. Frost and freeze damage can also impact trees and other vegetation, potentially causing dieback. Wildlife can also be impacted by extreme cold events, with food availability limited, migration patterns altered, and physiological stress caused. In some cases, extreme cold events could lead to mass die-offs of wildlife populations.
Extreme heat can cause an increase in water temperatures in streams, rivers, and lakes. During storm events, increased and warmer runoff from impervious surfaces into streams can lead to a degradation of habitat. This impairs water quality and compromises aquatic species’ metabolism and reproduction.
Elevated water temperatures can inhibit aquatic life, especially if a species can only survive in a small range of water temperatures. The effects of thermal pollution are highly dependent upon air temperature conditions before the storm, suggesting that as temperatures rise, the impacts from heat pollution will also rise (Herb et al, 2008). Increasing temperatures may also cause species to shift habitats in elevation and latitude, and extended periods of extreme heat can stress both flora and fauna species. Extreme heat may cause temporary drought-like conditions. Several weeks of extreme heat will increase evapotranspiration and reduce moisture content in vegetation, leading to higher wildfire vulnerability for that time period even if the rest of the season is relatively moist.
Development Trends
Since structures are not usually directly impacted by extreme temperature fluctuations, continued development is less impacted by this hazard than others in the plan. However, all structures in the planning area will be exposed to extreme weather events. Facilities with back-up generators are better equipped to handle a severe weather situation should the power go out. Additionally, pre-emptive measures such as construction of green buildings that require less energy to heat and cool, use of good insulation on pipes and electric wirings, and smart construction of walkways, parking structures, and pedestrian zones that minimize exposure to severe temperatures may help increase the overall durability of the buildings and the community to temperature variations. Continued development also implies continued population growth, which raises the number of individuals potentially exposed to variations in temperature. Public education efforts should continue to help the population understand the risks and vulnerabilities of outdoor activities, property maintenance, and regular exposures during periods of extreme temperature events.
4.5.6.8 Risk Summary
• Extreme temperatures can have considerable impacts on human health, the natural environment, and the economy.
• On average there are 105.1 days per year above 90°F. The highest recorded temperature for the County was 116°F, while the lowest recorded temperature was 14°F.
May 23, 2024 Pg. 428
Kings County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
2023 Update Page 4-99
• Overall temperatures are expected to rise substantially throughout this century. The daily maximum average temperature is expected to rise by as much as 8.8°F by 2100. • Climate change is expected to result in higher average temperatures and more extreme heat events in the Central Valley. Climate change is also expected to result in more extreme cold events in the US. • The County’s agriculture economy is at risk of extreme temperatures from outdoor laborers being vulnerable to heat illnesses as well as crop losses due to heat, freeze, and frost. • From 2017 to 2021, there were 12,973 acres of crop lost to extreme temperatures and a combined $13 million indemnity payments made for insured crop loss due to freeze/frost and heat events. • The very young, the very old, people with poor physical health and those experiencing homelessness are more susceptible to the impacts of extreme temperatures. • Medicare beneficiaries that rely on electricity-dependent medical equipment and devices to live independently in their homes are also at risk, as any extreme heat or extreme cold event that results in a prolonged power outages can be life-threatening.
• The significance of extreme temperatures in the County is High. • Related hazards – Agricultural Pest and Disease, Drought, Severe Weather, Wildfire
JURISDICTION GEOGRAPHIC
AREA
PROBABILITY
OF FUTURE
OCCURRENCE
MAGNITUDE/
SEVERITY
OVERALL
SIGNIFICANCE
PRIORITY
HAZARD?
Kings County Extensive Highly Likely Limited High Yes
City of Avenal Extensive Highly Likely Limited High Yes City of Corcoran Extensive Highly Likely Limited High Yes City of Hanford Extensive Highly Likely Limited High Yes City of Lemoore Extensive Highly Likely Limited High Yes
4.5.7 FLOOD
4.5.7.1 Hazard Description
A flood is the temporary inundation of water or mud on normally dry land. Heavy or prolonged rain or dam collapse can cause inundation, as can flash floods. Urban flooding occurs in developed areas where the amount of water generated from rainfall and runoff exceeds the stormwater systems’ capacity. As land is converted from agricultural to urban uses, it often loses its ability to absorb rainfall. Rain flows over impervious surfaces such as concrete and asphalt and into nearby storm sewers and streams. This runoff can result in the rapid rise of floodwaters. During urban floods, streets can become inundated, and storm drains often back up because of the volume of water and become blocked by vegetative debris, like yard waste, which can cause additional flooding. Flooding is one of the primary hazards in California, in addition to earthquakes and wildfire.
Floodplains are defined as the areas immediately adjacent to a channel from a river, stream, or other waterway. The area between the floodway and 1% annual chance floodplain boundaries is termed the floodway fringe. The floodway fringe encompasses the portion of the floodplain that could be completely obstructed without increasing the water-surface elevation of the base flood elevation by more than 1 foot at any point. The areas between a waterway and the floodplain are most apparent during and after a flood event. Typical relationships between the floodway, the floodway fringe, and their significance to floodplain development are illustrated in Figure 4-28 below.
May 23, 2024 Pg. 429
Kings County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
2023 Update Page 4-100
Figure 4-28 Floodway Schematic
Source: Guidance for Flood Risk Analysis and Mapping – FEMA, 2019 Floodplains are illustrated on inundation maps, which show areas of potential flooding and water depths.
In its common usage and based on FEMA guidelines, the floodplain most often refers to the area that is inundated by the 1% annual-chance flood. The 1% floodplain is also referred to as the “100-year floodplain,” meaning that it is an area that has a 1% chance of experiencing a flood of a certain magnitude or greater in any given year. Similarly, the 0.2% floodplain is also known as the “500-year floodplain,” meaning that it is an area that has a 0.2% chance of experiencing a flood of a certain magnitude or greater in any given year. The 1%-annual-chance flood is the national minimum standard by which communities regulate their floodplains through the FEMA National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). The floodway is the channel of the tributary and the land adjacent to it, whereas the flood fringe (shown above) is the remaining portion of the 100-year floodplain, excluding the floodway.
There are three types of flood events in the County planning area: riverine flooding (which includes flash flooding that can occur along intermittent creeks and channels called arroyos), localized flooding (urban stormwater flooding), and dam and levee incident flooding. These three types of flooding area summarized below.
Riverine flooding – Riverine flooding is a type of flooding that occurs when water levels in a river, stream, or other watercourse rise and overflow their banks, causing water to spread out and flood adjacent areas.
This type of flooding is typically caused by heavy rainfall, snowmelt, or a combination of the two, and can be exacerbated by factors such as deforestation, urbanization, and poor land use practices that increase the amount of runoff entering waterways. Riverine flooding can be particularly dangerous and destructive, as it can cause rapid and unpredictable increases in water levels and currents, and can result in extensive property damage, loss of life, and economic disruption. Riverine flooding in the County can occur in Tulare Lake Basin and also occurs along intermittent creeks and drainages called arroyos, such as the Arroyo Esquinado and Arroyo del Camino near the City of Avenal, that periodically convey water and during storm events runoff from these waterways can also cause flooding.
Localized flooding – Localized flooding is a type of flooding that occurs in a specific area, such as a neighborhood or street, rather than over a large geographic region. This type of flooding is typically caused by heavy rainfall that overwhelms drainage systems or by other local factors that impede the flow of water, such as blocked culverts or poorly designed stormwater infrastructure. Localized flooding can be sudden and intense, and can cause damage to homes, businesses, and infrastructure in the affected area. In some cases, localized flooding can also lead to flash flooding, a particularly dangerous and rapid form of flooding that occurs when water rises rapidly in a short period of time, often with little warning.
Levee Failure – Levees are raised areas along rivers or canals that prevent flooding by confining the water flow. They can be natural or manmade, and are usually made of dirt or concrete. While they provide strong flood protection, they are not failsafe and can be overtopped during severe flood events. Flooding from the failure of levees throughout the County or upstream is also of concern, as there are levees that May 23, 2024 Pg. 430
Kings County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
2023 Update Page 4-101
have breached along the Kings River (Serna 2017). The HMPC notes that the Cross Creek and Tule River channels were breached in early 2023. Dam failures or breaches also can result in flooding.
4.5.7.2 Geographic Area
Significant – The County, and in particular the Tulare Lake Basin, once served as the natural drainage of the Kings River, Cross Creek, Kern River, and Tule River as a part of the hydrologic watershed of the Sierra Nevada Mountains along the east side of the San Joaquin Valley. Canal and flood control development in the late 1800s and early 1900s redirected water flow and managed waterways through a series of canals, water storage and agricultural levies (Kings County 2010). This led to the conversion of thousands of acres of lake basin into farmable land.
These waterways and the lake basin remain the predominant flood prone areas as defined by FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs). Historically, floods have been a major cause of disaster in the County, and past flooding events have shown that the lake basin has been turned to as a default emergency overflow for extreme incidences of floodwater (Cassidy, 2023). The primary cause of local flooding is due to the drainage patterns that flow towards the Tulare Lake Basin, in southern Kings County. This area has no outlet to the ocean unless the water is pumped by artificial means out of the Tulare Lake Basin.
FEMA and the Federal Insurance Administration have assessed flood hazards for major streams in Kings County. Projected geographic areas and the extent of flooding are shown in the map on the following page. Figure 4-29 shows the extent of flooding from both a 100‐year (1% annual chance) and 500‐year (0.2% annual chance) flood event. As noted in the County’s 2012 MJHMP, the average flooding season in Kings County occurs from November through June with the rainy season occurring between November and April and snowmelt in the nearby mountainous area occurring from April to June.
May 23, 2024 Pg. 431
Kings County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
2023 Update Page 4-102
Figure 4-29 Kings County FEMA 1% & 0.2 Annual Chance Floodplain Moreover, Figure 4-30 below shows the extent of a 100-year event based on data compiled by DWR’s Awareness Floodplain Mapping project, which comes from DWR’s Best Available Maps (BAM). These floodplains complement the FEMA 1% & 0.2% annual chance floodplains shown in Figure 4-30 above.
According to DWR’s BAM, no 200-year floodplains based on USACE’s Comprehensive Study are located within the County.
May 23, 2024 Pg. 432
Kings County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
2023 Update Page 4-103
Figure 4-30 Kings County DWR Awareness 100-Year Floodplains
4.5.7.3 Past Occurrences
California has a chronic and destructive flood history. Half of the 72 federally declared disasters in California between 1950 and 2000 were flood-related events. Between 1992 and 2002, every county in California was declared a federal disaster area at least once for a flooding event. Historically, floods have been the most frequent cause of disaster in the County. The primary cause of local flooding is the drainage pattern in the Tulare Lake Basin (Kings County MJHMP, 2012).
Significant flooding occurs in Kings County approximately every five years. Kings County was declared a disaster area by the federal government eight times between 1955 and 2012. FEMA’s Flood Insurance Study (FIS) listed flooding events in 1950, 1952, 1955, 1958, 1962, 1963, 1969, 1970, 1971, 1973, 1978, 1980, 1982, 1985, 1986, 1995, 1997 and 2010. Heavy snow runoff caused flooding in the County in January of 1969.
May 23, 2024 Pg. 433
Kings County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
2023 Update Page 4-104
Kings was the only county designated in
this federal disaster declaration. Damage
included $1.56 million in public costs and
$1.25 million in private costs for a total of
$2.81 million (Kings County MJHMP, 2012)
There have been 11 NCEI recorded flooding
events in Kings County since 2012, detailed
in Table 4-57 below. Significant flooding
also occurred at the beginning of 2023,
during the development of this plan. The
extent of the damage from this recent
flooding event is currently being assessed,
but it necessitated the activation of the
County’s Emergency Operation Center
(EOC) and is likely to have caused
significant damage to agricultural lands,
County roads, bridges, other critical
infrastructure, and substantial disruption
to the local community. The flooding may
have also caused damage to homes and
businesses, which may require extensive
repairs and reconstruction efforts.
Table 4-57 NCEI Recorded Flood Events in Kings County since 2012
DATABASE DECLARATION NUMBER DECLARED DATE DESCRIPTION
NCEI 442261 3/8/2013 Flood
586928 6/5/2015 Flash Flood
677961 1/8/2017 Flood
675398 1/18/2017 Flood
708242 6/22/2017 Flood
779399 10/3/2018 Flash Flood
815477 5/26/2019 Flood
815480 5/26/2019 Flood
816572 6/1/2019 Flash Flood
930572 1/27/2021 Flood
FEMA 4308 4/1/2017 Flood
Source: National Centers for Environmental Information; FEMA
4.5.7.4 Likelihood of Future Occurrence
Highly Likely – Due to the history of past flooding events and the natural drainage pattern of the planning area, flooding in the County is likely to continue to occur in the future. The potential for failure of one of the many levees throughout the County could create more risk for flooding. The 1% annual chance flood is the flood that has a one percent chance in any given year of being equaled or exceeded. Based on past events, flooding events less severe than a 1% annual chance flood and those outside of the 1% annual chance floodplain occur frequently during periods of heavy rain or snowmelt. According to the NCEI Storm Events Database, there have been 10 flood events recorded for Kings County between 2012 and 2022. This means it is highly likely a flood event will occur in a given year.
Many tomato, cotton, and hay farms and orchards within the historically dry Tulare Lake outside of the City of Corcoran flooded in March 2023. Following a series of historically powerful and severe storms and increased runoff from the Sierra Nevada into the San Joaquin Valley through waterways and canals, thousands of acres of cropland in the County became inundated with flood waters for the first time in decades. Tulare Lake was once one of the largest freshwater lakes west of the Mississippi and was largely drained in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, as rivers that fed it were dammed and diverted for agriculture.
Source: San Francisco Chronicle, March 25, 2023
May 23, 2024 Pg. 434
Kings County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
2023 Update Page 4-105
4.5.7.5 Climate Change Considerations
California’s Fourth Climate Assessment indicated shifts in California’s precipitation regime to more dry days, more dry years, and a longer dry season, with increases in sporadic, heavy precipitation events and floods that are expected to exceed the State’s flood control system capacity (CNRA 2018). With wildfires already being a problem in California, an increase in dry periods is expected to prime conditions for fires to occur, which will in turn worsen the potential for runoff and flooding associated with burned areas.
Greater storm intensity is also projected with climate change, resulting in more direct runoff and flooding (CNRA 2018). The San Joaquin Valley Regional Summary Report from the Fourth Climate Assessment indicates that the frequency of catastrophic floods will increase in the coming years. This in turn will lead to increased stress on agriculture, natural ecosystems, water resources, land use and community development, transportation, energy, public health, and climate justice.
4.5.7.6 Magnitude and Severity
Critical – A portion of the County continues to be subject to inundation during flood events, as approximately 353,391 acres have been determined to be in the 1% & 0.2% annual chance floodplains, which combined cover 39.6% of the County. Therefore, a potential flood hazard would threaten a significant geographic area (10% – 50%) of the County. On the other hand, WSP analysis shows that if a flood event would occur, the damage associated with flooding could impact around 9% of the County’s total improved parcels.
The occurrence of a flood can lead to life and property loss, damage to agricultural land, road and bridge closures and disruption of communication systems, resulting in significant disturbances to regular processes. Individuals living in low-lying trailer parks along the rivers and those experiencing homelessness are particularly vulnerable to such disasters. However, sufficient time is generally available to alert and warn those who might be affected. In the event of a catastrophic flood control structural failure, local response capabilities may be overwhelmed, necessitating mass evacuations to save lives. The impact on life safety will be determined by the warning time and the resources available to notify and evacuate the public. Loss of life is a possibility, and there may be associated health concerns, as well as negative effects on local buildings and infrastructure.
4.5.7.7 Vulnerability Assessment
Development in or near the floodplain puts lives and property at risk. Flood damage can include structure inundation, erosion of stream banks, road embankments, foundations footings for bridges, impact damage from debris, blockage of infrastructure, cropland destruction, sewage releases from damaged tanks, and economic loss to agriculture.
Certain health hazards are common in flood events. Standing water and wet materials in structures can become breeding grounds for microorganisms such as bacteria, mold, and viruses. This can cause disease, trigger allergic reactions, and damage materials long after the flood. When floodwaters contain sewage or decaying animal carcasses, infectious disease becomes a concern. Direct impacts, such as drowning, can be limited with adequate warning and public education about what to do during floods.
Where flooding occurs in populated areas, warning and evacuation will be of critical importance to reduce life and safety impacts.
While there are some benefits associated with flooding, such as the replenishment of sediments and nutrients to agricultural lands, it is considered a hazard to develop in floodplains. Floods can cause many cascading effects. Flooding can damage infrastructure, and fire can break out as a result of dysfunctional electrical equipment. Hazardous materials can also get into floodways, causing health concerns and polluting water supplies. In many instances during a flood, the drinking water supply will become contaminated.
People
The total people at risk to flooding in the County was estimated by multiplying the average number of persons per household in Kings County (3.17) and each applicable incorporated jurisdiction (Avenal – 3.59, Corcoran – 3.31, Hanford – 3.09, and Lemoore – 2.95) times the number of residential parcels in each floodplain to estimate the population residing in flood hazard areas. The average number of persons per household data was acquired from the 2021 ACS 5-Year Estimates.
Based on this analysis, which accounts for residents only and not workers, there are 1,126 residents living in the 1% annual chance flood zone throughout the County. Of all study areas, the unincorporated County has the most residents living in the 1% annual chance flood area (941), followed by the City of Corcoran (132). Of the unincorporated population, the majority living in the central portion of the County that floods consist of at-risk socially vulnerable and DACs. Many of these particular households consist of farm May 23, 2024 Pg. 435
Kings County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
2023 Update Page 4-106
workers or people that live on farms or work within the agricultural industry in the region. These particular at-risk communities are at even greater risk to flooding based on direct impacts flooding poses to their properties but also the indirect impacts flooding affects their livelihood and local economy. Table 4-58 below details population estimates by jurisdiction, followed a table for the 0.2% annual chance floodplain.
Table 4-58 Population Living in the 1% Annual Chance Flood Hazard Zone
JURISDICTION POPULATION
Avenal 22
Corcoran 132
Hanford 31
Lemoore -
Unincorporated County 941
Total 1,126
Source: WSP Analysis 2023
The same analysis was conducted for the 0.2% annual chance floodplain, indicating that there are 7,181 residents living in the 0.2% annual chance flood zone throughout Kings County. The majority of people living in this floodplain are residents of the City of Avenal, with 5,529 people in the 0.2% annual chance floodplain. This population distribution is shown in Table 4-59.
Table 4-59 Population Living in the 0.2% Annual Chance Flood Hazard Zone
JURISDICTION POPULATION
Avenal 5,529
Lemoore 1,437
Unincorporated County 216
Total 7,183
Source: WSP 2023
Property
Historically, Kings County has been at risk of flooding primarily during the winter and spring months when river systems swell with heavier rainfall and runoff from winter snowmelt. Normally, storm floodwaters are kept within defined limits by a variety of storm drainage and flood control measures. But occasionally, extended heavy rains result in floodwaters that exceed normal high-water boundaries and cause damage. Flooding has occurred in the past within the 100-year floodplain and in other localized areas in the County.
A flood vulnerability assessment was performed for the County using GIS overlay methodology. The County’s parcel layer and associated assessor’s building improvement valuation data were provided by the County and were used as the basis for the inventory. Kings County’s effective FEMA Digital FIRM (DFIRM) dated June 17, 2019, was used as the hazard layer. A DFIRM is FEMA’s flood risk data that depicts the 1% annual chance (100-year) and the 0.2% annual chance (500-year) flood events; this data is incorporated into the National Flood Hazard Layer (NFHL). Figure 4-29 summarizes the flood zones included on these maps.
Kings County Assessor Parcel data was used to estimate flood hazard impacts to parcels with improvement values greater than zero. An address point data layer provided by the County’s GIS department was also used in combination to assess not only parcels’ but also structures’ exposure to flood hazard. FEMA’s NFHL flood zones, with an effective date of June 17, 2019, were overlaid in GIS on the address points to identify structures/parcels that would likely be inundated during a 1% annual chance and 0.2% annual chance flood event.
Building improvement values and counts for those parcels and structures were then extracted from the assessor’s parcel data and address point data, and subsequently summed for the unincorporated county and jurisdictions. Results of the overlay analysis are shown in Table 4-60 for the 1% annual chance flood and Table 4-61 for 0.2% annual chance flood. The jurisdictional annexes provide more detailed information based on assessor property types. Property type refers to the land use of the parcel and includes Agricultural, Commercial, Exempt, Industrial, Multi-Family Residential, Multi-Use and May 23, 2024 Pg. 436
Kings County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
2023 Update Page 4-107
Residential. Content values were estimated as a percentage of improved values based on their occupancy type, using FEMA/Hazus estimated content replacement values. This includes 100% of the improved value for agricultural, commercial, exempt, and multi-use parcels; 50% for multi-family residential and residential parcels; and 150% for industrial parcels. Improved and content values were then totaled to obtain total exposure. The locations of these parcels are displayed in Figure 4-31 below.
A loss estimate analysis was also performed based on depth damage functions developed by the Army Corp of Engineers and FEMA. The loss curves depict the expected flood losses associated with the depth of flooding at a structure. There are different depth damage curves for structure and content losses. For this analysis, an average flood depth of two feet is assumed. A depth damage ratio of 25% was used for structural loss by multiplying it by the total values, based on the FEMA damage curves, assuming a 2-footdeep flood. This means that the estimated loss of a parcel is 25% of its total value. The results are shown in the loss estimate columns in Table 4-60 for the 1% annual chance flood and Table 4-61 for the 0.2% annual loss properties.
The result is an inventory of the number and types of improved parcels and structures subject to flooding.
Results are organized by unincorporated County and incorporated jurisdictions. Detailed tables show counts of parcels by jurisdictions and land use type (Agricultural, Commercial, Exempt, Industrial, MultiFamily Residential, Multi-Use and Residential) within each flood zone. It is important to note that there could be more than one structure or building on an improved parcel (i.e., a condo complex occupies one parcel but might have several structures). The flood loss analysis does not account for business disruption, emergency services, environmental damages, or displacement costs, thus actual losses could exceed the estimate shown. Conversely, this analysis does not differentiate parcels that may have been developed since the County and cities adopted floodplain regulations, which would be mitigated to the 1% annual chance flood if developed in accordance with local floodplain regulations. Table 4-60 and Table 4-61 also do not include publicly owned parcels that contain critical facilities and infrastructure; these vulnerable community lifelines are listed in Table 4-65.
May 23, 2024 Pg. 437
Kings County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
2023 Update Page 4-108
Figure 4-31 Kings County FEMA Flood Hazards
May 23, 2024 Pg. 438
Kings County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
2023 Update Page 4-109
Table 4-60 1% Annual Chance Floodplain Exposure and Loss by Jurisdiction
JURISDICTION PROPERTY TYPE IMPROVED
PARCEL
COUNT
BUILDING
COUNT
IMPROVED
VALUE
ESTIMATED
CONTENT
VALUE
TOTAL
VALUE
ESTIMATED
LOSS
POPULATION
Avenal Agricultural 2 2 $103,539 $103,539 $207,078 $51,770 Commercial 1 1 $11,386 $11,386 $22,772 $5,693
Exempt 2 2 $342,024 $342,024 $684,048 $171,012
Residential 5 6 $170,357 $85,179 $255,536 $63,884 22
Total 10 11 $627,306 $542,128 $1,169,434 $292,358 22
Corcoran Exempt 3 3 $225,007 $225,007 $450,014 $112,504 Residential 40 40 $5,726,687 $2,863,344 $8,590,031 $2,147,508 132 Total 43 43 $5,951,694 $3,088,351 $9,040,045 $2,260,011 132 Hanford Agricultural 1 1 $4,325 $4,325 $8,650 $2,163
Commercial 1 1 $6,900 $6,900 $13,800 $3,450
Exempt 1 1 $751,205 $751,205 $1,502,410 $375,603
Multi-Family
Residential 1 9 $2,986,560 $1,493,280 $4,479,840 $1,119,960 28 Residential 1 1 $269,146 $134,573 $403,719 $100,930 3
Total 5 13 $4,018,136 $2,390,283 $6,408,419 $1,602,105 31 Lemoore Agricultural 1 1 $11,954 $11,954 $23,908 $5,977 Exempt 1 1 $- $- $- $-
Total 2 2 $11,954 $11,954 $23,908 $5,977 –
Unincorporated Agricultural 147 151 $16,079,220 $16,079,220 $32,158,440 $8,039,610 Commercial 14 14 $9,450,042 $9,450,042 $18,900,084 $4,725,021 Exempt 1,243 1,338 $261,919,205 $261,919,205 $523,838,410 130,959,603 Industrial 2 2 $78,858 $118,287 $197,145 $49,286
Multi-Use 50 60 $14,465,996 $7,232,998 $21,698,994 $5,424,749 190 Residential 221 237 $25,257,607 $12,628,804 $37,886,411 $9,471,603 751 Total 1,677 1,802 $327,250,928 $307,428,556 $634,679,484 $158,669,871 941 Grand Total 1,737 1,871 337,860,018 $313,461,271 $651,321,289 $162,830,322 1,126 Sources: Kings County Assessor’s Office; NFHL Effective date 6/17/2019, FEMA; GIS analysis May 23, 2024 Pg. 439
Kings County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
2023 Update Page 4-110
Table 4-61 0.2% Annual Chance Floodplain Exposure and Loss by Jurisdiction
JURISDICTION PROPERTY TYPE IMPROVED
PARCEL
COUNT
BUILDING
COUNT
IMPROVED
VALUE
ESTIMATED
CONTENT
VALUE
TOTAL
VALUE
ESTIMATED
LOSS
POPULATI
ON
Avenal Agricultural 1 1 $163,000 $163,000 $326,000 $81,500 Commercial 97 119 $17,116,938 $17,116,938 $34,233,876 $8,558,469 Exempt 7 9 $109,198 $109,198 $218,396 $54,599
Industrial 9 10 $849,591 $1,274,387 $2,123,978 $530,994 Multi-Family
Residential 29 112 $22,639,837 $11,319,919 $33,959,756 $8,489,939 402 Multi-Use 6 9 $749,775 $749,775 $1,499,550 $374,888 32
Residential 1,363 1,419 $114,303,823 $57,151,912 $171,455,735 $42,863,934 5,094 Total 1,512 1,679 $155,932,162 $87,885,128 $243,817,290 $60,954,322 5,529 Lemoore Commercial 3 4 $1,542,712 $1,542,712 $3,085,424 $771,356 Industrial 1 1 $399,406 $599,109 $998,515 $249,629
Multi-Family
Residential 2 274 $34,356,891 $17,178,446 $51,535,337 $12,883,834 808 Multi-Use 1 1 $3,821,051 $3,821,051 $7,642,102 $1,910,526 3 Residential 212 212 $41,915,687 $20,957,844 $62,873,531 $15,718,383 625 Total 219 492 $82,035,747 $44,099,161 $126,134,908 $31,533,727 1,437 Unincorporated Agricultural 21 22 $1,511,667 $1,511,667 $3,023,334 $755,834 Exempt 66 71 $12,319,035 $12,319,035 $24,638,070 $6,159,518 Multi-Use 10 12 $3,312,255 $3,312,255 $6,624,510 $1,656,128 38 Residential 52 56 $7,408,259 $3,704,130 $11,112,389 $2,778,097 178 Total 149 161 $24,551,216 $20,847,087 $45,398,303 $11,349,576 216 Grand Total 1,880 2,332 $262,519,125 $152,831,375 $415,350,500 $103,837,625 7,181 Sources: Kings County Assessor’s Office; NFHL Effective date 6/17/2019, FEMA; GIS analysis May 23, 2024 Pg. 440
Kings County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
2023 Update Page 4-111
Significant areas of Kings County are at risk of being inundated by a 1% annual chance flood event. The unincorporated areas of the County are predominantly inundated by the 1% annual chance floodplain and have the greatest percentages of total loss from a 1% annual chance flood. The sites of Avenal, Corcoran and Lemoore are all somewhat exposed to both 1% and 0.2% annual chance flood events. The City of Hanford is the least vulnerable to flood events.
Based on this analysis, the County Planning Area has 1,737 parcels with 1,871 structures on them valued at over $651 million in the 1% annual chance floodplain. An additional 1,880 parcels with 2,332 structures on them valued at more than $415 million within the 0.2% annual chance floodplain. As a result, the total value of these exposed parcels and structures is approximately $1.07 billion. When factoring in FEMA’s estimated loss ratio, the estimated total losses from both 1% and 0.2% annual chance flood events is over $266 million. However, development in the 500-year floodplain is typically not regulated, thus a large flood event could be extremely damaging in the County.
Kings County joined the NFIP in 1980; each jurisdiction also participates in the NFIP. Table 4-62 below shows the NFIP entry dates of Kings County and its jurisdictions.
Table 4-62 NFIP Entry Date – Kings County & Jurisdictions
JURISDICTION NFIP ENTRY DATE
Kings County August 4, 1988
City of Avenal April 5, 1989
City of Corcoran November 28, 1997
City of Hanford March 18, 1987
City of Lemoore April 3, 1987
Source: Community Information System (CIS) 2023
As of April 18, 2023, in the unincorporated County, there are 173 flood insurance policies in force, of which there are 125 single family units and 48 non-residential. The number of policies in force by jurisdiction and flood zone are shown in Table 4-63. In the unincorporated County, there are 173 flood insurance policies in force, of which there are 241 single-family units, 3 2-4 family units, zero in all other residential, and 59 non-residential.
Table 4-63 Community Information System Policies in Force by Flood Zone and Jurisdiction
FLOOD ZONE KINGS
COUNTY
CITY OF
AVENAL
CITY OF
CORCORAN
CITY OF
HANFORD
CITY OF
LEMOORE
A01-30 & AE Zones 33 1 0 0 0
A Zones 51 0 0 2 0
AO Zones 0 0 0 0 0
AH Zones 0 0 0 0 0
atmospheric river
(AR) Zones
0 0 0 0 0
A99 Zones 0 0 0 0 0
V01-30 & VE Zones 0 0 0 0 0
V Zones 0 0 0 0 0
D Zones 0 0 0 0 0
B, C & X Zone
- Standard 89 0 4 13 9
- Preferred 0 1 0 0 0
Total 173 1 4 15 9
Source: Community Information System (CIS) 2023
NFIP data indicates that there are 202 insurance policies in the County representing $49,959,000 of insurance coverage in force. Since 1978 there have been 9 paid losses, totaling $18,946. This results in approximately $412 in annualized losses. Most of the losses have been in the unincorporated County.
Table 4-64 provides details on flood insurance policies for each individual jurisdiction.
May 23, 2024 Pg. 441
Kings County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
2023 Update Page 4-112
Table 4-64 Kings County Flood Insurance Policy Information
JURISDICTION POLICIES INSURANCE IN
FORCE
NO. OF
PAID
LOSSES
TOTAL LOSSES PAID
Avenal 1 $277,000 1 $0
Corcoran 4 $1,202,000 0 $0
Hanford 15 $4,667,000 2 $2,246
Lemoore 9 $3,034,000 0 0
Unincorporated Kings County 173 $40,779,000 173 $16,700 Total 202 $49,959,000 9 $18,946
Source: FEMA NFIP Community Information System
FEMA insures properties against flooding losses through the NFIP. As part of the process to reduce or eliminate repetitive flooding to structures across the United States, FEMA has developed an official Repetitive Loss Strategy. The purpose behind the national strategy is to identify, catalog, and propose mitigation measure to reduce flood losses to the relatively few numbers of structures that absorb the majority of the premium dollars from the national flood insurance fund.
A repetitive loss property is defined by FEMA as “a property for which two or more NFIP losses of at least $1,000 each have been paid within any 10-year period since 1978”. A repetitive loss property may or may not be currently insured by the NFIP. There are no repetitive loss properties or severe repetitive loss properties located within the County, based on NFIP data retrieved on April 18, 2023.
Critical Facilities and Lifelines
Key support facilities and structures most necessary to withstand the impacts of, and respond to, natural disasters are referred to as critical facilities. Examples of these critical facility types include utilities, transportation infrastructure, and emergency response and services facilities, given failures of components along major lifelines or even closures or inaccessibility to key emergency facilities could limit if not completely cut off transmission of commodities, essential services, and other potentially catastrophic repercussions. Floods and levee failure can disrupt, damage, or destroy these critical facilities, which in turn can impede the ability of Kings County to respond to and recover from a major flood event.
A GIS analysis of exposed critical facilities was conducted, similar to the parcel analysis, using HIFLD. The results of critical facilities throughout the County which are exposed to the various flood hazards are shown in Table 4-65 below and organized by the jurisdiction they are located in and the FEMA Lifeline category into which they are classified. The locations of these facilities are displayed in Figure 4-32 below.
Table 4-65 Critical Facilities Within the 1% and 0.2% Annual Chance Flood Hazard by FEMA Lifeline and Jurisdiction
FLOOD
HAZARD ZONE
JURISDICTION
COMMUNICATIONS
ENERGY
FOOD, WATER,
SHELTER
HAZARDOUS
MATERIAL
HEALTH AND
MEDICAL
SAFETY AND
SECURITY
TRANSPORTATION
TOTAL
1% Annual
Chance
Avenal - 1 - - - - 1 2
Corcoran - 3 - - - 1 - 4
Hanford - - - - - 1 - 1
Unincorporated 20 12 - 5 - - 71 108
Total 20 16 - 5 - 2 72 115
0.2% Annual
Chance
Avenal 2 - - 1 - 8 - 11
Corcoran - - - - - - - -
May 23, 2024 Pg. 442
Kings County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
2023 Update Page 4-113
FLOOD
HAZARD ZONE
JURISDICTION
COMMUNICATIONS
ENERGY
FOOD, WATER,
SHELTER
HAZARDOUS
MATERIAL
HEALTH AND
MEDICAL
SAFETY AND
SECURITY
TRANSPORTATION
TOTAL
Hanford - - - - - - - -
Unincorporated - - - - - - - -
Total 2 - - 1 - 8 - 11
Source: HIFLD, Kings County, WSP GIS Analysis
May 23, 2024 Pg. 443
Kings County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
2023 Update Page 4-114
Figure 4-32 Kings County Critical Facilities & FEMA Flood Hazards Economy
Flooding can have a major economic impact on the economy. Based on the flood loss analysis, there are 16 commercial structures worth an estimated $18.9 million in total value directly at risk of flooding in the 1% annual chance zone. Based on the loss analysis this could result in approximately $4.7 million in direct losses. In addition, there are 123 commercial structures worth an estimated $37.3 million in total value directly at risk of flooding in the 0.2% annual chance zone. Based on the loss analysis this could result in approximately $9.3 million in direct losses. This does not account for other indirect losses such as business interruption, lost wages, and other downtime costs.
May 23, 2024 Pg. 444
Kings County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
2023 Update Page 4-115
Effects on the agricultural economy can be devastating, and a large amount of area at risk to flooding in the County is agricultural and lies within the Tulare Lake basin. Flooding can damage crops and livestock.
In addition to the obvious impacts on crops and animals, flooding can have deleterious effects on soil and the ability to reinvigorate the agricultural activities impacted once the flood waters recede. Damage to water resources such as underground irrigation systems, water storage reservoirs, springs and other natural water bodies could have a serious effect on agriculture operations.
Cultural, Historic and Natural Resources
Natural areas within the floodplain often benefit from periodic flooding as a naturally recurring phenomenon. These natural areas often reduce flood impacts by allowing absorption and infiltration of floodwaters. Natural resources are generally resistant to flooding except where natural landscapes and soil compositions have been altered for human development or after periods of previous disasters such as drought and fire. Wetlands, for example, exist because of natural flooding incidents. These areas provide natural and beneficial functions to hold and absorb floodwaters. Areas recently suffering from wildfire damage may erode because of flooding, which can temporarily alter an ecological system.
Development Trends
The potential or likelihood of a flood event in the County increases with the annual onset of heavy rains in winter and spring months. Much of the historical growth in the problem areas connected with flooding and stormwater runoff include erosion, sedimentation, degradation of water quality, losses of environmental resources, and certain health hazards. For NFIP participating communities, floodplain management practices implemented through local floodplain management ordinances should mitigate the flood risk to new development in the 1% annual chance floodplains. As noted previously, a large amount of development has occurred in the 0.2% annual chance floodplain and these areas are not regulated or require flood mitigation, thus flood risk is increasing to a degree, although to the less frequent flood events.
The development trend in the County planning area consists of steady growth. Much of this growth is occurring in the urban and SOI areas; such growth can result in more impervious surfaces due to buildings and infrastructure and increase stormwater runoff. The California DOF projects that Kings County’s population will increase by 3.0% by the year 2025 when compared to the year of 2021. The County’s population is also projected to continue to grow through the year 2060. Such growth may consume previously undeveloped acres, and the increase in impervious surfaces could affect existing drainage and flood control facilities.
Changes in municipal boundaries such as annexations into the SOI may change the flood risk profile for certain communities. A GIS analysis of 1% and 0.2% annual chance flood exposure within SOI boundaries is summarized in the tables below. These parcels are included in Table 4-66 and Table 4-67, and they fall under “Unincorporated” in terms of their jurisdiction. Parcels shown below in these tables are also those that fall within each jurisdiction’s SOI and are exposed to potential flood hazard events. As shown, only parcels located in the SOI of the Cities of Corcoran and Lemoore are exposed to 1% annual chance flood hazards. In addition, only two parcels located in the SOI of the City of Lemoore are exposed to 0.2% annual chance flood hazards.
Table 4-66 Sphere of Influence Risk to FEMA 1% Annual Chance Flood Hazard
CORCORAN LEMOORE GRAND TOTAL
Improved Parcel Count 40 2 42
Building Count 44 2 46
Improved Value $38,205,152 $25,742 $38,230,894
Estimated Content Value $37,338,575 $25,742 $37,364,317 Total Value $75,543,727 $51,484 $75,595,211
Population 96 - 96
Source: Kings County; WSP Analysis 2023
May 23, 2024 Pg. 445
Kings County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
2023 Update Page 4-116
Table 4-67 Sphere of Influence Risk to FEMA 0.2% Annual Chance Flood Hazard
LEMOORE GRAND TOTAL
Improved Parcel Count 2 2
Building Count 2 2
Improved Value $63,970 $63,970
Estimated Content Value $47,370 $47,370
Total Value $111,340 $111,340
Population 3 3
Source: Kings County; WSP Analysis 2023
4.5.7.8 Risk Summary
The overall significance of the flood hazard in the County is High • Eleven flood events were recorded for Kings County between 2012 and 2022, which makes it is highly likely that a flood event occurs in a given year. Significant flooding also occurred during plan development in early 2023.
• Significant flooding occurs in the County through snowmelt, arroyos, and significant rainfall events.
Flooding risks are present among the Tulare Lake Basin and several creeks and rivers, including the Kings River, the Arroyo Esquinado, and the Arroyo del Camino. • The Tulare Lake Basin once served as the natural drainage of the Kings River, Cross Creek, Kern River, and Tule River as a part of the hydrologic watershed of the Sierra Nevada Mountains along the east side of the San Joaquin Valley. Canal and flood control development turned the area into farmable land, although the Basin is still subject to flooding during significant precipitation events. • Key findings from the 2022 CVFPP indicate shifts in California’s precipitation regime, which show more dry days, more dry years, a longer dry season, and increases in occasional heavy precipitation events and floods. These same studies project greater storm intensity with climate change, resulting in more direct runoff and flooding and as a result, high frequency flood events in conjunction with heavy precipitation and extreme storm events.
• Countywide there are 4,203 structures at risk within the limits of the 100-year and 500-year floodplain zones worth over $1.06 billion, with a loss estimate of over $578 million. • Countywide approximately 8,307 persons live in the 100-year floodplain and 500-year floodplains. Of this population, 941 residents live within the 100-year floodplain in the unincorporated County and 132 residents live in 500-year floodplain in the City of Corcoran. Of this population, the majority living in the central portion of the County’s floodplain consists of socially vulnerable populations living on farms or working within the agricultural industry, many of which are designated DACs. These at-risk communities are at greater risk to flooding based on direct impacts flooding poses to their properties but also how the indirect impacts flooding affects their livelihood and local economy. • Levees and flood control dam infrastructure provide some protection, but also pose potential levee and dam failure risks.
• In March 2023, a series of AR events caused extensive flooding that rendered almost all emergency access routes in and out of the City of Corcoran unusable. As a consequence, State Route (SR) 43 to the north of Corcoran became the sole accessible route connecting Kings County to the City. Another alternative, SR 137, was available but located in Tulare County. The significance of these emergency access routes during flooding cannot be overstated, as they play a vital role in facilitating resource mobilization, emergency response efforts, and ensuring the overall safety of the public. • Related hazards – Severe weather: Heavy Rain, Wildfire, Landslide and Debris Flow.
JURISDICTION GEOGRAPHIC
AREA
PROBABILITY
OF FUTURE
OCCURRENCE
MAGNITUDE/
SEVERITY
OVERALL
SIGNIFICANCE
PRIORITY
HAZARD?
Kings County Extensive Highly Likely Critical High Yes
City of Avenal Extensive Highly Likely Critical High Yes City of Corcoran Extensive Highly Likely Critical High Yes City of Hanford Extensive Highly Likely Critical High Yes May 23, 2024 Pg. 446
Kings County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
2023 Update Page 4-117
City of Lemoore Extensive Highly Likely Critical High Yes
4.5.8 LAND SUBSIDENCE
4.5.8.1 Hazard Description
Land subsidence is defined as the vertical sinking of the land over natural or manmade underground voids. Subsidence is common in several areas of California, usually as a result of groundwater pumping, peat loss, or oil and gas extraction. Fluctuations in the level of underground water caused by pumping or by injecting fluids into the earth can initiate sinking to fill the empty space previously occupied by water or soluble minerals. Weight, including surface developments such as roads, reservoirs, and buildings, and manmade vibrations from such activities as blasting and heavy truck or train traffic can accelerate the natural processes of subsidence, or induce subsidence over manmade voids.
The 2018 California SHMP profiles subsidence as a secondary impact of drought associated with the reduced availability of surface water and increased groundwater pumping in order to meet water needs.
According to Smith, et al. (2018), approximately 1 million people in the San Joaquin Valley rely on groundwater pumping for drinking water, and thousands of farmers rely on groundwater to irrigate crops. While groundwater pumping occurs in both drought and non-drought years to support urban, rural, and agricultural water needs, the SHMP notes that it is greatly increased during dry years.
The primary source of water for the County is groundwater (Kings County, n.d.). As groundwater is extracted faster than the aquifers can recharge, significant subsidence of soil layers may occur. Often, once an aquifer has been compressed by subsidence, the deformation of shape is permanent, resulting in a decreased capacity to store water. In addition to the direct damage subsidence may cause to infrastructure, as foundations are warped subsidence also increases the risk of flooding as ground elevation changes.
4.5.8.2 Geographic Area
Extensive – Figure 4-33 below shows the vertical ground surface displacement measured in feet for Kings County and the surrounding areas. This DWR dataset represents measurements of vertical ground surface displacement in more than 200 of the high-use and populated groundwater basins across the State of California between January 2015 and January 2023. Vertical displacement estimates are derived from Interferometric Synthetic Aperture Radar (InSAR) data that are collected by the European Space Agency (ESA) Sentinel-1A satellite and processed by TRE ALTAMIRA Inc. (TRE), under contract with the California DWR as part of DWR’s SGMA technical assistance to provide important SGMA-relevant data to GSAs for Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP) development and implementation. As shown in Figure 4-33, the red/orange areas experienced the most (negative) vertical ground surface displacement between June 2015 to January 2023, meaning that these areas have experienced the most land subsidence during this period of time. These areas include the northern and eastern portions of the County, including the cities of Corcoran, Hanford, and Lemoore. Due to gaps in spatial coverage, the map below shows the approximate subsidence using the average of all reported values within each square grid area. Reported values are not evenly distributed within each square, and each square may have a different number of measurements.
May 23, 2024 Pg. 447
Kings County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
2023 Update Page 4-118
Figure 4-33 Kings County Vertical Ground Surface Displacement (Jun 2015 – Jan 2023) Source: DWR 2023
4.5.8.3 Past Occurrences
Land subsidence from groundwater extraction in the San Joaquin Valley has been called the greatest human alteration of the Earth’s surface (Galloway et al, 1999). This phenomenon is closely tied to the growth of agriculture and the accessibility of water in the region. Due to the semi-arid nature of the valley and the variation in streamflow on the east and west sides of the San Joaquin Valley, agriculture has become heavily dependent on the aquifer system. A brief history of land subsidence in the San Joaquin Valley from Land Subsidence from Groundwater Use in California by Borchers and Carpenter (2014) is summarized below.
The sinking of land caused by the removal of groundwater started in the 1920s, but accelerated during the post-World War II period when the demand for irrigation water increased, leading to the drilling of numerous wells. In 1955, the San Joaquin Valley supplied a May 23, 2024 Pg. 448
Kings County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
2023 Update Page 4-119
quarter of all irrigation groundwater in the United States. By 1970, more than half of the valley, an area covering 5,200 square miles, had experienced subsidence of over one foot.
Although the connection between the decline of groundwater levels and subsidence in the Delano City area was identified early on, a comprehensive study of the regional impact of groundwater overdraft on subsidence was not conducted until the early 1950s. At that time, government agencies expressed worry about how subsidence could affect the Delta-Mendota Canal (which was under construction at the time) and the California Aqueduct (which was still in the planning stages).
The year 1954 saw the start of research into land subsidence through the collaboration of a Federal-State interagency committee and the USGS "Mechanics of Aquifers Project." Through field monitoring and research, the studies were able to determine the extent and magnitude of subsidence and its correlation to groundwater overdraft. The findings provided valuable information that enabled the strategic placement of the California Aqueduct, which, together with the Delta-Mendota Canal and the Friant-Kern Canal, brought surface water into the valley to reduce the dependence on groundwater.
By 1974, the importation of surface water had resulted in groundwater levels recovering by over 200 feet in certain regions on the west side of the valley. While this helped to decelerate the rate of subsidence, subsidence still persisted due to the slow drainage of water from the compacting clayey aquitards, especially in the Los Banos-Kettleman City area of the mid-valley and the Wasco-Tulare area of the southern valley.
The droughts that occurred after 1975 led to a rapid decline in groundwater levels despite lower pumping volumes than those in the 1960s. This was due to a reduction in storage space within the aquifer system and decreased hydraulic conductivity of the compacted aquitards, which restrict the drainage of water to the more permeable parts of the system. Despite water levels being notably higher than those in the 1960s, the observations indicated renewed land subsidence during drought periods.
The present drought, combined with a shift in cropping patterns from row crops and range land to permanent crops such as trees, has again led to increased dependence on aquifer systems for agricultural irrigation in the San Joaquin Valley. Currently, an area spanning about 2,700 square miles west of Tulare and east of Kettleman City is continuing to experience subsidence. The Lemoore Naval Air Station, located at the northwest edge of this area, has seen a total subsidence of over 10 feet between 1925 and 2010. The conversion to permanent crops and orchards that require year-round irrigation has been linked to increased groundwater extraction and changes in land use, which have contributed to the subsiding area. The sagging of canals, rivers, and flood bypass channels in these regions has led to a loss of freeboard and flow capacity.
4.5.8.4 Likelihood of Future Occurrence
Likely – Land subsidence has been a recurring issue in Kings County for decades and can be expected to continue in the future. The frequency of future land subsidence incidents in the County will largely be dependent on the mitigation actions and pumping regulations initiated by the State, the County, and local regulations. Based on past trends of gradual subsidence throughout the entire San Joaquin Valley and the continued dependence on groundwater pumping, it can be assumed that subsidence will continue in the future, with increased rates of subsidence during drought years.
The HMPC notes that at times agricultural operations are subjected to 0% - 5% allocations of surface water deliveries, which forces agriculture to rely upon groundwater to remain viable. This has resulted in some years of over drafting amounts of approximately 820,000 acre-feet per year (Bittle, 2023). The SGMA also helped establish local GSAs to manage groundwater sustainably within the four groundwater subbasins in the region: Tulare Lake, Kaweah, Kings, and Westside Subbasins. Further, the development and implementation of each GSA’s GSP should further mitigate the amount of over drafting in the future and help reduce subsidence rates. See Section 4.5.4, Drought for additional information on the Tulare Lake, Kawah, Kings, and Westside Subbasin GSPs.
May 23, 2024 Pg. 449
Kings County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
2023 Update Page 4-120
4.5.8.5 Climate Change Considerations
Climate change is expected to result in increased temperatures and changes in precipitation patterns, which can lead to both extreme precipitation variability and prolonged periods of drought. Drought conditions can cause a reduction in soil moisture content while increasing the demand for water resources. In response, people may increase their use of groundwater, which can lead to increased land subsidence risk through the compaction of soil layers and the depletion of underground water resources.
Extreme precipitation variability present both challenges and opportunities. Extreme flooding occurred in the County following the series of AR events that hit the State in early 2023. The HMPC noted that these events could be beneficial if excess flood water were captured and used to enhance groundwater recharge. However, such strategic recharge projects require extensive knowledge of the soil, geology, and aquifer properties, as well as planning, permits, and infrastructure. These projects are eligible for funding through the DWR’s Sustainable Groundwater Management Grant Program.
However, during periods of extended drought, water levels in aquifers may be drawn down to levels that are too low, which can cause the soil and rock layers to compress and settle. Once this occurs, the water cannot recharge the layers, leading to permanent subsidence and the permanent loss of groundwater storage capacity. This can have significant economic and environmental impacts, including damage to infrastructure, decreased agricultural productivity, and reduced access to water resources.
4.5.8.6 Magnitude and Severity
Limited – The rate of subsidence is difficult to predict, and it is also uncertain where exactly it will occur.
This unpredictability makes it hard to assess the potential magnitude and severity of the subsidence's impact. As the County's different areas continue to sink at varying rates that range from approximately
0.5 feet to 2.5 feet of vertical ground surface displacement in the area south of Kettleman City in the County to 4.5 to 5.5 feet of vertical ground surface displacement in the area between the cities of Hanford and Corcoran, the impacts on infrastructure could become more evident (see Figure 4-31). It is likely that continued subsidence in the County could lead to further harm to infrastructure such as buildings, roads, and water storage and management systems, such as canals and aqueducts.
4.5.8.7 Vulnerability Assessment
Land subsidence due to groundwater pumping can permanently damage or collapse underground aquifers, increase flood risk in low-lying areas, and pose hazards to buildings, infrastructure, and water storage facilities. Subsidence can result in serious, localized structural damage to buildings, roads, irrigation ditches, canals, streams, underground utilities, and pipelines. It can disrupt and alter the flow of surface or underground water. The consequences of improper use of land subject to ground subsidence can be excessive economic losses, including the high costs of repair and maintenance for buildings, irrigation works, highways, utilities, and other structures. This results in direct economic losses to citizens as well as indirect economic losses through decreased property values.
Property
The lack of detailed data on property damage due to land subsidence in Kings County makes it difficult to quantify past or potential future losses. Most subsidence instances result in relatively minor damage and settling of buildings. But in some cases, subsidence can result in serious structural damage to buildings, roads, irrigation ditches, underground utilities, and pipelines, potentially resulting in the complete loss of the structure.
People
This hazard typically results in property damage, not risk to human life. In the event of modest subsidence over time, property that people rely on like buildings, roads, rail lines, and underground infrastructure, such as sewer, electrical power, and water lines could be impacted. These impacts may also be due to related erosion or flooding hazards. Land subsidence is also not expected to have a disproportionate impact on socially vulnerable populations.
Critical Facilities and Lifelines
Land subsidence is a threat to critical infrastructures, including groundwater wells, levees, and aqueducts.
As land sinks, it can cause the casings of wells to collapse and require repair. Water that had previously been advanced by gravity may require lift stations or pumps to be moved over distorted landscapes.
May 23, 2024 Pg. 450
Kings County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
2023 Update Page 4-121
Economy
Damage resulting from land subsidence can cause direct economic losses in the form of needed structural repairs to affected buildings and facilities, as noted above. It can also result in indirect losses, such as from increased taxes and decreased property values. The HMPC notes that as a result of media coverage of subsidence in the area, lending institutions have applied higher interest rates due to perceived higher risk, placing greater financial burdens on lower-income communities. Subsidence may also impact agricultural industries and livelihoods dependent on those industries if transportation routes are affected.
Cultural, Historic and Natural Resources
Historic and cultural facilities are just as susceptible to subsidence related damage as other structures.
However, there is not sufficient data to identify specific historical or cultural facilities at increased risk from this hazard.
Development Trends
While vulnerability to this hazard is not anticipated to increase with new development, increased water pumping resulting from the demand of new development has the potential to increase the frequency and severity of subsidence. Increased efforts to monitor and manage groundwater pumping, increased accuracy of mapping, and emphasis on appropriate grading and ground compaction during development will help alleviate vulnerability for future development in unknown areas of risk.
4.5.8.8 Risk Summary
• A significant portion of Kings County is at risk from ongoing land subsidence, and despite the gradual nature of this hazard, the observed and potential impacts to critical infrastructure makes the overall significance of this hazard Medium.
• The entire Kings County is vulnerable to land subsidence due to its dependence on agriculture and groundwater pumping; however, increased efforts on sustainable groundwater management and the implementation of the Tulare Lake, Kaweah, Kings, and Westside Subbasins GSPs should alleviate this hazard risk in the future.
• Increased drought conditions resulting from climate change will likely result in more groundwater pumping, which could lead to more human-induced subsidence; groundwater sustainability planning and management could help offset future subsidence. • Land subsidence can alter the flow of surface or underground water, an impact that may not be noticed until long after the fact.
• Related Hazards – Drought, Flood
JURISDICTION GEOGRAPHIC
AREA
PROBABILITY
OF FUTURE
OCCURRENCE
MAGNITUDE/
SEVERITY
OVERALL
SIGNIFICANCE
PRIORITY
HAZARD?
Kings County Extensive Likely Limited Medium Yes
City of Avenal Extensive Likely Limited Medium Yes
City of Corcoran Extensive Likely Limited Medium Yes
City of Hanford Extensive Likely Limited Medium Yes
City of Lemoore Extensive Likely Limited Medium Yes
May 23, 2024 Pg. 451
Kings County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
2023 Update Page 4-122
4.5.9 LANDSLIDE
4.5.9.1 Hazard Description
Landslides can refer to a wide variety of processes that result in the perceptible downward and outward movement of soil, rock, and vegetation under the gravitational influence. Common names for landslide types include slump, rockslide, debris slide, lateral spreading, debris avalanche, earth flow, and soil creep.
Although landslides are primarily associated with steep slopes (i.e., greater than 15 percent), they may also occur in areas of generally low relief and occur as cut‐and‐fill failures, river bluff failures, lateral spreading landslides, collapse of mine‐waste piles, and failures associated with quarries and open‐pit mines.
The force of gravity acting upon a steep or moderately steep slope is the primary cause of a landslide.
Slope failure occurs when the force of gravity pulling the slope downward exceeds the strength of the earth materials that comprise the slope to hold it in place. In addition to the force of gravity, other contributing factors to landslides can include rainfall, earthquakes, changes in groundwater, and humaninduced modifications to existing slopes.
The potential for a landslide to occur exists anywhere weak or fractured materials rest upon a moderate to steep slope. The severity of a landslide depends in large part on the degree of development in the area in which it occurs and the geographic area of the slide itself. Generally speaking, landslides result in devastating consequences, but in very localized areas. A landslide occurring in an undeveloped area would be less severe because lives and property would not be affected; the only impacts would be to land, vegetation, and wildlife. However, a landslide occurring in a developed area could have devastating effects, ranging from structure and infrastructure damage to injury and loss of life.
Mudslides are a mass of water and fine-grained earth that flows down a stream, ravine, canyon, arroyo, or gulch. If more than half of the solids in the mass are larger than sand grains (rocks, stones, boulders), the event is called a debris flow. A debris fan is a conical landform produced by successive mud and debris flow deposits, and the likely spot for a future event. Mud and debris flow problems can be exacerbated by wildfires that remove vegetation that serves to stabilize soil from erosion. Heavy rains on the denuded landscape can lead to the rapid development of destructive mudflows.
A rockfall is the falling of a detached mass of rock from a very steep to horizontal slope. Rockfalls are caused by the loss of support from underneath through erosion, or triggered by ice wedging, root growth, or ground shaking. Rockfalls and landslides are influenced by seasonal patterns, precipitation, and temperature patterns. Weathering and decomposition of geologic materials produce conditions favorable to rockfalls. Changes to an area or slope, such as cutting and filling activities, can also increase the risk of a rockfall. Rockfalls can threaten human life, impact transportation corridors, and communication systems and cause other property damage.
There are predictable relationships between local geology and landslide events. The downslope movement of earth material, either as a landslide, debris flow, mudslide, or rockslide, is part of the continuous, natural process of erosion. This process, however, can be influenced by a variety of causes that change the stability of the slope. Slope instability may result from natural processes, such as the erosion of the toe of a slope by a stream, or by ground shaking caused by an earthquake. Slopes can also be modified artificially by grading, or by the addition of water or structures to a slope. Development that occurs on a slope can substantially increase the frequency and extent of potential slope stability hazards.
Knowledge of these relationships can improve planning and reduce vulnerability.
4.5.9.2 Geographic Area
Significant – As mentioned in the County’s 2012 MJHMP, landslide hazards are uncommon throughout much of the county due to the flat topography. The southwestern County intersects with the Kettleman Hills and the Southern California Coastal Range. These areas of the County that are the most susceptible to landslides, and there are few past occurrences. Areas near rivers and streams are also subject to natural erosion, which may be increased during flood events.
Deep-seated landslide susceptibility in the County is depicted in Figure 4-34; areas in darker red colors have a higher susceptibility to landslide and most of these areas are concentrated west of SR 33. This map shows the relative likelihood of deep-seated land sliding based on regional estimates of rock strength and steepness of slopes. On the most basic level, weak rocks and steep slopes are most likely to generate landslides. The map uses detailed information on the location of past landslides, the location and relative strength of rock unites, and steepness of slope to estimate susceptibility to deep-seated land sliding (0 to X, low to high, as shown in the Figure’s legend). On very low slopes, landslide susceptibility is low even if there are weak rock and geologic materials, and that susceptibility increases with slope and May 23, 2024 Pg. 452
Kings County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
2023 Update Page 4-123
weaker rocks. High landslide susceptibility classes (VIII, IX, and X) include very steep slopes with hard rocks and moderate to very steep slopes with weak rocks (Wills et al. 2011).
Figure 4-34 Kings County Deep – Seated Landslide Susceptibility
4.5.9.3 Past Occurrences
There have not been any disaster declarations associated with landslides or California Geological Survey (CGS) records of landslides in Kings County. However, the County’s 2012 LHMP noted that landslides have occurred in the western part of the county, particularly in burn areas and after heavy rains. Heavy rain events caused a slope failure around a water line for Avenal in 1995, 1998, 2008 and 2010.
4.5.9.4 Likelihood of Future Occurrence
There is limited data on past events, but occasional landslides and debris flows are likely to occur in the western part of the county in the future. As mentioned in the County’s 2012 MJHMP, winter and spring are typically the landslide/rock‐fall seasons in California as rain falls and snow melts and saturates soils and temperatures enter into freeze/thaw cycles. Debris and mud flows generally occur during summer cloudbursts. Debris and mudslides and rock‐fall can occur rapidly with little warning during torrential May 23, 2024 Pg. 453
Kings County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
2023 Update Page 4-124
rains. Landslides typically have a slower onset and can be predicted to some extent by monitoring soil moisture levels and ground cracking or slumping in areas of previous landslide activity.
On the other hand, projected climate change-associated variance in rainfall events may result in more high-intensity rain events, which may increase landslide frequency. In addition, the increased potential of wildfire occurrence also escalates the risk of landslide and debris flows in the period following a fire. Refer to the Climate Change Considerations subsection below for more details on climate change’s impact on landslide events.
4.5.9.5 Climate Change Considerations
Landslides can result from intense rainfall and runoff events. Projected climate change-associated variance in rainfall events may result in more high-intensity events, which may increase landslide frequency. In addition, the increased potential of wildfire occurrence also escalates the risk of landslide and debris flows in the period following a fire, when slopes lack vegetation to stabilize soils and burned soil surfaces allow more rainfall runoff. As climate change affects the length of the wildfire season, it is possible that a higher frequency of large fires may occur into late fall, when conditions remain dry. The wildfires can be followed by intense rains early in the winter, as occurred with the Thomas Fire in December 2017 and subsequent Montecito and Carpinteria debris flows in January 2018 that occurred in Santa Barbara County (CA SHMP 2018). Moreover, tree mortality resulting from drought, pests or any other threat could also pose an increase in landslides as the loss of trees would reduce the protection of steep slopes and thereby increase the probability of landslide occurrences.
4.5.9.6 Magnitude and Severity
Negligible – Figure 4-29 shows the relative extent of deep land sliding based on regional estimates of rock strength and steepness of slopes. The data used for the map utilizes detailed information on the location of past landslides, the location and relative strength of rock units, and the steepness of the slope in a methodology developed by Wilson and Keefer (1985) as implemented by Ponti et al (2008) to create classes of landslide susceptibility. These classes express the generalization that on very low slopes, landslide susceptibility is low even in weak materials, and that landslide susceptibility increases with slope and in weaker rocks. The convergence of factors suggests limited landslide potential in most of Kings County due to the very low slopes. However, there are areas on the west side where the potential increases due to an increase in slope and topography along the Southern California Coastal Range, mainly to the west of I-5. These areas are shown in darker orange and red in Figure 4-34.
Landslides are often triggered by other natural hazards such as earthquakes, heavy rain, flood, or wildfires.
Landslide frequency is often related to the frequency of these other hazards. In Kings County, landslides typically occur during and after major storms so the potential for landslides largely coincides with the potential for sequential severe storms that saturate steep, vulnerable soils.
4.5.9.7 Vulnerability Assessment
Property
Landslides directly damage engineered structures in two general ways: 1) disruption of structural foundations caused by differential movement and deformation of the ground upon which the structure sits, and 2) physical impact of debris moving downslope against structures located in the travel path.
During the 2023 update of this plan, a GIS analysis of exposure to landslide hazard areas was performed.
GIS analysis indicates approximately $126.4 million of property improvements are exposed, which takes into account improved values of properties. Table 4-68 summarizes landslide exposure by jurisdiction. GIS was used to intersect the parcel boundaries with a master address point layer to obtain the number of buildings per parcel. Only parcels with improvement values greater than zero were used in the analysis, this method assumes that improved parcels have a structure of some type.
Based on this analysis there is a total of 144 improved parcels together with 304 structures located within landslide hazard areas in the County. The majority of this exposure is to the west of I-5 and in the southwestern unincorporated County. None of the parcels from the cities of Corcoran and Lemoore are exposed to landslide hazard. There is a high level of uncertainty as to the actual risk to these exposed parcels, thus a more specific loss estimation is not provided. A more detailed, site-specific analysis would be needed to assess actual risk within the identified parcels. The analysis results are shown below in Table 4-68.
May 23, 2024 Pg. 454
Kings County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
2023 Update Page 4-125
Table 4-68 Kings County Improved Parcels & Structures Potentially at Risk to Landslide
JURISDICTION IMPROVED
PARCEL
COUNT
BUILDING
COUNT
IMPROVED
VALUE
ESTIMATED
CONTENT
VALUE
TOTAL VALUE POPULATION
Avenal 22 22 $1,820,347 $1,197,668 $3,018,015 61
Hanford 37 188 $38,644,308 $25,007,092 $63,651,400 501
Unincorporated
County
85 94 $29,768,911 $29,971,966 $59,740,877 73
Total 144 304 $70,233,566 $56,176,725 $126,410,291 635
Source: Department of Conservation, CGS, Kings County Assessor, Wood GIS Analysis Figure 4-35 below further breaks down the numbers of exposed parcels by landslide class, as shown previously in Table 4-68; the higher the class the greater the susceptibility. As shown by Figure 4-35, most of the exposed parcels and structures are located within Class 7 landslide areas.
Figure 4-35 Total Parcel & Structure Counts by Landslide Class Source: Department of Conservation, CGS, Kings County Assessor, Wood GIS Analysis People
People could be susceptible if they are caught in a landslide or debris flow, potentially leading to injury or death. There is a danger to drivers operating vehicles, as rocks and debris can strike vehicles passing through the hazard area or cause dangerous shifts in roadways. Similar to the methodology used in the flood section, the total people at risk were estimated by multiplying the average number of persons per household in the County and each applicable incorporated jurisdiction with the number of residential parcels in landslide-prone areas to estimate the population residing in landslide hazard areas. As shown in Table 4-68 above, there are approximately 635 people potentially residing in landslide susceptible areas. These areas include the western portion of the City of Avenal and a small portion of the City of Hanford, as well as the unincorporated County to the west of I-5, SR 33 & SR 41. However, it is not likely that landslides will occur without warning and direct impacts to people are suspected to be minimal.
Critical Facilities and Lifelines
In addition to buildings, utilities and transportation structures are vulnerable to the impact and ground deformation caused by slope failures. They present a particular vulnerability because of their geographic extent and susceptibility to physical distress. Lifelines are generally linear structures that, because of their geographic extent, have a greater chance of being affected by ground failure due to greater hazard exposure.
Extension, bending, and compression caused by ground deformation can break lifelines. Failure of any component along the lifeline can result in the failure to deliver service over a large region. Once broken, 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Class 3
Class 5
Class 6
Class 7
Class 8
Class 9
Class 10
Total
Structure Count Parcel Count
May 23, 2024 Pg. 455
Kings County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
2023 Update Page 4-126
transmission of the commodity through the lifeline ceases, which can have catastrophic repercussions including loss of power to critical facilities such as hospitals, impaired disposal of sewage, contamination of water supplies, disruption of all forms of transportation, and release of flammable fuels. Therefore, the overall impact of lifeline failures, including secondary failure of systems that depend on lifelines, can be much greater than the impact of individual building failures.
Table 4-69 below summarizes the results of the critical facilities analysis, highlighting the exposure of critical facilities throughout the County to landslide hazards. The critical facilities that are exposed to landslide hazards are located within the City of Avenal and unincorporated County. Many exposed critical facilities are located in the southwestern part of the County to the west of Interstate 5.
Table 4-69 Critical Facilities Within the Class 9 Landslide Hazard by FEMA Lifeline
JURISDICTION
LANDSLIDECLASSCOMMUNICATIONSENERGYFOOD, WATER, SHELTERHAZARDOUS MATERIALHEALTH AND MEDICALSAFETY AND SECURITYTRANSPORTATION TOTAL
Avenal 5 1 - - - - - - 1
7 4 1 - - - - - 5
9 - 1 - - - - - 1
10 1 - - - - - - 1
Unincorporated 5 10 2 - 1 - - 2 12
7 2 2 - 1 - - 4 9
8 2 - - - - - - 2
9 - - - - - - 2 2
10 6 - - - - - - 6
Grand Total - 26 4 - 1 - - 8 39
Source: HIFLD, Kings County, WSP GIS Analysis
Economy
Economic impacts typically center around transportation routes temporarily closed by debris flow or landslide activity. These roads may be used to transport goods across the County or provide access by visitors and tourists. Depending on the amount of damage, the road may simply need to be cleaned off or may require some level of reconstruction.
Cultural, Historic and Natural Resources
As primarily a natural process, landslides and debris flows can have varying impacts on the natural environment. Debris flows have the potential to permanently alter the natural landscape. The impacts of landslides and debris flows on historical and cultural structures would be similar to the impacts on the general property.
Development Tends
The severity of landslide problems is directly related to the extent of human activity in hazard areas.
Human activities such as property development and road construction can exacerbate the occurrence of landslides. Development Trends should take place carefully to prevent landslide damage to property or people. Adverse effects can be mitigated by early recognition, avoiding incompatible land uses in these areas, or by corrective engineering. Improving mapping and information on landslide hazards and incorporating this information into the development review process could prevent siting of structures and infrastructure in identified hazard areas.
A GIS analysis of exposure to landslide hazard within SOI boundaries is summarized in Table 4-70 below.
These parcels are also included in Table 4-69, and they fall under “Unincorporated” in terms of their jurisdiction. Parcels shown below in Table 4-70 are those that fall within each jurisdiction’s SOI and are May 23, 2024 Pg. 456
Kings County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
2023 Update Page 4-127
exposed to potential landslide hazard events. As shown in Table 4-70, only two parcels with two structures located in the SOI of the City of Hanford are exposed to landslide hazard.
Table 4-70 Sphere of Influence Risk to Landslide Hazard
JURISDICTION IMPROVED
PARCEL
COUNT
BUILDING
COUNT
IMPROVED
VALUE
ESTIMATED
CONTENT
VALUE
TOTAL
VALUE
POPULATION
Hanford 2 2 $350,069 $525,104 $875,173 -
Total 2 2 $350,069 $525,104 $875,173 -
Source: HIFLD, Kings County, WSP GIS Analysis
Furthermore, as shown in Figure 4-34, areas west of I-5 are the most susceptible to landslide hazard in the County. However, the Community District areas, which are outlined in the County’s 2035 General Plan Land Use Element and represent the County’s future urban growth, are not located to the west of I-5.
They are mostly SOIs that surround the County’s current municipal boundaries, while most areas within current SOIs are not significantly exposed to landslide hazard. Therefore, landslide hazards currently pose a limited threat to these Development Trends areas.
4.5.9.8 Risk Summary
• The overall significance of landslides in Kings is Low. • The geologic formations commonly associated with slope stability problems in Kings County are largely concentrated to the west of I-5 and in the southwestern portion of the County. • Heavy rain events caused a slope failure around a water line for Avenal in 1995, 1998, 2008 and 2010; however, there have not been any disaster declarations associated with landslides or CGS records of landslides in Kings County.
• People are most commonly at risk if they are caught in a landslide or debris flow, including when driving through a hazard area.
• Property loss is rare, but GIS analysis shows some properties could be exposed to landslides. • Landslides in adjacent counties can disrupt major transportation corridors, possibly affecting the local tourist economy and shipment of goods.
• Landslides and debris flows can destroy infrastructure such as water and sewer lines, electrical and telecommunications utilities and drainage. Disrupted transportation routes occur occasionally, usually during heavy rainstorms, and cause considerable inconvenience. • Related Hazards: Flood, Severe Weather
JURISDICTION GEOGRAPHIC
AREA
PROBABILITY
OF FUTURE
OCCURRENCE
MAGNITUDE/
SEVERITY
OVERALL
SIGNIFICANCE
PRIORITY
HAZARD?
Kings County Significant Occasional Negligible Low No
City of Avenal Significant Occasional Negligible Low No City of Corcoran Significant Occasional Negligible Low No City of Hanford Significant Occasional Negligible Low No City of Lemoore Significant Occasional Negligible Low No
4.5.10 PUBLIC HEALTH HAZARDS: PANDEMICS/EPIDEMICS
4.5.10.1 Hazard Description
A public health hazard spreads from one person to another through a variety of ways that include contact with blood and bodily fluids, breathing in an airborne virus, or being bitten by an insect.
The scale of a public health hazard outbreak or biological incident is described by the extent of the spread of disease in the community. An outbreak can be classified as an endemic, an epidemic, or a pandemic depending on the prevalence of the disease locally and around the world. • An endemic is defined as something natural to or characteristic of a particular place, population, or climate. For example, threadworm infections are endemic in the tropics. • An epidemic is defined as a disease that spreads rapidly through a demographic segment of the human population, such as everyone in a given geographic area, a similar population unit, or everyone of a certain age or sex, such as the children or women of a region. • A pandemic is defined as an extensive epidemic with effects felt worldwide.
May 23, 2024 Pg. 457
Kings County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
2023 Update Page 4-128
While many potentially devastating diseases are spread through ingestion or insects, airborne diseases and those spread through physical contact pose higher risks to the community as they are difficult to control. Diseases such as influenza, pertussis, tuberculosis, and meningitis are all spread through these methods and pose a threat to communities. Health agencies closely monitor for diseases with the potential to cause an epidemic and seek to develop and promote immunizations.
A pandemic is a global disease outbreak. A pandemic occurs when a new virus emerges for which people have little or no immunity, and for which there is no vaccine. This disease could easily spread person-toperson, causing serious illness, and can sweep across the country and around the world in a very short time. The CDC is working closely with other countries and the World Health Organization (WHO) to strengthen systems to detect outbreaks that might cause a pandemic and to assist with pandemic planning and preparation.
An especially severe influenza pandemic could lead to high levels of illness, death, social disruption, and economic loss. Impacts could range from school and business closings to the interruption of basic services such as public transportation, health care, and the delivery of food and essential medicines.
Pandemics are generally thought to be the result of novel strains of viruses. Because of the process utilized to prepare vaccines, it is impossible to have vaccines pre-prepared to combat future pandemics.
Additionally, for novel viruses, identification of symptoms, mode of transmission, and testing/identification may require development, causing significant delays in response actions. A portion of the human and financial cost of a pandemic is related to the lag time to prepare a vaccine to prevent the future spread of the novel virus. In some cases, current vaccines may have limited efficacy against novel strains.
Even when there is a strong healthcare system in place, disease outbreaks can strain and overwhelm community resources. The County’s vulnerable populations, young children, the elderly, under-resourced households, and those with underlying health conditions, will be the hardest hit during any disease outbreak. An especially severe outbreak could lead to high levels of illness, death, social disruption, and economic loss. Impacts could range from school and business closings to the interruption of basic services such as public transportation, health care, and the delivery of food and essential medicines.
Ongoing COVID-19 Pandemic
Since March 2020 and during the update of this plan, the County, the nation, and the world were dealing with the COVID-19 pandemic, confirming that the pandemic is a key public health hazard in the State.
The COVID-19 virus has a much higher rate of transmission than the seasonal flu, primarily by airborne transmission of droplets/bodily fluids. Common symptoms include fever, cough, fatigue, shortness of breath or breathing difficulties, and loss of smell and taste.
Figure 4-36 below shows the case fatality rate of COVID-19 from March 14, 2020, to March 21, 2023. The case fatality rate (CFR) is the ratio between confirmed deaths and confirmed cases. As shown in the figure, the CFR was relatively much higher in 2020 and started dropping towards the end of 2020 and early 2021. The highest CFR that the US experienced was a bit higher than 6%. On the other hand, since early 2022, the US’ CFR has been lower than 2%. However, as also mentioned by the figure’s source – Our World In Data, CFR does not reflect the risk of dying from COVID-19 because the CFR relies on the number of confirmed cases, and many cases are not confirmed.
May 23, 2024 Pg. 458
Kings County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
2023 Update Page 4-129
Figure 4-36 Case Fatality Rate of COVID-19 Up-to-Date
Source: Our World In Data – Global Change Data Lab
Moreover, as mentioned in CDC’s most up-to-date summary on January 27, 2023, there is a rapid reduction in the overall US COVID-19-related mortality rate in March 2022. From April through September 2022, COVID-19–related mortality rates remained relatively stable. On the other hand, although overall COVID-19-related mortality rates declined, adults aged ≥65 years continued to have the highest mortality rates. During April–September 2022, the proportion of COVID-19-related deaths accounted for by adults aged ≥85 years increased to ~40% despite accounting for <2% of the U.S. population. COVID-19–related deaths among children remained rare (CDC 2023).
2022 US Mpox Outbreak
As discussed by CDC in February 2023, Mpox is a rare disease caused by infection with the mpox virus.
Mpox virus is part of the same family of viruses as the variola virus, the virus that causes smallpox. Mpox symptoms are similar to smallpox symptoms, but milder, and mpox is rarely fatal. Mpox is not related to chickenpox.
Mpox was discovered in 1958 when two outbreaks of a pox-like disease occurred in colonies of monkeys kept for research. Despite being named “monkeypox,” the source of the disease remains unknown.
However, African rodents and non-human primates (like monkeys) might harbor the virus and infect people.
The first human case of mpox was recorded in 1970. Prior to the 2022 outbreak, mpox had been reported in people in several central and western African countries. Previously, almost all mpox cases in people outside of Africa were linked to international travel to countries where the disease commonly occurs or through imported animals. These cases occurred on multiple continents.
People with mpox often get a rash that may be located on hands, feet, chest, face, or mouth or near the genitals. The incubation period is 3-17 days. During this time, a person does not have symptoms and may feel fine. The rash will go through several stages, including scabs, before healing. The rash can initially look like pimples or blisters and may be painful or itchy. Other symptoms of mpox can include fever, chills, swollen lymph nodes, exhaustion, muscle aches and backache, headache, and respiratory symptoms (e.g., sore throat, nasal congestion, or cough). Mpox can spread to anyone through close, personal, often skin-to-skin contact. The risk is considered low for getting mpox by touching objects, fabrics, and surfaces that have been used by someone with mpox and not disinfected.
May 23, 2024 Pg. 459
Kings County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
2023 Update Page 4-130
As of March 15, 2023, there are 86,500 global cases, while 30,262 of them are in the US. The WHO declared Monkeypox Spread a Global Health Emergency on July 23, 2022. Since the number of new cases remained low, the Biden Administration ended the mpox public health emergency declaration on January 31, 2023.
Valley Fever
Another example of a human health hazard that is endemic to the County is Valley Fever, or “cocci” which is a known but poorly understood secondary effect of drought conditions, and possibly a combination of wind and drought events followed by a rainy season. Valley Fever is an infection caused by a fungus (Coccidioides immitis) that lives in soil and dirt and areas with low rainfall, high summer temperatures, and moderate winter temperatures. Valley Fever is primarily a disease of the lungs and the infection can occur year-round. In California, it has been reported from most counties, but especially from the San Joaquin Valley and Central Coast. Anyone who lives in, works in, or visits a place with Valley Fever can be infected. According to the Epidemiologic Summary of Valley Fever (Coccidioidomycosis) in California, 2019 Report, published by the California Department of Public Health, Kings County was one of the counties that have the highest rates of Valley Fever in 2019.
People can get sick by breathing in a form of the Valley Fever fungus called spores. Spores are too small to be seen and they can get into the air with dust when it is windy or when dirt is distributed. Fortunately, Valley Fever cannot be spread from one person to another. About 60% of infected people will not get sick. People who do get sick can have symptoms such as fever, tiredness, and weight loss that last a month or more. Valley Fever can also infect the brain, joints, bone, skin, or other organs. This type of infection is rare; however, it can be serious and sometimes fatal. Most people who get Valley Fever fully recover and are usually protected from getting Valley Fever again.
4.5.10.2 Geographic Area
Extensive – Pandemics occur not only on a county or state level but on a national and global scale. Most communities in Kings County would likely be affected, either directly or by secondary impacts. Some indirect consequences may be the diversion of resources that may be otherwise available. Diseases usually spread throughout vulnerable populations and in areas where people live and work in close quarters. Depending on the specifics of the illness, these areas can include shelters, senior homes, schools, and places of business. In general, it is likely that the more populated areas may be affected sooner and may experience higher infection rates.
Kings County has reported 65,122 cases and 464 deaths from COVID-19 as of December 13, 2022. The current COVID-19 pandemic has affected all the jurisdictions in Kings County. Table 4-71 shows the total number of cases as well as the number of cases per total population specific to the jurisdictions within Kings County. Data specific to tribes are included in the nearest counties. Kings County comprises less than 1% of the statewide total cases and deaths. In general, it is likely that the more-populated areas municipal areas may be affected sooner and may experience higher infection rates.
Table 4-71 COVID-19 Cases by Jurisdiction (as of December 8, 2022)
JURISDICTION CASES CASES PER
TOTAL POP*.
City of Avenal 7,712 55.6%
City of Corcoran 11,584 51.2%
City of Hanford 25,589 44.6%
City of Lemoore 11,914 44.7%
Unincorporated
County
4,166 13.3%
Total 60,974 40.1%
Source: Kings County Department of Public Health COVID-19 Dashboard *Total population is based on U.S. Census Bureau ACS 2017-2021 5-Year Estimates Moreover, according to the New York Times “Tracking coronavirus in Kings County” dashboard shown in Figure 4-37, Kings County has relatively high reported cases per 100,000 people.
May 23, 2024 Pg. 460
Kings County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
2023 Update Page 4-131
Figure 4-37 Reported Coronavirus cases per 100,000 people Data source: The New York Times, December 14, 2022
With regards to Valley Fever, Figure 4-38 below shows Valley Fever Annual Incidence among California Counties in the year 2013 – 2018 and 2019.
May 23, 2024 Pg. 461
Kings County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
2023 Update Page 4-132
Figure 4-38 Annual Incidence among California Counties in the year 2013 – 2018 and 2019 Source: Epidemiologic Summary of Valley Fever (Coccidioidomycosis) in California, 2019 Report, published by California Department of Public Health
4.5.10.3 Past Occurrences
Since the early 1900s, five lethal pandemics have swept the globe:
• 1918-1919 Spanish Flu: The Spanish Flu was the most severe pandemic in recent history. The number of deaths was estimated to be 50-100 million worldwide and 675,000 in the United States. Its primary victims were mostly young, healthy adults. At one point, more than 10% of the American workforce was bedridden.
• 1957-1958 Asian Flu: The 1957 Asian Flu pandemic killed 1.1 million people worldwide, including about 70,000 people in the United States, mostly the elderly and chronically ill. Fortunately, the virus was quickly identified, and vaccine production began in May 1957. • 1968-1969 H3N2 Hong Kong Flu: The 1968 Hong Kong Flu pandemic killed one million people worldwide and approximately 100,000 people in the United States. Again, the elderly were more severely affected. This pandemic peaked during school holidays in December, limiting studentrelated infections, which may have kept the number of infections down. Also, people infected by the Asian Flu ten years earlier may have gained some resistance to the new virus. • 2009-2010 H1N1 Swine Flu: This influenza pandemic emerged from Mexico in early 2009 and was declared a public health emergency in the US on April 26. By June, approximately 18,000 cases had been reported in the US and the virus had spread to 74 countries. Most cases were fairly mild, with May 23, 2024 Pg. 462
Kings County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
2023 Update Page 4-133
symptoms similar to the seasonal flu, but there were cases of severe disease requiring hospitalization and some deaths.
• 2020-Ongoing COVID-19: The COVID-19 or novel coronavirus was detected in December 2019 and was declared a pandemic in March 2020. As of December 14, 2022, 650 million cases and 6.66 million deaths have been reported globally, including approximately 99.2 million cases and 1.09 million deaths in the US. Worldwide there have been 13.05 billion vaccine doses administered. The response to the COVID-19 Pandemic included numerous public health orders, including stay-home orders, massive testing infrastructure, the establishment of alternate care sites to support the hospital system, and an unprecedented community-wide vaccination push.
4.5.10.4 Likelihood of Future Occurrence
Occasional – Although it is impossible to predict the next disease outbreak, recent history shows these outbreaks are not uncommon and are likely to reoccur. Based on the five pandemics that have affected the United States in roughly the last 100 years, a pandemic occurs on average roughly every 20 years. In other words, there is a 5% probability that a pandemic that affects the entire United States will occur in any given year.
For the current COVID-19 pandemic, due to the virus's ability to mutate and rapidly infect those who are not vaccinated, the pandemic may extend for several years, and booster vaccines may be necessary to prevent future outbreaks. In just the last couple of decades, the world has drastically increased points of transmissions through global travel and trade to levels unseen in human history – this may have a drastic impact on the frequency of pandemics and the speed with which they spread in coming years.
4.5.10.5 Climate Change Considerations
As the Earth’s climate continues to warm, researchers predict wild animals will be forced to relocate their habitats — likely to regions with large human populations — dramatically increasing the risk of a viral jump to humans that could lead to the next pandemic. This link between climate change and viral transmission is described by an international research team led by scientists at Georgetown University, published on April 28, 2022, in Nature. The scholars noted that the geographic range shifts due to climate change could cause species that carry viruses to encounter other mammals, sharing associated viruses thousands of times, which may then further be spread to humans. In addition, rising temperatures caused by climate change will impact bats, which account for the majority of novel viral sharing. Bats’ ability to fly will allow them to travel long distances and share viruses in geographically dispersed places.
Altogether, the study suggests that climate change will become the biggest upstream risk factor for disease emergence — exceeding higher-profile issues like deforestation, wildlife trade and industrial agriculture. The authors highlight a need to pair wildlife disease surveillance with real-time studies of environmental change (GUMC 2022).
Another research article that was published on August 23, 2021, also reached a similar conclusion. The likelihood of an extremely infectious disease epidemic – similar to the COVID-19 pandemic – could triple in the coming decades. William Pan, Ph.D. – one of the study authors and an associate professor of global environmental health at Duke University, together with his colleagues looked at data from the past 400 years to estimate the chance of extreme epidemics each year. The rate of occurrence of epidemics varies widely across time, the researchers said, but the chance of an extreme epidemic can be calculated.
Recent estimates show that infectious diseases that are passed from animals to humans – also called zoonotic diseases, such as COVID-19 – are becoming more common due to climate change (Crist, 2022).
4.5.10.6 Magnitude and Severity
Critical – The magnitude of a disease outbreak or public health emergency will range significantly depending on the aggressiveness of the virus in question, the ease of transmission, and the efficacy of public health and medical responses. Pandemic influenza is easily transmitted from person to person, but advances in medical technologies have greatly reduced the number of deaths caused by influenza over time.
Today, a large percentage of the world’s population is clustered in cities, making them ideal breeding grounds for epidemics. Additionally, the explosive growth in air travel means a virus could spread around the globe within hours, quickly creating a pandemic. Under such conditions, there may be very little warning time. It is estimated that one to six months will have lapsed between the time that a dangerous new influenza strain is identified and the time that outbreaks begin to occur in the United States.
Outbreaks are expected to occur simultaneously throughout much of the nation, preventing shifts in human and material resources that normally occur with other natural disasters. These aspects make May 23, 2024 Pg. 463
Kings County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
2023 Update Page 4-134
influenza pandemic unlike most other public health emergencies or community disasters. Pandemics typically last for several months to years.
As seen with the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, the rapid spread of a virus combined with the need for increased hospital and coroner resources, testing centers, first responders, and vaccination administration sites causes significant strain on the medical system and public health departments. Additionally, other public health-related triggers or commingled public health hazards (such as an outbreak of another pathogen) or even more contagious strains of COVID such as the recent Omicron, BA.5 and Delta B.1.617.2 variant, can quickly lead to even more outbreaks.
The Pandemic Intervals Framework (PIF) developed by WHO is a six-phased approach to defining the progression of an influenza pandemic. This framework is used to guide influenza pandemic planning and provides recommendations for risk assessment, decision-making, and action. These intervals provide a common method to describe pandemic activities that can inform public health actions. The duration of each pandemic interval might vary depending on the characteristics of the virus and the public health response.
The six-phase approach was designed for the easy incorporation of recommendations into existing national and local preparedness and response plans. Phases 1 through 3 correlate with preparedness in the pre-pandemic interval, including capacity development and response planning activities, while Phases 4 through 6 signal the need for response and mitigation efforts during the pandemic interval.
Pre-Pandemic Interval
Phase 1 is the natural state in which influenza viruses circulate continuously among animals (primarily birds) but do not affect humans.
Phase 2 occurs when an animal influenza virus circulating among domesticated or wild animals is known to have caused infection in humans and is thus considered a potential pandemic threat. Phase 2 involves cases of animal influenza that have circulated among domesticated or wild animals and have caused specific cases of infection among humans.
Phase 3 represents the mutation of the animal influenza virus in humans so that it can be transmitted to other humans under certain circumstances (usually very close contact between individuals). At this point, small clusters of infection have occurred.
Phase 4 is characterized by verified human-to-human transmission of the virus able to cause “community-level outbreaks.” The ability to cause sustained disease outbreaks in a community marks a significant upward shift in the risk for a pandemic. Phase 4 involves community-wide outbreaks as the virus continues to mutate and becomes more easily transmitted between people (for example, transmission through the air)
Phase 5 is characterized by verified human-to-human spread of the virus in at least two countries in one WHO region. While most countries will not be affected at this stage, the declaration of Phase 5 is a strong signal that a pandemic is imminent and that the time to finalize the organization, communication, and implementation of the planned mitigation measures is short.
Phase 6, the pandemic phase, is characterized by community-level outbreaks in at least one other country in a different WHO region in addition to the criteria defined in Phase 5. The designation of this phase will indicate that a global pandemic is underway.
4.5.10.7 Vulnerability Assessment
People
Pandemics can affect large segments of the population for long periods. The number of hospitalizations and deaths will depend on the virulence of the virus. Risk groups cannot be predicted with certainty; the elderly, people with underlying medical conditions, and young children are usually at higher risk, but as discussed above, this is not always the case. People without health coverage or access to good medical care are also likely to be more adversely affected. According to the 2021 ACS 5-Year Estimates of the County, 10.3% of the County’s population is 65 years of age or older, 7.5% of the population is 5 years of age or younger, and 16.4% experienced poverty in the prior 12 months.
However, impacts, mortality rates, speed and types of spread are disease-specific. As seen with the current COVID-19 pandemic statewide, according to the County Department of Public Health, the most positive cases occurred in the 18-49 age group. This age group makes up more than 50% of the County’s total cases. Hospitalizations and deaths, however, happened more within the 50+ age group. (KCDPH, 2023)
May 23, 2024 Pg. 464
Kings County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
2023 Update Page 4-135
Property
Public health hazards would not have direct impacts on infrastructure or the built environment. Should infrastructure require human intervention to fulfill vital functions, these functions could be impaired by absenteeism, sick days and isolation, quarantine, and disease prophylaxis measures. As concerns about contamination increase, property may be quarantined or destroyed as a precaution against spreading illness. Additionally, traditional sheltering facilities, including shelters for persons experiencing homelessness or facilities to support displaced persons during an evacuation, cannot be done in a congregate setting. This requires additional planning considerations or the use of facilities that allow for non-congregate shelter settings which may require approval from FEMA and may have an increased cost.
Critical Facilities and Lifelines
The impacts of a public health hazard on critical infrastructure and lifelines would center on service disruption due to staff missing work and shortages in essential resources and supplies to perform services, as seen with personal protective equipment during the COVID-19 pandemic within the health and medical sector. Schools may also be forced to close due to faculty and staffing shortages.
While automated systems and services that allow for the physical distancing of staff from other persons may fare better through a public health hazard incident, all critical infrastructure sectors and lifelines would likely be affected due to the globalization of supply chains, services, and interdependency of most communities.
Economy
A widespread public health hazard outbreak could have devastating impacts on Kings County’s economy. The economic impacts fall under two categories – economic losses as a result of the disease, and economic losses to fight the disease. Economic impacts as a result of diseases include those costs associated with lost work and business interruption. Depending on the disease and the type and rate of spread, businesses could see a loss of consumer base as people self-isolate or avoid travel. This could last for a protracted amount of time, compounding economic loss. Economic costs are also associated with incident response. Two of the biggest areas of cost are public information efforts and mass prophylaxis.
In a normal year, lost productivity due to illness costs US employers an estimated $530 billion. During a pandemic, that figure would likely be considerably high and could trigger a recession or even a depression. According to an October 2020 report by The Journal of American Medical Association (JAMA) Network, the estimated cumulative financial costs of the COVID-19 pandemic related to the COVID-19 economic recession and compromised health (premature death, mental health, long-term health impairment) in the US population was almost $16 trillion (Cultler and Summers 2020). Since March 2022, the California Small Business COVID-19 Relief Grant Program has been rolling out and supporting small businesses with grants ranging from $5,000 to $25,000. The entire financial support offered through the program exceeds $2 billion.
Cultural, Historic and Natural Resources
As mentioned previously, public health hazards would not have specific impacts on the built or natural environment, including historic and cultural resources. However, historic and cultural resources are often intertwined with the tourism industry, therefore reduced tourism could lead to impacts such as a loss of revenue needed for resource maintenance.
Impacts on natural resources can vary. Some ecosystems showed signs of improvement during the peak covid-19 lockdown. However, some zoonotic diseases can spread from animals to humans, wreaking havoc on both populations. Examples of zoonotic diseases include avian flu, swine flu, tuberculosis, plague, and rabies.
Development Trends
Population growth and development contribute to pandemic exposure. Development Trends in the County has the potential to change how infectious diseases spread through the community and impact human health in both the short and long term. New development may increase the number of people and facilities exposed to public health hazards and greater population concentrations (often found in special needs facilities and businesses) put more people at risk. During a disease outbreak, those in the immediate isolation area would have little to no warning, whereas the population further away in the dispersion path may have some time to prepare and mitigate against disease depending on the hazard, its transmission, and public notification.
May 23, 2024 Pg. 465
Kings County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
2023 Update Page 4-136
4.5.10.8 Risk Summary
• In summary, the public health hazard is considered to be of overall Medium significance for Kings County. Variations in risk by jurisdiction are summarized in the table below, along with key issues from the vulnerability assessment.
• Pandemics affecting the U.S. occur roughly once every 20 years, meaning there is a roughly 5% chance a pandemic will happen each year, but they cannot be reliably predicted. • Effects on people will vary, while the elderly, people with underlying medical conditions, and young children are usually at higher risk.
• Effects on property are typically minimal, although quarantines could result in short-term closures. • Effects on economy: lost productivity due to illness and potential business closures could potentially have severe economic impacts. Social distancing requirements and fear of public gatherings could significantly reduce in-person commerce.
• Effects on critical facilities and infrastructure: community lifelines, such as healthcare facilities, like hospitals will be impacted and may be overwhelmed and have difficulty maintaining operations due to bed availability, medical staffing shortages, and lack of PPE and other supplies. • Ongoing mitigation activities should focus on disease prevention, especially during flu season. This includes, but is not limited to, pre-season community outreach campaigns to educate the public about risks and available support; establishing convenient vaccination centers; reaching out to vulnerable populations and caregivers; and issuing advisories and warnings. • Related Hazards – Human Conflict
JURISDICTION GEOGRAPHIC
AREA
PROBABILITY OF
FUTURE
OCCURRENCE
MAGNITUDE/
SEVERITY
OVERALL
SIGNIFICANCE
PRIORITY
HAZARD?
Kings County Extensive Highly Likely Critical Medium Yes City of Avenal Extensive Highly Likely Critical Medium Yes City of Corcoran Extensive Highly Likely Critical Medium Yes City of Hanford Extensive Highly Likely Critical Medium Yes City of Lemoore Extensive Highly Likely Critical Medium Yes
4.5.11 SEVERE WEATHER: GENERAL
The climate in the Central Valley is defined generally by hot, dry summers and foggy, rainy winters. Severe weather is generally any destructive weather event but usually occurs in Kings County as localized thunderstorms that bring heavy rain and strong winds that occur most often during the winter and spring months. The agricultural industry is among the most vulnerable asset to severe weather.
Agricultural losses resulting from natural hazards can have dramatic impacts on the economic health of Kings County.
For this plan, severe weather is broken down as follows:
• Dense Fog
• Heavy Rain, Thunderstorm, Hail, Lightning
• High Wind/Tornado
NOAA’s NCEI has been tracking adverse weather since 1950. Their Storm Events Database contains data on the following: all weather events from 1996 to September 2022, and additional data for tornados (1950 – 1995), thunderstorm winds (1955-1995), and hail (1955-1995). This database contains 992 storm events that occurred in the County between January 1, 1950, and September 2022. Table 4-72 summarizes these events.
Table 4-72 NCEI Hazard Event Reports for Kings County, 1950-2022 HAZARD # OF
EVENTS
PROPERTY
LOSS ($)
CROP LOSS
($)
DEATHS INJURIES USDA RMA
LOSSES**
Cold/wind Chill* 4 $0 $0 0 0 $0
Dense Fog* 333 $3,911,000 $0 0 8 $0
Dense Smoke 0 $0 $0 0 0 $0
Drought* 64 $0 $0 0 0 $5,185,606
Excessive Heat* 24 $2,000,000 $0 0 0 $0
May 23, 2024 Pg. 466
Kings County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
2023 Update Page 4-137
HAZARD # OF
EVENTS
PROPERTY
LOSS ($)
CROP LOSS
($)
DEATHS INJURIES USDA RMA
LOSSES**
Extreme
Cold/Wind Chill*
4 $0 $0 0 0 $0
Flash Flood 6 $0 $0 0 0 $0
Flood 19 $818,190 $1,000,000 0 0 $0
Frost/Freeze* 198 $0 $216,720,000 0 0 $10,965,935
Funnel Cloud 15 $0 $0 0 0 $0
Hail 25 $2,000 $4,360,000 0 5 $4,803,398
Heat* 93 $0 $106,600,000 0 0 $37,013,009
Heavy Rain 61 $131,000 $10,450,000 0 0 $17,638,076
High Wind* 41 $5,553,000 $300,000 1 6 $1,220,101
Lightning 10 $51,000 $400,000 0 0 $0
Strong Wind* 49 $453,400 $119,500 0 0 $0
Thunderstorm
Wind*
32 $399,500 $4,000,000 1 0 $0
Tornado 8 $540,250 $0 0 1 $0
Wildfire* 3 $0 $0 1 0 $55,611
Winter Storm* 0 $0 $0 0 0 $0
Winter Weather* 0 $0 $0 0 0 $61,977,533
Total 992 $13,859,340 $343,949,500 3 20 $138,859,270
Source: National Center for Environmental Information Storm Events Database, www.ncdc.noaa.gov/stormevents/ * Hazards with wide extents reflect larger zones that extend beyond Kings County. ** USDA RMA data is for the year 2007 – 2020
Hazards recorded in the USDA RMA database may not share the exact names used in the NCEI database: (NCEI Hazard Name – USDA RMA Name)
Heavy Rain – Excess Moisture/Precipitation/Rain
High Wind – Wind/Excess Wind
Winter Weather – Cold Winter/Cold Wet Weather
The NCEI table above summarizes adverse weather events that occurred in the County from 1950 to 2022. Only a few of the events actually resulted in state and federal disaster declarations. It is interesting to note that different data sources capture different events during the same time period, and often different information specific to the same events. While the HMPC recognizes these inconsistencies, this data provides value in depicting the County’s overall hazard environment as it relates to severe weather.
Due to the size of the County and changes in elevation and climate, weather conditions can vary greatly across the County. The profiles that follow provide information from two weather stations in different parts of the County, the Hanford weather station in the northeastern county and the Avenal weather station in the southwestern County. The temperature data from these two weather stations are displayed in Table 4-73.
Table 4-73 Hanford 1S and Avenal 9 Weather Station Summaries METRIC HANFORD 1S
(043747)
AVENAL 9 SSE
(040398)
Period of record 1899-2016 1955-1961
Winter Average Minimum Temperature* 36.2°F 37.0°F
Winter Mean Temperature * 46.7°F 49.5°F
Summer Average Maximum Temperature** 95.1°F 100.4°F
Summer Mean Temperature** 77.7°F 81.2°F
Average Annual Number of Days >90°F 105 124
May 23, 2024 Pg. 467
Kings County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
2023 Update Page 4-138
METRIC HANFORD 1S
(043747)
AVENAL 9 SSE
(040398)
Average Annual Number of Days <32°F 0.0 0.0
Mean Total Precipitation (in.) 8.38 in. 6.55 in.
Mean Snow Depth (in.) 0.0 0.3 in.
Source: WRCC
* Winter = Dec., Jan., and Feb.
** Summer = Jun., Jul., and Aug.
4.5.12 SEVERE WEATHER: DENSE FOG
4.5.12.1 Hazard Description
Fog results from air being cooled to the point where it can no longer hold all of the water vapor it contains. For example, rain can cool and moisten the air near the surface until fog forms. A cloud-free, humid air mass at night can lead to fog formation, where land and water surfaces that have warmed up during the summer are still evaporating water into the atmosphere. This is called radiation fog. A warm moist air mass blowing over a cold surface also can cause fog to form, which is called advection fog.
The interior California valleys have a unique fog problem called the tule fog. The tule fog is a radiation fog, which condenses when there is high relative humidity, typically after heavy rain, calm winds, and rapid cooling during the night. The longer nights during the winter months create this rapid ground cooling, which results in a pronounced temperature inversion at a low altitude, creating a thick ground fog. Above the cold, foggy layer, the air is typically warm and dry. Once the fog has formed, turbulent air is necessary to break through the inversion. Daytime heating can also work to evaporate the fog in some areas. The tule fogs get their name from the tule reeds, which grew around the swamps and deltas of the great Tulare Lake that once covered the southern end of the San Joaquin Valley.
As noted in the County’s 2012 MJHMP, the tule fog season in the County is typically December through February. Fog typically forms rapidly in the early morning hours. Tule fogs can last for days, sometimes weeks. Fog can have devastating effects on transportation corridors in the County. Nighttime driving in the fog is dangerous and multi-car pileups have resulted from drivers using excessive speed for the conditions and visibility. Tule fog has also been found to be connected to air pollution and exacerbates the naturally occurring fog. A study published in the Journal of Geophysical Research in 2019 found that air pollution is a key contributor to this seasonal fog, and due to the passage of the Clean Air Act in 1970, it has declined about 75 percent since 1980 (Gray et al., 2019). Figure 4-39 illustrates the extent of tule fog over the Central Valley.
May 23, 2024 Pg. 468
Kings County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
2023 Update Page 4-139
Figure 4-39 Tule Fog over Central Valley
Source: NASA, Jeff Schmaltz, January 5, 2005
4.5.12.2 Geographic Area
Extensive – The San Joaquin Valley is hemmed in on three sides by mountain ranges, with resulting inversion layers trapping cooler air on the valley floor. This predisposes the County’s planning area to severe episodes of fog in winter months, when barometric pressures are high, humidity is increased, and ambient temperatures are low. All areas of the County are vulnerable to dense fog events.
4.5.12.3 Past Occurrences
As shown in Table 4-72 above, the NCEI records 333 dense fog events that occurred in various zones that encompass Kings County, such as Southwestern San Joaquin Valley and Western San Joaquin Valley zones. Since dense fog events are recorded on a zonal basis, not all 333 dense fog events happened within Kings County. The followings are the descriptions of a few dense fog events that impacted Kings County, based on the NCEI database.
• November 14 – 22, 2002: Following the very substantial rain for the 3 days from the 7th through the 9th of the month, high pressure aloft built and resided over Interior Central California. Numerous vehicle accidents occurred due to the extremely poor visibilities on Central and Southern San Joaquin Valley roadways. There were 4 indirect traffic fatalities due to the dense fog with at least 32 injuries. On the morning of the 22nd, there were several separate accidents due to locally dense fog in North Kings and West Tulare Counties that resulted in indirect injuries. According to NCEI database, this dense fog event resulted in a total of $150,000 property losses. • January 11 – 17, 2003: Widespread and dense morning fog continued throughout the Central and Southern San Joaquin Valley from the morning of the 11th through the morning of the 17th of January. Accidents were reported on the 7th, and 14th in Kings County due to very poor visibilities in dense fog. According to NCEI database, this dense fog event resulted in a total of $150,000 property losses.
• January 31, 2018: Areas of dense fog formed once again overnight in the San Joaquin Valley. The fog became dense in several locations during the early morning hours and resulted in several auto accidents along State Route 198 near Hanford. Visibility of less than a quarter mile was reported in Hanford. California Highway Patrol was pacing traffic along State Highway 198 between the May 23, 2024 Pg. 469
Kings County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
2023 Update Page 4-140
Kings/Tulare County line and Armona as several fog-related minor auto accidents were reported.
Several school districts had delayed openings due to dense fog. According to NCEI database, this dense fog event resulted in a total of $100,000 property losses. • January 6, 2021: High pressure built over central California on January 5. With mainly clear skies and light winds, areas of dense fog formed in the San Joaquin Valley during the early morning hours of January 6. Hanford reported visibility of below a quarter mile. A four-vehicle accident took place on State Route 198 at 08:09 am PST involving a big rig, a pickup truck and two cars. There was a minor injury from the collision. Visibility at both Hanford and Visalia (Tulare County) was at an eighth of a mile at the time of the accident. According to NCEI database, this dense fog event resulted in a total of $150,000 property losses.
4.5.12.4 Likelihood of Future Occurrence
Highly Likely – According to Table 4-72, 333 dense fogs impacted Kings County during a 27-year period, which equates to 12.3 events per year. Therefore, based on NCEI data and the fact that the tule fog prevails in the San Joaquin Valley, it is highly likely that fog events will continue to occur regularly in Kings County.
On the other hand, California’s winter tule fog has declined due to climate change and the reduction in air pollution. Refer to the Climate Change Considerations subsection below for more details on climate change’s impact on the Likelihood of Future Occurrence of fog events.
4.5.12.5 Climate Change Considerations
As mentioned in the previous section, California’s winter tule fog has declined dramatically over the past three decades, which raised a red flag for the state’s multibillion-dollar agricultural industry, according to researchers at UC Berkeley. Crops such as almonds, pistachios, cherries, apricots, and peaches go through a necessary winter dormant period brought on and maintained by colder temperatures. Tule fog that descends upon the State’s Central Valley between late fall and early spring, helps contribute to this winter chill.
When there is an insufficient rest period (or lack of dormant time for crops) it impairs the ability of farmers to achieve high-quality fruit yields. The UC Berkeley findings have implications for the entire country since many of these California crops account for 95 percent of U.S. production. The researchers also paired NASA and NOAA satellite records with data from a network of University of California weather stations, covering 32 consecutive winters. Based on the data, there was a great deal of variability from year to year, but on average, the researchers found a 46 percent drop in the number of fog days between the first of November and the end of February. Climate forecasts suggest that the accumulation of winter chill will continue to decrease in the Central Valley. Tule fog was also less prevalent in recent years in part due to the multi-year drought (Yang, 2015).
While the short‐term fog variability is dominantly driven by climate fluctuations, the longer‐term temporal and spatial changes in fog have been driven by changes in air pollution. In addition to the decrease in the accumulation of winter chill, the Clean Air Act has also greatly reduced the air pollution that would form fogs (Gray et al., 2019).
4.5.12.6 Magnitude and Severity
Critical – Tule fog forms on clear nights when the ground is moist, and the wind is near calm and can be widespread throughout the San Joaquin Valley. On nights like this, the ground cools rapidly. In turn, the moist air above it cools and causes water vapor to condense. Once it has formed, the air must be heated enough to either evaporate the fog or lift it above the surface so that visibilities improve. Common areas for tule fog to form include foothills and valleys. Visibility in tule fog is usually less than an eighth of a mile (about 600 ft or 200 m) but can be much lower. Visibility can vary rapidly; in only a few feet, visibility can go from 10 feet (3.0 m) to near zero.
Fog contributes to transportation accidents and is a significant life safety hazard. These accidents can cause multiple injuries and deaths and could have serious implications for human health and the environment if a hazardous or nuclear waste shipment were involved. Other disruptions from fog include delayed emergency response vehicles and school closures.
In 2018, the NWS in Hanford, California developed the Experimental Fog Severity Index in conjunction with the NWS issues fog advisories to help give motorists warning of fog events. A dense fog advisory is issued when widespread dense fog develops, and visibilities drop to one-quarter of a mile or less. The Experimental Fog Severity Index has five levels with level 5 being the most severe. Figure 4-40 describes each level of the Index.
May 23, 2024 Pg. 470
Kings County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
2023 Update Page 4-141
Figure 4-40 National Weather Service Experimental Fog Severity Index Source: NWS
4.5.12.7 Vulnerability Assessment
Property
Based on historic information, the primary effect of fog has not resulted in significant damages to property, and the losses are typically covered by insurance. Dense fog does result in substantial vehicle damage during transportation-related accidents.
People
Reduced visibility is the greatest risk to people when heavy fog is prevalent. Particularly when fog is dense, it can be hazardous to drivers, mariners and aviators and contributes to numerous accidents each year. To reduce injury and harm, people should avoid driving when dense fog is prevalent, if possible. If driving is pertinent, emergency services advise driving with lights on low beam, watching for California Highway Patrol (CHP) pace vehicles to guide through the fog, avoiding stopping on highways, and avoiding crossing traffic lanes. Feedback from the public as part of the public survey also emphasized the impacts of dense fog on the population related to travel on County roads that lack appropriate signage on fog hazards (see Appendix G).
Critical Facilities and Lifelines
Fog can have devastating effects on transportation corridors in the County. Multi-car pileups have resulted from drivers using excessive speed for the conditions and visibility. These accidents can cause multiple injuries and deaths and could have serious implications for human health and the environment if a hazardous or nuclear waste shipment were involved. Other disruptions from tule or dense fog include delayed emergency response vehicles and school closures.
May 23, 2024 Pg. 471
Kings County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
2023 Update Page 4-142
Economy
Economic impacts due to dense fog are generally related to road closures leading to a decrease in travel to businesses. Other economic impacts related to property damages are vehicles from accidents. As shown in Table 4-72 above there is a recorded $3,911,000 of property damages as a result of dense fog all of which are from traffic accidents in the Central Valley and San Joaquin Valley. Based on that amount, this region including Kings County has an estimated average annual loss expectancy of $144,852 due to dense fog events.
Cultural, Historic and Natural Resources
As referred to in the Climate Change Considerations section, California’s winter tule fog has declined dramatically over the past three decades, raising a red flag for the State’s multibillion-dollar agricultural industry. Crops such as almonds, pistachios, cherries, apricots, and peaches go through a necessary winter dormant period brought on and maintained by colder temperatures and tule fog that descends upon the State’s Central Valley between late fall and early spring.
Development Trends
Population and commercial growth both within and outside the County will increase the potential for complications with traffic accidents and commerce interruptions associated with dense fog.
4.5.12.8 Risk Summary
• Tule fog season begins in late fall and lasts from winter (November – March). • Between 1950 and 2022, 333 dense fog events impacted areas including Kings County during a 27- year period, which equates to 12.3 events per year.
• Dense fog events in the Central Valley and San Joaquin Valley have resulted in $3,911,000 in property damages, largely due to traffic accidents.
• California’s winter tule fog has declined dramatically and is predicted to be less prevalent due to prolonged drought events and the reduction in air pollution. • Reduced visibility is the greatest risk to people when heavy fog is prevalent, it can be hazardous to drivers, mariners and aviators and contributes to numerous accidents each year. It does not typically have a disproportionate impact on socially vulnerable populations. • Fog can have devastating effects on transportation corridors and result in casualties; fog can prevent responders to arrive on the scene timely.
• Related Hazards – Hazardous Materials Incidents, Transportation Accidents
JURISDICTION GEOGRAPHIC
AREA
PROBABILITY OF
FUTURE
OCCURRENCE
MAGNITUDE/
SEVERITY
OVERALL
SIGNIFICANCE
PRIORITY
HAZARD?
Kings County Extensive Highly Likely Critical Medium Yes City of Avenal Extensive Highly Likely Moderate Low No
City of Corcoran Extensive Highly Likely Moderate Low No City of Hanford Extensive Highly Likely Critical Medium Yes City of Lemoore Extensive Highly Likely Moderate Low No
4.5.13 SEVERE WEATHER: HEAVY RAIN, THUNDERSTORMS, HAIL, AND
LIGHTNING
4.5.13.1 Hazard Description
Heavy Rain
A majority of adverse weather experienced in the County takes place in the winter months as heavy rain and thunderstorm events that are sometimes accompanied by high winds or dense fog. The County’s weather is influenced by the Pacific Ocean and routine climate patterns such as El Niño, the warm phase of the El Niño-Southern Oscillation, a pattern found in the tropical Pacific when there are fluctuations in temperatures between the ocean and atmosphere. During El Niño, the surface winds across the entire tropical Pacific are weaker than normal and the ocean surface is at above-average temperatures in the central and eastern tropical Pacific Ocean (NOAA 2016). El Niño typically develops over North America during the winter season, causing the severe winter storms the County often experiences. This climate pattern occurs every few years and brings with it above-average rain and snow across the southern region of the United States, especially in California.
May 23, 2024 Pg. 472
Kings County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
2023 Update Page 4-143
Atmospheric rivers (ARs), another climate pattern that leads to adverse weather in the County, are responsible for up to 50 percent of California’s precipitation annually and 65 percent seasonally (Arcuni 2019). An AR is a long, narrow region of the atmosphere, like a river in the sky, that transports most of the water vapor outside of the tropics. ARs can be 300 miles wide, a mile deep and more than 1,000 miles long, and carry an amount of water vapor roughly the same as the average flow of water at the mouth of the Mississippi River (NOAA 2015). Warm water storms over the Pacific Ocean lead to evaporation and create a high concentration of moisture in the air while prevailing winds create the distinctive river shape, which is often compared “to a fire hose pointed at California” (Arcuni 2019). When an AR reaches land, it releases water vapor in the form of rain or snow. ARs play an important role in the global water cycle and are closely tied to both water supply and flooding risk.
Research suggests that ARs contributed to the collapse of both Oroville Dam spillways in February 2017 (NASA Global Hydrology Resource Center), as well as the winter flooding in 1861-1862, which completely inundated Sacramento and is considered the worst flood event in California’s history (Ingram 2013). When an AR forms in the tropical regions of the Pacific near Hawaii it is known as a Pineapple Express. This type of AR can produce as much as five inches in one day (NOAA 2018). In 2018 two Pineapple Express ARs hit California, causing significant heavy precipitation events throughout the State.
California was facing a severe drought when it was hit by 31 AR storms between October 2022 and March 2023. Although the number of storms was not unprecedented, their location, intensity, and duration had a significant impact on California's climate. As a result of these AR storms, the state experienced recordbreaking snowfall and deadly flooding. (Toohey, 2023).
Thunderstorms
Thunderstorms are formed from a combination of moisture, rapidly rising warm air, and a force capable of lifting air, such as warm and cold fronts or a mountain. Thunderstorms may occur alone, in clusters, or in lines. As a result, several thunderstorms can affect one location in the course of a few hours. A thunderstorm can produce lightning, thunder, and rainfall and may also lead to the formation of tornadoes, hail, downbursts, and microbursts of wind. Electricity can be interrupted by lightning strikes.
During the summer, climatic factors combine to promote the development of thunderstorms.
Hail
Hail forms on condensation nuclei such as dust or ice crystals, when supercooled water freezes on contact. In clouds containing large numbers of supercooled water droplets, these ice nuclei grow quickly at the expense of the liquid droplets. The hail grows increasingly larger. Once a hailstone becomes too heavy to be supported by the storm’s updraft it falls out of the cloud. Hailstones are usually from the size of a pea to the size of a golf ball, and larger hailstones can cause property damage.
Lightning
Lightning is an electrical discharge between positive and negative regions of a thunderstorm. A lightning flash is composed of a series of strokes with an average of about four strokes per flash. The length and duration of each lightning stroke vary but typically average about 30 microseconds.
4.5.13.2 Geographic Area
Extensive – Heavy rain is generally expansive in size. The entire County is susceptible to any of the effects of heavy rain and thunderstorms. Hail and lightning events are also common in the County, which can impact any area of the County during any month of the year.
4.5.13.3 Past Occurrences
Hail
Hail events are common in the County. Figure 4-41 shows that different areas within the planning area, SOI, and other areas in the vicinity have historically experienced hail events. Several hail events during which quarter and even golf ball-sized hailstones fell happened in recent years. Database for hail.
Additionally, there have been three USDA disaster declarations that included hail since 2012 (S4657, S4170, and S3320).
May 23, 2024 Pg. 473
Kings County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
2023 Update Page 4-144
Figure 4-41 Hail Events in Kings County, 1950 – 2021
As shown in Table 4-74, since 1950, there have been 25 reports of hail events that caused around $2,000 property loss and $4,060,000 crop loss. Table 4-74 shows the records collected from the NCEI Strom Events
Table 4-74 Hail Events in Kings County, 1950 – 2021
LOCATION DATE PROPERTY DAMAGE CROP DAMAGE
KINGS CO. 1/22/1964 - -
KINGS CO. 3/23/1964 - -
KINGS CO. 3/6/1980 - -
KINGS CO. 4/28/1980 - -
KINGS CO. 3/12/1996 - -
HANFORD 11/22/1996 $2,000 -
LEMOORE NAS 3/22/1997 - $20,000
STRATFORD 4/8/1999 - $3,390,000
May 23, 2024 Pg. 474
Kings County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
2023 Update Page 4-145
LOCATION DATE PROPERTY DAMAGE CROP DAMAGE
HANFORD 10/10/2000 - $500,000
AVENAL 5/31/2002 - -
(NLC)NAS LEMOORE 2/22/2005 - -
KETTLEMAN CITY 4/28/2005 - -
HANFORD 4/28/2005 - -
LEMOORE 4/28/2005 - -
HANFORD 4/28/2005 - -
HANFORD 9/20/2005 - -
AVENAL 3/10/2006 - -
(NLC)NAS LEMOORE 2/22/2007 - -
CORCORAN 9/22/2007 - -
HANFORD MUNI ARPT 10/29/2007 - -
CIMARRON 10/29/2007 - -
CIMARRON 4/11/2012 - $150,000
HANFORD 4/24/2016 - -
STRATFORD 9/11/2017 - -
Source: NCEI
Heavy Rain
Heavy rains and adverse storms occur in the County primarily during the late fall and winter but have a chance of occurring in every month of the year. According to information obtained from the WRCC, the majority of precipitation is produced by storms during January and other winter months. Precipitation during the summer months is in the form of rain showers and is rare.
The NCEI records show heavy rainstorms can cause widespread flooding, which can lead to extensive localized drainage issues. In addition to the flooding that often occurs during these storms, strong winds, when combined with saturated ground conditions, can knock down very mature trees. Refer to the Flood section for more information related to flooding events in the County. There have been eight federal and state disaster declarations (1983, 1995 [two], 1997, 2005, 2017 [two], and 2023) for heavy rain, severe storm, and flooding in Kings County. In addition, there have been three USDA disaster designations (2012 [two], and 2016) for excessive rainfall.
The NCEI Storm Events Database records 56 rain events in Kings County between 1950 and 2021, as shown in Table 4-75. No casualties are recorded for any of the events. As noted above there is a connection between heavy rain events and flooding and it is assumed that the property damages listed in the NCEI database are the results of flooding caused by heavy rain events. The heavy atmospheric rain conditions which hit California in late 2022 to early 2023 are not reflected in this dataset.
Table 4-75 Heavy Rain Events in Kings County, 1950 – 2021
EVENT TYPE LOCATION DATE PROPERTY DAMAGE CROP DAMAGE
Flash Flood AVENAL 3/5/2001 - -
KETTLEMAN CITY 2/21/2005 - -
HANFORD MUNI ARPT 9/22/2007 - -
AVENAL 6/5/2015 - -
AVENAL 10/3/2018 - -
KETTLEMAN CITY 6/1/2019 - -
Flood HANFORD 3/12/1996 - -
LEMOORE 3/24/1998 - -
LEMOORE 3/28/1998 - -
LEMOORE 5/5/1998 - -
May 23, 2024 Pg. 475
Kings County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
2023 Update Page 4-146
EVENT TYPE LOCATION DATE PROPERTY DAMAGE CROP DAMAGE
HANFORD 11/12/2001 - -
COUNTYWIDE 1/2/2006 $71,000 $1,000,000
HANFORD MUNI ARPT 1/23/2008 $5,000 -
HANFORD 10/13/2009 $2,000 -
(NLC)NAS LEMOORE 1/19/2010 $25,000 -
LEMOORE 12/29/2010 $75,000 -
KETTLEMAN CITY 4/7/2011 $2,000 -
HANFORD 6/5/2011 $1,000 -
HANFORD MUNI ARPT 3/8/2013 - -
ROSSI 1/8/2017 $637,190 -
AVENAL 1/18/2017 - -
HARDWICK 6/22/2017 - -
HANFORD 5/26/2019 - -
ARMONA 5/26/2019 - -
AVENAL 1/27/2021 - -
Heavy Rain HANFORD 2/1/1998 $20,000 $1,000,000
HANFORD 5/1/1998 - $73,600,000
HANFORD 6/8/2000 - $100,000
HANFORD MUNI ARPT 5/31/2002 - $ -
AVENAL 3/15/2003 - $ -
HANFORD 4/1/2003 - $8,900,000
HANFORD 4/21/2003 $1,000 -
COUNTYWIDE 5/1/2003 - $5,500,000
LEMOORE 12/14/2003 - -
COUNTYWIDE 12/28/2004 - -
COUNTYWIDE 1/1/2005 - -
COUNTYWIDE 1/7/2005 - -
COUNTYWIDE 1/24/2005 - -
AVENAL 2/18/2005 - -
LEMOORE 4/28/2005 - -
COUNTYWIDE 5/5/2005 - -
COUNTYWIDE 5/8/2005 - $671,000
KETTLEMAN CITY 9/20/2005 $10,000 -
HANFORD MUNI ARPT 1/1/2006 - -
COUNTYWIDE 3/2/2006 - -
LEMOORE 3/28/2006 - -
COUNTYWIDE 4/2/2006 - $2,200,000
AVENAL 5/21/2006 - -
HANFORD 10/5/2011 $100,000 -
CIMARRON 1/30/2014 - -
SHIRLEY 3/26/2014 - -
LEMOORE 11/1/2014 - -
HANFORD 12/11/2014 - -
CIMARRON 5/5/2016 - -
May 23, 2024 Pg. 476
Kings County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
2023 Update Page 4-147
EVENT TYPE LOCATION DATE PROPERTY DAMAGE CROP DAMAGE
CIMARRON 5/5/2016 - -
CIMARRON 1/21/2017 - -
Source: NCEI
Thunderstorms
County-level thunderstorm data is not available, however, as noted above, thunderstorm events are not uncommon in the County, especially during summer months.
Lightning
As noted above, lightning events are not uncommon in the County. As shown in Table 4-76, there have been 10 NCEI recorded lightning events in Kings County since 1950, which caused $451,000 in damage.
Table 4-76 Lightning Events in Kings County, 1950 – 2021
LOCATION DATE CROP DAMAGE PROPERTY DAMAGE
AVENAL 5/31/2002 $5,000 -
HANFORD MUNI ARPT 5/31/2002 $5,000 -
HANFORD 5/31/2002 - -
HANFORD 5/31/2002 $5,000 -
CORCORAN 7/30/2003 - -
LEMOORE 4/28/2005 - -
HANFORD MUNICIPAL AIRPORT 4/28/2005 $25,000 $400,000
COUNTYWIDE 10/24/2005 - -
AVENAL 8/31/2007 $1,000 -
SHORT ACRES SUBDIVISION 9/11/2017 $10,000 -
Source: NCEI
4.5.13.4 Likelihood of Future Occurrence
Highly Likely – Based on the NCEI data, there have been a combined 90 heavy rain, thunderstorms, hail, and lightning events in Kings County since 1950. Statistically, there is a 100% percent chance that a major hail, heavy rain, or lightning event will happen in any given year. The actual risk to the County is dependent on the nature and location of any given hazard event.
4.5.13.5 Climate Change Considerations
As average temperatures increase over time, warming in the atmosphere can trigger more frequent extreme weather events. Pacific Northwest National Laboratory researchers have found that ARs will reach the West Coast more frequently (Hagos et al., 2016). Currently, the West receives rain or snow from these ARs between 25 and 40 days each year. By the end of this century, days on which the ARs reach the coast could increase by a third, or between 35 and 55 days a year (Hagos et al., 2016).
Figure 4-42 shows the estimated intensity (return level) of extreme precipitation events which are exceeded on average once every 20 years and how it changes in a warming climate over historical, midcentury, and late-century time periods, based on the Cal-Adapt tool. Under both the RCP 4.5 and RCP 8.5 scenarios, precipitation levels will increase throughout the century. Using the RCP 8.5 scenario and the CanESM2 model, referred to by Cal-Adapt as an “average” simulation, precipitation will increase from 1.32 inches to 1.85 inches by 2099 (as shown by the green squares in Figure 4-42). Using the same scenario and the CNRM-CM5 “cooler/wetter” model, precipitation will increase to 2.3 inches by 2099 (as shown by the blue squares in Figure 4-42).
May 23, 2024 Pg. 477
Kings County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
2023 Update Page 4-148
Figure 4-42 Predicted Future Changes in Intensity of Extreme Precipitation Events Under Lowemissions and High-emissions Scenarios for Kings County For this graph from Cal-Adapt, an extreme precipitation event is defined as a day during a water year (Oct–Sep) with 1-day rainfall totals above the locally-defined extreme threshold of 0.33 inches.
Figure 4-43 shows the historic (1961-1991) annual 30-year average maximum precipitation for the County.
Figure 4-44 shows the projected mid-century (2035-2064) annual 20-year average maximum precipitation for the County under the RCP 8.5 scenario.
May 23, 2024 Pg. 478
Kings County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
2023 Update Page 4-149
Figure 4-43 Kings County 30-Year Historical Maximum Annual Average Precipitation May 23, 2024 Pg. 479
Kings County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
2023 Update Page 4-150
Figure 4-44 Kings County 30-Year Maximum Annual Average Precipitation
4.5.13.6 Magnitude and Severity
Critical – The extent of heavy rain, thunderstorms, hail, and lightning weather events can affect up to 50 percent of property in the County. These weather events can also shutdown of facilities and result in severe injuries.
Hail
The NWS classifies hail by diameter size, and corresponding everyday objects to help relay scope and severity to the population. Table 4-77 indicates the hailstone measurements utilized by the NWS.
May 23, 2024 Pg. 480
Kings County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
2023 Update Page 4-151
Table 4-77 Hail Measurements
AVERAGE
DIAMETER
CORRESPONDING
HOUSEHOLD OBJECT
.25 inch Pea
.5 inch Marble/Mothball
.75 inch Dime/Penny
.875 inch Nickel
1.0 inch Quarter
1.5 inch Ping-pong ball
1.75 inch Golf Ball
2.0 inch Hen Egg
2.5 inch Tennis Ball
2.75 inch Baseball
3.00 inch Teacup
4.00 inch Grapefruit
4.5 inch Softball
Source: NWS
There is no clear distinction between storms that do and do not produce hailstones. According to NOAA’s National Severe Storms Laboratory, nearly all severe thunderstorms probably produce hail, though it may melt before reaching the ground. Multi-cell thunderstorms produce many hailstones, but not usually the largest hailstones. In the life cycle of the multicell thunderstorm, the mature stage is relatively short so there is not much time for the growth of the hailstone. Supercell thunderstorms have sustained updrafts that support large hail formation by repeatedly lifting the hailstones into the very cold air at the top of the thunderstorm cloud. In general, hailstones two inches (5 cm) or larger in diameter are associated with supercells (a little larger than golf ball size which the NWS considers to be 1.75 inches.). Non-supercell storms are capable of producing golf ball-size hail.
In all cases, the hail falls when the thunderstorm’s updraft can no longer support the weight of the ice.
The stronger the updraft the larger the hailstone can grow. When viewed from the air, it is evident that hail falls in paths known as hail swaths. Hail swaths can range in size from a few acres to areas 10 miles wide and 100 miles long. In some instances, piles of hail have been so deep that snowplows were required to remove them, and occasional hail drifts (several feet of dime to nickel-sized hail) have been reported. Severe hailstorms can be destructive to property. Vehicles, roofs of buildings, and landscaping are the most commonly damaged by hail. Hail has also been known to cause injury to humans and occasionally has been fatal.
Heavy Rain
The heavy precipitation events that County and all of California experience are often the results of an AR.
ARs are categorized by a unit of measurement known as the Integrated Water Vapor Transport (IVT), which takes into account the amount of water vapor in the system and the wind that moves it around.
For a storm to be classified as an AR it has to reach an IVT threshold of 250 units; 1,000 IVT or more is considered to be “extreme” (Arcuni 2019). In 2019 a system for categorizing the strength and impacts of ARs was developed by the Center for Western Weather and Water Extremes (CW3E), out of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography at UC San Diego.
The newly developed scale ranks ARs into five categories from weak to exceptional and characterizes the extent of heavy rain events related to AR. Unlike the Fujita Scale for tornadoes which focuses on potential damages, the AR scale accounts for both storms that may be hazardous and storms that can provide benefits to the local water supply. A category one AR is primarily beneficial, generally lasting only 24 hours and producing modest rainfall, while a category five AR is considered “exceptional” and primarily hazardous, lasting for several days, and associated with heavy rainfall and runoff that may cause significant damages. Table 4-78 below describes the scale. The CW3E developed the scale as a tool for officials with an operational need to assess flooding potential in their jurisdictions before the storms make landfall. The scale is also a useful tool to outline the extent of heavy rain events.
May 23, 2024 Pg. 481
Kings County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
2023 Update Page 4-152
Table 4-78 Atmospheric River Categories
CATEGORY DESCRIPTION EXAMPLE
AR Cat. 1 Weak – Primarily
beneficial
Feb. 2, 2017, AR hit California, lasted 24 hours at the coast, and produced modest rainfall.
AR Cat. 2 Moderate – Mostly
beneficial, but also
somewhat
hazardous
Nov. 19-20, 2016, AR hit Northern California, lasted 42 hours at the coast, and produced several inches of rain that helped replenish low reservoirs after a drought.
AR Cat. 3 Strong balance of
beneficial and
hazardous
Oct. 14-15, 2016, AR lasted 36 hours at the coast, produced 5-10 inches of rain that helped refill reservoirs after a drought, but also caused some rivers to rise to just below flood stage.
AR Cat. 4 Extreme – Mostly
hazardous, but also
beneficial
Jan. 8-9, 2017, AR that persisted for 36 hours produced up to 14 inches of rain in the Sierra Nevada and caused at least a dozen rivers to reach flood stage.
AR Cat. 5 Exceptional –
Primarily hazardous
Dec. 29, 1996, to Jan 2, 1997, AR lasted over 100 hours at the Central California coast. The associated heavy precipitation and runoff caused more than $1 billion in damages.
Source: Center for Western Weather and Water Extremes, Scripps Institution of Oceanography at UC San Diego. Scale was developed by F. Martin Ralph Director of CW3E in collaboration with Jonathan Rutz of NWS.
In both February 2018 and 2019, the West Coast experienced six ARs. However, as shown in Figure 4-45, California experienced vastly different precipitation totals due to the location of the AR’s landfall, as well as each AR’s IVT. The ARs in February 2019 were all considered to be moderate to extreme, concentrated in California, and resulted in heavy precipitation; whereas the ARs in February 2018 had a negligible effect on California. Between October 2022 and March 2023, California was faced with an onslaught of additional ARs. Of the 31 ARs, one was categorized as extreme and six were strong. Almost half were moderate; 11 were weak (Toohey 2023). The strength of these ARs, as well as their locations, are shown in Figure 4-45.
May 23, 2024 Pg. 482
Kings County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
2023 Update Page 4-153
Figure 4-45 Atmospheric River Strength and Land Distribution, February 2018 vs. February 2019 Source: Center for Western Weather and Water Extremes, Scripps Institution of Oceanography at UC San Diego 2021-2026 Update P
May 23, 2024 Pg. 483
Kings County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
2023 Update Page 4-154
Figure 4-46 Atmospheric Rivers Strength, October 2022 through March 2023 Source: Center for Western Weather and Water Extremes, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, via the LA Times
Thunderstorms
Although thunderstorm events by themselves may not create significant damage or danger to the County, hail, lightning, and high winds events that happen together with thunderstorm events can all have damaging effects.
Lightning
Lightning is measured by the Lightning Activity Level (LAL) scale, created by the NWS to define lightning activity into a specific categorical scale. The LAL is a common parameter that is part of fire weather forecasts nationwide. The County is at risk to experience lightning in any of these categories. The LAL is reproduced in Table 4-79.
Table 4-79 Lightning Activity Level Scale
CATEGORY DESCRIPTION
LAL 1 No thunderstorms.
LAL 2 Isolated thunderstorms. Light rain will occasionally reach the ground. Lightning is very infrequent, 1 to 5 cloud to ground strikes in a five-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 five-minute period.
May 23, 2024 Pg. 484
Kings County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
2023 Update Page 4-155
CATEGORY DESCRIPTION
LAL 4 Scattered thunderstorms. Moderate rain is commonly produced. Lightning is frequent, 11 to 15 cloud to ground strikes in a five-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 five-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.
Source: NWS
4.5.13.7 Vulnerability Assessment
People
Exposure is the greatest danger to people from heavy rain events. People can be caught in rising waters and may need to be rescued. Populations at higher elevations with large stands of trees or power lines may be more susceptible to power outages, while populations in low-lying areas are at risk for possible flooding.
Vulnerable populations include the elderly, low-income, linguistically isolated populations, people with life-threatening illnesses, and residents living in areas that are isolated from major roads, which includes portions of central Kings County where DACs are located. Power outages can be life-threatening to those dependent on electricity for life support. Isolation of these populations is a significant concern. These populations face isolation and exposure during hail, heavy rain, lightning, and thunderstorm events, and could suffer from the secondary effects of these hazards, particularly during long-term power outages.
Recreationists in the area west of Avenal near Kettleman Hills may also be more vulnerable to severe weather events.
Property
The County experiences a rainy season in the winter months through early spring. These winter storms can include significant precipitation. The primary effect of these storms has not resulted in significant injury or damages to people and property, or the losses are typically covered by insurance. It is the secondary hazards caused by weather that have had the greatest impact on the County. Damage and disaster declarations related to adverse weather have occurred and will continue to occur in the future.
Heavy rain and thunderstorms are the most frequent type of severe weather occurrences in the County.
Utility outages, downing of trees, debris blocking streets and property damage can be a direct result of these storm events. Properties in poor condition may risk the most damage. Given the nature of these types of storms, the entire County is potentially at risk.
Critical Facilities and Lifelines
Transportation infrastructure can be affected by hail, heavy rain, and lightning events, mostly associated with secondary hazards. Landslides caused by heavy prolonged rains can block roads in the western portion of the County. Of particular concern are roads providing access to isolated areas and the elderly, especially given that limited local roads and highways are available to move people and supplies throughout the region. Prolonged obstruction of major routes due to landslides, debris, or floodwaters can disrupt the shipment of goods and other commerce.
Severe windstorms and downed trees can create serious impacts on power and above-ground communication lines. Loss of electricity and phone connection would leave some populations isolated because residents would be unable to call for assistance. Lightning events can have similarly destructive effects on power and information systems. Failure of these systems would have cascading effects throughout the County and could disrupt critical facility functions. Downed power lines can cause blackouts, leaving large areas isolated.
Economy
The economic impact of heavy rain and hail events is typically short-term. Generally, long-term economic impacts center more around hazards that cascade from a heavy rain event such as flooding or fires. In general, all severe weather poses a risk to the agriculture economy in the County.
Table 4-80 below describes the crop losses related to heavy rain, thunder, hail, and lightning events. Kings County experiences an average of $1.6 million in annualized loss due to crop damages from heavy rain, thunder, hail, and lightning events.
May 23, 2024 Pg. 485
Kings County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
2023 Update Page 4-156
Table 4-80 Crop Loss due to Heavy Rain, Hail, Lightning in Kings County, 2007 – 2021
CAUSE YEAR SUM OF DETERMINED ACRES SUM OF INDEMNITY AMOUNT Excess Moisture/
Precipitation/
Rain
2007 70.4 $24,928
2008 66.0 $10,014
2009 329.0 $224,874
2010 659.4 $283,860
2011 5,629.3 $1,712,635
2012 219.2 $41,044
2013 205.9 $522,194
2014 1,560.1 $3,501,416
2015 523.6 $560,091
2016 3,065.5 $2,085,683
2017 2,354.0 $1,918,062
2018 214.7 $328,600
2019 3,999.7 $4,126,183
2020 1,033.3 $1,686,385
2021 318.6 $612,108
Hail 2007 35.0 $26,581
2009 9.5 $8,404
2010 2,237.3 $2,762,216
2011 170.4 $256,672
2012 27.6 $9,793
2014 46.7 $20,870
2015 11.0 $6,829
2016 274.7 $256,324
2017 114.2 $96,615
2018 1,057.4 $1,001,332
2019 200.4 $123,523
2020 100.4 $270,721
2021 12.0 $11,603
Other (Snow/
Lightning/ Etc.)
2015 109.1 $86,250
2016 150.2 $191,290
2020 437.5 $74,999
Grand Total 25,242.1 $22,842,099
Source: USDA RMA
Cultural, Historic and Natural Resources
As a natural process, the impacts of most heavy rain events by themselves are part of the overall natural cycle and do not cause long-term consequential damage. However, natural habitats such as streams and trees risk major damage. Prolonged rains can saturate soils and lead to slope failure and potentially landslide events. Flooding events can produce river channel migration or damage riparian habitat.
Development Trends
New critical facilities, such as communication towers should be built to withstand heavy rain damage.
Development Trends projects should consider adverse weather hazards at the planning, engineering, and architectural design stages to reduce vulnerability. Stormwater master planning and site review should account for buildings to withstand heavy rain events considered for all new development. Thus, May 23, 2024 Pg. 486
Kings County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
2023 Update Page 4-157
development trends in the County are not expected to increase overall vulnerability to the hazard but all development will be affected by adverse weather and storm events.
Continued development implies continued population growth, which raises the number of individuals potentially exposed to severe weather. Individual citizens, families, and businesses of the County need to be prepared to address severe weather events when they occur. It is recommended that citizens, families, and businesses have an emergency preparedness plan, such as storing extra supplies of food and water, as well as other related supplies such as flashlights, batteries, firewood and a battery-operated radio within their home or business. In addition, public education efforts should continue to help the population understand the risks and vulnerabilities of outdoor activities, property maintenance, and regular exposures during periods of severe weather.
4.5.13.8 Risk Summary
• During the 71-year period from 1950 to 2021, 24 hail events, 56 heavy rain events and 10 lightning events occurred in Kings County.
• The County experiences an estimated $1.6 million in annualized crop loss due to hail, heavy rain, and lightning events.
• As average annual precipitation is expected to increase, these events are likely to increase as well. • Climate change is expected to increase atmospheric rivers in California, increasing heavy rain events. • Related Hazards – Flooding, Landslide
JURISDICTION GEOGRAPHIC
AREA
PROBABILITY
OF FUTURE
OCCURRENCE
MAGNITUDE/
SEVERITY
OVERALL
SIGNIFICANCE
PRIORITY
HAZARD?
Kings County Extensive Highly Likely Critical Medium Yes City of Avenal Extensive Highly Likely Critical Medium Yes City of Corcoran Extensive Highly Likely Critical Medium Yes City of Hanford Extensive Highly Likely Critical Medium Yes City of Lemoore Extensive Highly Likely Critical Medium Yes
4.5.14 SEVERE WEATHER: HIGH WIND/TORNADO
4.5.14.1 Hazard Description
High winds, often accompanying severe thunderstorms, can cause significant property and crop damage, threaten public safety, and have adverse economic impacts from business closures and power loss.
Straight-line winds are generally any thunderstorm wind that is not associated with rotation (i.e., is not a tornado). It is these winds, which can exceed 100 mph that represent the most common type of severe weather and are responsible for most wind damage related to thunderstorms. These winds can overturn mobile homes, tear roofs off houses, topple trees, snap power lines, shatter windows, and sandblast paint from cars. Other associated hazards include utility outages, arcing power lines, debris blocking streets, dust storms, and an occasional structure fire.
For this hazard, three different classifications of windstorms were analyzed: high winds, strong winds, and thunderstorm winds. The most significant distinction between high winds and thunderstorm winds in the NCEI dataset is that high winds are most frequently reported in the winter months (December, January, and February) and are recorded on a zonal scale, whereas thunderstorm winds are most reported in the summer months (June, July, and August) and recorded on a local county or city scale.
Strong winds are another type of windstorm, which originates from thunderstorms and are any wind exceeding 58 mph. Despite these differences, the wind speeds and associated impacts from these winds are comparable.
Tornadoes are another severe weather hazard that can affect the Kings County Planning Area. Tornadoes form when cool, dry air sits on top of warm, moist air. Tornadoes are rotating columns of air marked by a funnel-shaped downward extension of a cumulonimbus cloud whirling at destructive speeds of up to 300 mph, usually accompanying a thunderstorm. Tornadoes are the most powerful storms that exist.
They can have the same pressure differential that fuels 300-mile-wide hurricanes across a path only 300- yards wide or less.
4.5.14.2 Geographic Area
Extensive – Wind and tornadoes have the potential to happen anywhere in the County. The resulting damage from wind and tornado events may be most severe in the downtown areas of incorporated communities where there are more large trees, infrastructure, and higher-density development.
May 23, 2024 Pg. 487
Kings County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
2023 Update Page 4-158
The National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) collects data on wind resources in the U.S. to help determine the location of new wind energy sites. Figure 4-47 from the NREL Wind Prospector Web viewer shows the average annual wind speed in Kings County at the height of 100 meters. The majority portions of the County have average wind speeds between 3.5 meters/second (7.8 miles/hour) and 5 meters/second (11.2 miles/hour). The southwestern and northwestern portions of the County, however, have relatively high average wind speeds – between 5 meters/second (11.2 miles/hour) and 6 meters/second (13.4 miles/hour).
As noted in the County’s 2012 MJHMP, based on National Climate Data Center (NCC) data, tornado behavior, tornadoes are more likely to hit the flatter, lower elevations of Kings County and are more common in the eastern parts of the County around Hanford, Lemoore, and Corcoran.
Figure 4-47 Kings County Average Annual Wind Speed at 100 meters Source: NREL Wind Prospector
May 23, 2024 Pg. 488
Kings County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
2023 Update Page 4-159
4.5.14.3 Past Occurrences
During the rainy season, the Kings Planning Area is prone to relatively strong thunderstorms, sometimes accompanied by high winds and tornadoes. While tornadoes do occur occasionally, most often they are of F0/EF0 intensity. The NCEI Storm Events Database does not record any tornado events that had a magnitude higher than F2 or EF1 in the Planning Area in the past. Table 4-81 shows the details of the most significant historic events recorded in NCEI, followed by additional descriptions of these events. In addition to the events listed in the NCEI database, there were three USDA disaster designations declared for the County that were related to high wind (and rain) in 2016 and 2017 (twice in 2017).
Table 4-81 Past High Wind and Tornado Events in Kings County, 1950-2021 HAZARD
TYPE
DATE LOCATION MAGNITUDE PROPERTY
DAMAGES
($)
CROP
DAMAGES
($)
DEATHS INJURIES
Tornado 4/5/1980 Countywide F2 $250,000 $0 0 1
Tornado 11/12/1996 Lemoore F1 $250,000 $0 0 0
High
Wind 2/3/2000 Countywide - $100,000 $0 1 4
High
Wind ¾/2001 Countywide - $250,000 $0 0 0
High
Wind 10/13/2009 Countywide - $250,000 $0 0 0
Source: NCEI Storm Events Database
April 5, 1980: This F2 tornado event results in $250,000 of property damage and 1 injury.
November 22, 1996: The tornado event caused substantial damage to the Lemoore Naval Air Station administrative section but no injuries occurred. Damage included roof removal of the base recycling center, wind damage to roofs on several administrative structures, powerlines and poles, and fixed structures (static display aircraft). This F1 tornado event results in $250,000 of property damage.
February 3, 2000: Infrequent gusty wind occurred in Central California. Tehachapi and Frazier Park in the Kern County Mountains reported gusts of 45 knots. Bakersfield (Kern County) had gusts to 36 knots (41 miles/hour) and Lemoore had sustained wind at 21 knots (24 miles/hour) on the South San Joaquin Valley floor. Over 4,500 power company customers in the South San Joaquin Valley lost power due to downed, along with several weather-related vehicle accidents. This event resulted in 1 death, 4 injuries and $100,000 of property damage.
March 4, 2001: Strong southeast wind flow ripped through Interior California with various degrees of damage reported on the San Joaquin Valley floor to small structures and agriculture in addition to the damage in the Kern Mountains from strong wind around Frazier Park, Lebec, and Fort Tejon. Local utility companies reported more than 53 power poles downed and a dozen 70,000-volt power lines on the Southern San Joaquin Valley floor and in the Kern Mountains causing a power loss to at least 15,000 customers. Wind speed of 83 miles/hour was reported 5 miles east of Tehachapi (Kern County) with 55 miles/hour wind in Tehachapi Valley itself. This event resulted in $250,000 property damage.
October 13, 2009: This high wind event came with a heavy precipitation event through the Southern San Joaquin Valley. High wind gusts toppled trees, downed utility lines, and created areas of blowing dust with near-zero visibility. Gusts to 60 mph developed at the south end of the San Joaquin Valley near the base of the Grapevine (Kern County). This event resulted in $250,000 property damage.
Figure 4-48 and Figure 4-49 show the locations of the past wind and tornado events in Kings County based on data from NOAA’s NWS Storm Prediction Center.
May 23, 2024 Pg. 489
Kings County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
2023 Update Page 4-160
Figure 4-48 High Wind Events in Kings County, 1955 -2021 May 23, 2024 Pg. 490
Kings County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
2023 Update Page 4-161
Figure 4-49 Tornado Events in Kings County, 1950 -2019
May 23, 2024 Pg. 491
Kings County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
2023 Update Page 4-162
4.5.14.4 Likelihood of Future Occurrence
Highly Likely – 139 high wind and tornado events have occurred in Kings County over 73 years of recordkeeping, which equates to almost two high wind or tornado event on an annual basis. Historical wind activity within the Planning Area indicates the County will likely continue to experience high wind during thunderstorm events with the potential of the formation of funnel clouds and low-intensity tornadoes during adverse weather conditions. The actual risk to the County is dependent on the nature and location of any given thunderstorm or tornado event.
Moreover, ongoing research has resulted in different conclusions on the effect of climate change on wind regimes. For other types of extreme weather events, such as tornadoes and severe thunderstorms, more research is also needed to understand how climate change will affect them. Refer to the Climate Change Considerations subsection below for more details on climate change’s impact on fog events.
4.5.14.5 Climate Change Considerations
Studies referenced in California’s Fourth Climate Assessment indicated that extreme fire weather, particularly in the form of hot and dry winds, can strongly influence shrub-land fire regimes. Strong winds have also been now associated with severe forest fires in California meaning climate change impacts on wind patterns may also affect forest health and wildfire susceptibility. However, ongoing research compiled in the recent climate assessment has resulted in different conclusions on the effect of climate change on wind regimes. The August 2021 IPCC report argues that in most places, wind speeds will be drastically reduced because of climate change, whereas in 2019, Scientific American reported that winds across the world were speeding up. The Maine Monitor suggests that a lack of wind can increase wildfire risks and aggravate drought. Unusual wind patterns combined with other climate change issues, such as hotter water temperatures, can also cause problems. At this time, these changing factors are not well understood and are still being incorporated into state and regional research and risk analysis. Hopefully, soon, scientists will be able to find a solution for the rapidly changing wind patterns (Garrison 2022).
For other types of extreme weather events, such as tornadoes and severe thunderstorms, more research is also needed to understand how climate change will affect them. These events occur over much smaller scales, which makes observations and modeling more challenging. Projecting the future influence of climate change on these events can also be complicated by the fact that some of the risk factors for these events may increase with climate change, while others may decrease, like the complexity of predicting future wind patterns, which is mentioned above. Even though some studies predict that climate change could provide the opportunity for more severe thunderstorms to form, this does not necessarily mean that more tornadoes will occur, given that only about 20% of supercell thunderstorms produce tornadoes. The fourth National Climate Assessment summarizes the complicated relationship between tornadoes and climate change: “…extreme weather, such as tornadoes, are also exhibiting changes which may be linked to climate change, but scientific understanding isn’t detailed enough to project direction and magnitude of future change” (NatGeo 2022).
4.5.14.6 Magnitude and Severity
Critical – High winds and tornadoes can cause damage to property and loss of life. While most tornado damage is caused by violent winds, most injuries and deaths result from flying debris. Property damage can include damage to buildings, fallen trees and power lines, broken gas lines, broken sewer and water mains, and the outbreak of fires. Crops and industries may also be damaged or destroyed. Access roads and streets may be blocked by debris, delaying the necessary emergency response.
In 2007, the NWS began rating tornadoes using the Enhanced Fujita Scale (EF-scale). The EF-scale is a set of wind estimates (not measurements) based on damage. It uses three-second gusts estimated at the point of damage based on a judgment of eight levels of damage to the 28 indicators. These estimates vary with height and exposure. Standard measurements are taken by weather stations in open exposures.
Table 4-82 describes the EF-scale ratings versus the previous Fujita Scale used prior to 2007 (NOAA n.d.).
Table 4-82 The Fujita Scale and Enhanced Fujita Scale
FUJITA SCALE DERIVED OPERATIONAL EF-SCALE
F NUMBER FASTEST ¼
MILE (MPH)
3-SECOND
GUST (MPH)
EF
NUMBER
3-SECOND
GUST (MPH)
EF NUMBER 3-SECOND
GUSTS (MPH)
0 40-72 45-78 0 65-85 0 65-85
1 73-112 79-117 1 86-109 1 86-110
2 113-157 118-161 2 110-137 2 111-135
3 158-207 162-209 3 138-167 3 136-165
May 23, 2024 Pg. 492
Kings County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
2023 Update Page 4-163
4 208-260 210-261 4 168-199 4 166-200
5 261-318 262-317 5 200-234 5 Over 200
Source: NWS.
Notes: EF – Enhanced Fujita F – Fujita mph – Miles per Hour Figure 4-50 illustrates the potential impact and damage from a tornado.
Figure 4-50 Potential Impact and Damage from a Tornado
Source: NOAA NWS, Storm Prediction Center
The damaging effects of wind speed are measured using the Beaufort Wind Scale as shown in Table 4-83 below. This scale only reflects land-based effects and does not take into consideration the effects of wind over water.
Table 4-83 Beaufort Wind Scale
WIND SPEED
(MPH)
DESCRIPTION – VISIBLE CONDITION
0 Calm; smoke rises vertically
1-4 Light air; direction of wind shown by smoke but not by wind vanes 4-7 Light breeze; wind felt on face; leaves rustle; ordinary wind vane moved by wind 8-12 Gentle breeze; leaves and small twigs in constant motion; wind extends light flag 13-18 Moderate breeze; raises dust and loose paper; small branches are moved 19-24 Fresh breeze; small trees in leaf begin to sway; crested wavelets form on inland water 25-31 Strong breeze; large branches in motion; telephone wires whistle; umbrellas used with difficulty 32-38 Moderate gale whole trees in motion; inconvenience in walking against wind 39-46 Fresh gale breaks twigs off trees; generally, impedes progress 47-54 Strong gale slight structural damage occurs; chimney pots and slates removed 55-63 Whole gale trees uprooted; considerable structural damage occurs 64-72 Storm very rarely experienced; accompanied by widespread damage 73+ Hurricane devastation occurs
Source: NWS
May 23, 2024 Pg. 493
Kings County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
2023 Update Page 4-164
Based on NCEI records between 1955 and 2022 there have been a combined 116 strong wind/high wind/thunderstorm winds and 23 tornado/funnel cloud events in Kings County, which have resulted in a total of $6,946,250 in property damage and $4,420,000 in crop damage. The most damaging event took place on January 4, 2008. The first major winter storm of the new year arrived on the 4 th and brought
heavy rain to the San Joaquin Valley. Very strong winds developed on the west side of the San Joaquin Valley with this storm. The strongest winds occurred in Avenal, where roofs were damaged, trees toppled and two glider planes lifted off the tarmac and flipped over at the local airport. Based on surveys of the sustained property damage, top winds were estimated at 70-75 mph. This high wind event was caused by an increase in local winds due to a combination of strong large-scale winds (synoptic winds due to the Pacific storm pattern) and the interaction of the nearby Coastal Mountain range. Two direct injuries also occurred in Avenal during the wind event. According to the NCEI database, this wind event resulted in $4,500,000 of property damages. Overall, high wind event impacts would likely be limited, with a majority of impacts being related to property damages caused by downed trees as well as power outages.
In the past 73 years, all the tornado events that have taken place in Kings County have been between F0- F1 or EF0 tornadoes. There was only one F2 tornado incident that happened in the year 1980. However, it should be noted that, although unlikely, larger tornadoes could occur. Should the County be hit by an EF3 or higher tornado, it can be extrapolated that because of its relative size and the potential size and length of a tornado’s path, a significant portion of the County could be impacted, resulting in property and crop damage and loss of life. The F2 tornado event that happened on April 5, 1980, resulted in $250,000 of property damage and one injury. A worse tornado event could result in more severe damage.
Tornado impacts to the County would likely be negligible, with less than 10 percent of the Planning Area affected by events in the EF0-2 range, though stronger tornadoes are possible. The impact on quality of life or critical facilities and functions in the affected area would depend on where the tornado occurred.
Injuries or deaths are possible due to wind-thrown trees or property damage caused by wind events.
Overall, impacts from high wind and tornado events would likely be negligible, with less than 10 percent of property severely damaged and shutdown of facilities due to loss of power for 24 hours or less.
4.5.14.7 Vulnerability Assessment
Property
General damages are both direct (what the wind event physically destroys) and indirect, which focuses on additional costs, damages and losses attributed to secondary hazards spawned by the event, or due to the damages caused by the wind event. Depending on the magnitude of the wind events as well as the size of the tornado and its path, a tornado is capable of damaging and eventually destroying almost anything. Construction practices and building codes can help maximize the resistance of the structures to damage.
Secondary impacts of damage caused by wind events often result from damage to infrastructure.
Downed power and communications transmission lines, coupled with disruptions to transportation infrastructure, create difficulties in reporting and responding to emergencies. These indirect impacts of a wind event put tremendous strain on a community. In the immediate aftermath, the focus is on emergency services.
Downed trees caused by a wind event are a common occurrence in the County. Falling trees can cause significant damage to property and put people at risk. Due to multiple years of drought in the County, many trees in the area have been impacted, making them more susceptible to blow-down during wind events.
People
Community members are the most vulnerable to high wind and tornado events. The availability of sheltered locations such as basements, buildings constructed using tornado-resistant materials and methods, and public storm shelters, all reduce the exposure of the population. However, there are also segments of the population that are especially exposed to the indirect impacts of high winds and May 23, 2024 Pg. 494
Kings County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
2023 Update Page 4-165
tornadoes, particularly the loss of electrical power. According to the data obtained from emPOWER.com, a website
maintained by the U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services (DHHS), 5.8%, or 1,049 of the 18,207 Medicare
beneficiaries in the County rely on medical equipment that is dependent on electricity to live independently. These at-risk populations include the elderly or disabled, especially those with medical needs and treatments dependent on electricity.
Nursing homes, community-based residential facilities, special needs housing facilities, and isolated communities are also vulnerable. Life support needs can be threatened when
electrical outages are prolonged since backup power generally operates only with minimal functions for a short period of time.
Following the unprecedented 2018 wildfire season in
California, Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) announced it will be conducting PSPS when there are high winds and dry
conditions and generally a heightened fire risk forecasted. The outages could last several days, and PG&E has suggested customers be prepared for outages that could last longer than 48 hours. A majority of Kings County could be affected by the power outages, and many members of the public expressed these concerns in the County’s public survey for the MJHMP (see Appendix G). In addition to PG&E, Southern California Edison (SCE) also provides power to Kings County residents. According to SCE’s official website, their service territories within Kings County are not designated as high fire threat areas or have a very low wildfire risk. Despite the low risk, SCE has been implementing its own Wildfire Response Plan, which outlines a range of activities and actions to help SCE prevent and respond to the increasing risk of wildfires, including a PSPS Protocol. PSPS is mentioned on SCE’s website. SCE also has 24-hour hotlines for customers to call and report power outage events. In addition, SCE keeps an online platform where customers can check out current outage information, including the estimate on when the power will return. In summary, severe wind events that result in PSPS events are likely to have the greatest impact on those communities that are socially vulnerable due to income levels or lack of accessibility and those that rely on electricity-dependent medical equipment.
Critical Facilities and Infrastructure
Both winds and tornadoes may impact exposed critical infrastructure such as power lines; depending on the impact and the function, this could cause a short-term economic disruption. The most common problems associated with tornadoes and high winds are loss of utilities. Downed power lines can cause power outages, leaving large parts of the County isolated, and without electricity, water, and communication. Damage may also limit timely emergency response and the number of evacuation routes. Downed electrical lines following a storm can also increase the potential for lethal electrical shock. Damaging winds can also cause wildfires.
Most structures, including the County’s critical facilities, should be able to withstand and provide adequate protection from severe wind and tornadoes. Those facilities with backup generators should be fully equipped to handle severe wind and tornado events should the power go out. The impact of high wind on responders is similar to that of the general public. In the event of a tornado, there may be localized impacts on response personnel. Impacts on transportation corridors and communications lines affect first responders’ ability to respond effectively. To maintain public confidence, jurisdictions must continue to adhere to building codes and facilitate new development that is built to the highest design standards to account for heavy winds and tornado winds.
On June 26, 2020, California Governor Gavin Newsom and the State Legislature approved the Fiscal Year 2020-2021 State Budget, which included a $50 million one-time General Fund appropriation to support State and local government efforts to mitigate the impacts of the investment-owned utility use of PSPS.
In 2020, the name of the PSPS program was changed to “Community Power Resiliency”. Building on the previous year’s investments, the resiliency program will support critical services vulnerable to power outage events, including schools, county election offices, and food storage reserves.
According to the FY 2020-21 Community Power Resiliency Legislative Report by Cal OES, the City of Avenal received $100,000 in funding to purchase a generator to enhance the resiliency of the Avenal Veteran’s Hall against power outages. This facility also supported the resiliency areas of food storage High winds can cause trees or debris to
damage electric lines and cause wildfires.
As a result, utility providers may need to
turn off power during severe weather
events – high wind & other events that
could increase wildfire risk. This is called a
Public Safety Power Shutoff. In 2020,
state-funded PSPS grant program was
changed to “Community Power
Resiliency”, which will continue to
support critical services vulnerable to
power outage events, including schools,
county election offices, and food storage
reserves.
May 23, 2024 Pg. 495
Kings County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
2023 Update Page 4-166
reserves and COVID-19 testing. The City of Corcoran received $300,000 in funding to purchase a portable generator and transfer switches to enhance the resiliency of groundwater wells against power outages.
The City of Corcoran’s action was highlighted in the report as in June 2021, the City utilized the generator when power was lost at a well site. The generator quickly restored power to the site, giving fire and paramedic stations access to clean water. In addition, Kings County received $94,826 in funding to purchase generator connections to enhance the resiliency of evacuation points against power outages.
Economy
Winds typically do not have long-term impacts on the economy, although wind does have an impact on the agriculture economy in the County. As shown in Table 4-84, wind events have been a leading cause of crop loss in the past 15 years (2007 – 2021), resulting in over $1.2 million in loss payments from the USDA and almost 2,905 acres lost to high wind events. Kings County experiences an estimated $82,313 annualized loss due to crop damages from excessive wind events.
Table 4-84 Crops Loss Due to High Wind, RMA Crop Indemnity Reports, 2007-2021
YEAR NET DETERMINED ACRES INDEMNITY AMOUNT
2007 273.7 $117,514
2008 1,552 $322,529
2009 326.3 $131,145
2010 18.8 $8,742
2011 - -
2012 147.1 $3,555
2013 321.5 $101,829
2014 - -
2015 42 $61,320
2016 89.6 $187,826
2017 68.9 $166,889
2019 0.75 $588.5
2020 - -
2021 64.3 $82,759
Total 2,904.8 $1,234,698
Source: USDA RMA
Cultural, Historic and Natural Resources
High winds and tornadoes can cause massive damage to the natural environment, uprooting trees and other debris. This is part of a natural process, however, and the environment will return to its original state in time.
Development Trends
As the County continues to increase in population, the number of people and housing developments exposed to the hazard increases. Adherence to current building codes, coupled with proper education on building techniques and the use of sturdy building materials, attached foundations, and other structural techniques may minimize property vulnerabilities. Public shelters at parks and open spaces may help reduce the impacts of tornadoes and high wind events on the recreational populations exposed to storms.
4.5.14.8 Risk Summary
• Between 1950 and 2021 there were a combined 139 high wind (116) and tornado (23) events. • Wind and tornado events have resulted in $6,946,250 in property damages. The most damaging event took place on January 4, 2008, with wind ranging from 70 to 75 mph causing two injuries and $4,500,000 in property damages.
• Excessive wind has caused 2,904.8 acres to be lost and $1,234,698 crop loss payment made by the USDA to farmers in the County.
• PSPS poses a risk to individuals in the County who depend on electricity to live independently. Six percent of Medicare Beneficiaries in the County are electricity dependent. • Related Hazards – Extreme heat, Heavy Rain, Agriculture/Pest and Crop Disease, Wildfire May 23, 2024 Pg. 496
Kings County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
2023 Update Page 4-167
JURISDICTION GEOGRAPHIC
AREA
PROBABILITY
OF FUTURE
OCCURRENCE
MAGNITUDE/
SEVERITY
OVERALL
SIGNIFICANCE
PRIORITY
HAZARD?
Kings County Extensive Highly Likely Critical Medium Yes City of Avenal Extensive Highly Likely Critical Medium Yes City of Corcoran Extensive Highly Likely Critical Medium Yes City of Hanford Extensive Highly Likely Critical Medium Yes City of Lemoore Extensive Highly Likely Critical Medium Yes
4.5.15 WILDFIRE
4.5.15.1 Hazard Description
A wildfire is an uncontrolled fire spreading through vegetative fuels, such as grasslands, brush, or woodlands, and posing danger and destruction to property and watersheds. Generally, three major factors sustain wildfires and predict a given area’s potential to burn. These factors are fuel, topography, and weather.
• Fuel – Fuel is the material that feeds fire and is a key factor in wildfire behavior. Fuel is generally classified by type and by volume. Fuel sources are diverse and include everything from dead tree leaves, twigs, and branches to dead standing trees, live trees, brush, and cured grasses. Manmade structures are also considered as a fuel source, such as homes and other associated combustibles.
The type of prevalent fuel directly influences the behavior of wildfire. Fuel is the only factor that can be modified by humans.
• Topography – An area’s terrain and slope affect its susceptibility to wildfire spread. Both fire intensity and rate of spread increase as slope increases due to the tendency of heat from a fire to rise via convection. The arrangement and types of vegetation throughout a hillside can also contribute to increased fire activity on slopes.
• Weather – Weather components such as temperature, relative humidity, wind, and lightning affect the potential for wildfire. High temperatures and low relative humidity dry out fuels that feed wildfires, creating a situation where fuel will more readily ignite and burn more intensely. Thus, during periods of drought, the threat of wildfire increases. Wind is the most influential weather factor of the three and its influence can increase rates of spread regardless of temperature and relative humidity.
Wildfires can occur in areas essentially void of development, or in areas where development intermingles with the natural area known as the wildland-urban interface (WUI), a general term that applies to development adjacent to landscapes that support wildfire. Many wildfires occur in locations that abound in grasslands and brush. While wildfires are often the direct result of lightning strikes, they can be caused by downed powerlines or mechanical equipment or as the result of human activities like landscape debris burns, carelessness, or arson. Wildfires often start in undeveloped areas and public land areas, such as state and federal lands, but can spread to urban areas where structures and other human development are more concentrated. The predominant dangers from wildfires are injury or loss of life to people in the affected area and the destruction of vegetation, property, and wildlife.
Communities throughout California are increasingly concerned about wildfire safety as increased development in the foothills and mountain areas and subsequent fire control practices have affected the natural cycle of the ecosystem. Wildfire risk is predominantly associated with WUI areas. However, significant wildfires can also occur in heavily populated areas, although urbanized and developed areas that are not contiguous with vast areas of wildlands are typically considered safer from wildfires.
The County is exposed to a variety of wildfire hazard conditions that vary based on fuels, topography, weather, and human behavior. CAL FIRE, as required by Government Code Section 51181, has undertaken a statewide program to map areas of potential wildfire severity, and to describe the potential for wildfires to occur in a given area; the resulting Fire Hazard Severity Zones (FHSZs) adopted in November 2007 for the State Responsibility Areas (SRA) and adopted in September 2007 for the Local Responsibility Area (LRA) are shown in Figure 4-51 below.
May 23, 2024 Pg. 497
Kings County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
2023 Update Page 4-168
Figure 4-51 Kings County Federal, State, and Local Responsibility Severity Zones
4.5.15.2 Geographic Area
Significant – CAL FIRE has ranked fuel loading as low in most of the County, where crops and grasses are the primary sources of fuel. However, in the southwest corner, there are moderate fuel hazards from brush, pine, and grass, specifically in the area west of Interstate 5 and north of Highway 41.
The County is mostly flat, with a slight slope towards the topographic low point in the Tulare Lake Basin, which minimizes the fire risk for most of the county. However, elevations in the southwestern part of the County range from 500 feet at the Kettleman Plains to almost 3,500 feet at Table Mountain, creating a more varied terrain with a higher fire hazard in the steeply sloped areas of this region.
May 23, 2024 Pg. 498
Kings County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
2023 Update Page 4-169
4.5.15.3 Past Occurrences
There have been no state or federal disaster declarations in Kings County due to wildfire. The 2012 Kings County MJHMP noted that although there are many fire starts, the fuels are “flashy,” and most fires are quickly put out. Except for the Braley‐Jones Ranch fire in 1951 near Stratford, all mapped fires have occurred west of Interstate 5. The largest was the Garza fire in 2017, which burned over 48,000 acres along the west side of Interstate 5, southwest of Avenal. See Table 4-85 and Figure 4-52 for the history of fires named by CAL FIRE in Kings County.
Table 4-85 Fire History in Kings County, 1950 – 2021
DATE NAME OF FIRE ACRES BURNED
06/04/1951 Braley‐Jones Ranch 468
09/22/1968 Hughs 776
07/30/1969 Avenal Canyon 983
05/22/1979 Pyramid Hills 693
07/01/1979 State of California #32 2,292
05/25/1984 Flat Top 7,218
06/03/1989 Cal Oil 492
06/12/1994 York 1,012
09/04/1995 Tar 126
09/08/1995 Pyramid 397
04/27/1996 Skyline 20,567
05/01/1996 Hwy 41 3,198
08/13/1999 33 243
08/27/2001 Taylor 26
08/10/2007 Tar 5,644
8/19/2008 Avenal 946
07/09/2017 Garza 48,660
05/03/2020 Interstate 5 2,060
10/11/2021 Kettle 447
Source: Cal Fire Redbooks
May 23, 2024 Pg. 499
Kings County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
2023 Update Page 4-170
Figure 4-52 Fire History in Kings County, 1950 – 2021
4.5.15.4 Likelihood of Occurrence
Occasional – Fire starts are highly likely during each fire season, although they rarely result in large-scale wildfires in Kings County. Based on the recent fire history (2016-2021), there is a 60% chance that a fire will occur during any given year. Figure 4-53 shows the annual probability for wildfire in Kings County from 2023 – 2050, based on Cal FIRE data.
May 23, 2024 Pg. 500
Kings County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
2023 Update Page 4-171
Figure 4-53 Kings County Annual Probability of Fire, 2023 – 2050
4.5.15.5 Climate Change Considerations
According to the 2018 California SHMP, climate change has the potential to impact the frequency, size, and severity of wildfire hazards statewide. Increasing temperatures and decreased precipitation statewide, as shown in Figure 4-54, may intensify wildfire threat and susceptibility to more frequent wildfires in the County.
Exactly how climate change will affect total precipitation is not clear, but models suggest that there is a tendency for wetter conditions in the northern part of the State and drier conditions in the south (CNRA 2018a). What is clear is that California is becoming exceptionally warm and dry, as evidenced by the 2012- 2016 drought, the hottest drought in the State’s recorded history (Mount et al, 2021). Forests in the State were weakened by this drought, which made them more susceptible to pests and pathogens and contributed to widespread tree mortality, creating an abundance of kindling for fire (CNRA 2018).
May 23, 2024 Pg. 501
Kings County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
2023 Update Page 4-172
Figure 4-54 Average Statewide Precipitation and Temperature Patterns, 1950 – 2020 Source: Mount et al, WRCC, DWR
Current scientific models expect all of California will be affected by increased numbers of forest fires with added intensity due to longer warmer seasons, reduced distribution of biodiversity, lack of moisture, changes in ecosystems, drought impacts (e.g. pest diseases and continued spread of invasive species), and other impacts in coming years (Cal-Adapt, 2023). The extending of the wildfire season into winter months, coinciding with seasonal high wind patterns, has contributed to severe fires in recent years.
Southern California experienced 29 wildfires in December of 2017 alone, and the deadliest and most destructive fire in California’s history, the Camp Fire, happened in November of 2018 and resulted in 153,336 acres burned, 18,804 structures damaged, and 85 deaths (CAL FIRE, 2019; CAL FIRE, n.d.).
Projected wildfire occurrence estimates in annual area burned, based on different potential climate futures and GHG emission scenarios, are summarized from Westerling (2018) and presented in Figure 4-55 and Figure 4-56. These figures show the modeled projections of annual area burned for mid- and end-of-century timelines under both a high emissions scenario (Figure 4-56) and low emissions scenario (Figure 4-55). The projected future climate from these four models can be described as producing:
• CanESM2 – An average future climate simulation
• CNRM-CM5 – A cooler/wetter future climate simulation
• HadGEM2-ES – A warm/dry future climate simulation
• MIROC5 – The model simulation that is most unlike the first three for the best coverage of different possibilities.
May 23, 2024 Pg. 502
Kings County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
2023 Update Page 4-173
Figure 4-55 Kings County Projected Annual Average Area Burned Under RCP 6.5 Figure 4-56 Kings County Projected Annual Average Area Burned Under RCP 8.5 The Keetch-Byram Drought Index (KBDI) is a measure of the amount of precipitation required to return soil to full moisture capacity. A KBDI of zero indicates a total lack of moisture deficiency, while 800 represents drought conditions deep within soil layers. KBDI is cumulative, meaning values will increase on dry and warm days and decrease during rainy periods. It is a simplified proxy for favorability of occurrence and spread of wildfire but is not itself a predictor of fire. Figure 4-57 shows the historic number of days when KBDI is greater than or equal to 600, based on data from 2005, and Figure 4-58 shows the projected number of midcentury (2050) when KBDI will be greater or equal to 600 based on the RCP 8.5 scenario.
May 23, 2024 Pg. 503
Kings County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
2023 Update Page 4-174
Figure 4-57 Kings County Historical Annual Number of Days When KBDI is Greater than or Equal to 600
May 23, 2024 Pg. 504
Kings County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
2023 Update Page 4-175
Figure 4-58 Kings County Mid-Century Annual Number of Days When KBDI is Greater than or Equal to 600
4.5.15.6 Magnitude and Severity
Negligible – Fire threat provides a measure of fuel conditions and fire potential in the ecosystem, representing the relative likelihood of “damaging” or difficult to control wildfire occurring for a given area.
Fire Threat is not a risk assessment by itself but can be used to assess the potential for impacts on various assets and values susceptible to fire. Impacts are more likely to occur and/or be of increased severity for the higher threat classes. Fire threat is a combination of two factors: 1) fire probability, or the likelihood of a given area burning, and 2) potential fire behavior (hazard). These two factors are combined to create five threat classes ranging from low to extreme. Figure 4-59 below shows the wildfire threat areas throughout the County.
May 23, 2024 Pg. 505
Kings County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
2023 Update Page 4-176
Figure 4-59 Kings County Fire Threat Areas
4.5.15.7 Vulnerability Assessment
Typically, fire season in Kings County runs from early Spring to late Fall, and wildfires can start suddenly due to human activity or lightning strikes. These fires can last anywhere from a few hours to several months, with secondary effects including increased erosion, degraded air and water quality, and economic impacts from burned landscapes. Areas along the southwestern corner of the County face a higher risk than the central and more urbanized portion of the County.
Generally, this hazard is a medium concern given the increasing frequency and severity of wildfires in California. High fuel loads in some regions of the Planning Area along with geographical and topographical features create the potential for both natural and human-caused fires that can result in loss of life and property. These factors, combined with natural weather conditions common to the area, including periods of drought, low relative humidity, and periodic winds, can result in frequent and sometimes catastrophic fires. Even the relatively flat central parts of the County are not immune to fire; May 23, 2024 Pg. 506
Kings County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
2023 Update Page 4-177
hot and sometimes windy weather combined with dry vegetation and a denser population can increase the number of ignitions.
Figure 4-60 and Figure 4-61 are the results of Wildfire Risk to Communities, a nationwide risk study from the United States Forest Service that was designed to help communities understand, explore, and reduce wildfire risk. These figures provide a perspective of wildfire risk and vulnerability compared to other California counties. Populated areas in Kings County have, on average, greater wildfire likelihood than 23% of counties in California (USFS 2021). Populated areas in Kings County also have, on average, a greater risk to homes than 19% of counties in California (USFS 2021).
Figure 4-60 Kings County Relative Wildfire Likelihood
Source: USFS 2021
May 23, 2024 Pg. 507
Kings County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
2023 Update Page 4-178
Figure 4-61 Kings County Relative Wildfire Risk to Homes People
Wildland fires result in a high risk for personal injury, loss of life to inhabitants of the fire area and firefighters, and losses of structures and personal property. Wildfires in or near the WUI frequently require emergency evacuation and sheltering, often for many days. As is shown in Table 4-86 below, approximately 3,052 people in Kings County reside in moderate, high, and very high fire threat areas. The numbers were derived by taking the total number of residential, multi-family residential, and mixed-use structures identified in the moderate, high and very high fire threat areas and multiplying them by the average household size of the County and cities based on the 2021 ACS 5-Year Estimates. Of this population, only the DACs and socially vulnerable communities identified west of the City of Avenal in the unincorporated County are at greater risk. However, the direct risk from wildfire hazards to socially vulnerable communities in the County is less than the direct risk from other hazards. It does, however, pose human health risk associated with poor air quality, which will have a greater impact on those populations that are disadvantaged and have existing respiratory health conditions.
Table 4-86 Population at Risk to Fire Threat
JURISDICTION POPULATION
Avenal 334
Corcoran 53
Lemoore 242
Unincorporated 2,089
Total 3,052
Source: Kings County, Cal FIRE, FRAP, U.S. Census Bureau, WSP GIS Analysis May 23, 2024 Pg. 508
Kings County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
2023 Update Page 4-179
In addition to the direct costs resulting from human injury and property destruction, secondary effects have the potential to continue impacting the community for years. Wildfires release gaseous pollutants, such as carbon monoxide, and hazardous air pollutants, such as particulate matter (i.e. polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons composed of acids, molds, metals, or soot), into the air where they can drift long distances, affecting millions of people (Borgschulte et al, 2022). These small particles easily slip into homes, where they are inhaled, causing negative cardiovascular and respiratory conditions. These effects are felt most acutely by first responders and sensitive populations, such as the young and the old.
Property
The potential impacts of wildfire on property include crop loss, injury and death of livestock and pets, and damage to infrastructure, homes and other buildings located throughout the wildfire risk area.
A wildfire threat assessment was performed for Kings County using the following GIS methodology.
Similar to the methodology used by the flood analysis, address point data together with the assessor’s parcel data were overlaid on a Fire Threat Layer. Improved parcels together with the structures on them were then assigned with wildfire threat area class (very high, high, and moderate). It was assumed that every parcel with an improved value greater than zero was developed in some way, thus only improved parcels and their values were analyzed.
An analysis of the value of those parcels and structures – the improvement value plus the estimated value of building contents – quantifies the potential losses from wildfires by wildfire threat areas, as shown in Table 4-87. The results show that over $145.8 million worth of property and approximately 270 improved parcels together with 747 structures are exposed to wildfire threat countywide. The majority of these buildings are in moderate wildfire threat areas. The unincorporated areas and the City of Lemoore make up the majority of this risk. Exempt residential and agricultural properties constitute the majority of the number of parcels and the projected losses. Exempt properties include but are not limited to wetlands, schools, museums, etc. The total values shown in these tables include both structure value and contents and can be used as an estimate of potential losses since wildfires typically result in a total loss.
Table 4-87 Wildfire Hazard Exposure –Property Summary by Jurisdiction and Fire Threat Zone
JURISDICTION AVENAL CORCORAN LEMOORE UNINCORPORATED TOTAL Parcel Count Very
High
- - -
15 15
Building Count Very
High
- - -
15 15
Parcel County High - - - 53 53
Building County
High
- - -
58 58
Parcel County
Moderate 18 15 82 69 202
Building County
Moderate 100 16 82 376 674
Total Parcel County 18 15 82 137 270
Total Building
Count 100 16 82 449 747
Improved Value $11,097,454 $2,258,421 $18,202,253 $41,643,263 $84,298,845 Estimated Content
Value $5,905,592 $1,129,211 $9,101,127 $39,465,975 $61,507,495 Total Value $17,003,046 $3,387,632 $27,303,380 $81,109,238 $145,806,340 Population 334 53 242 2,089 3,052
Source: Cal FIRE, Kings County Assessor, WSP GIS analysis May 23, 2024 Pg. 509
Kings County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
2023 Update Page 4-180
Figure 4-62 shows the composition of structures that are exposed to fire threats within the unincorporated County, categorized by fire threat zone.
Figure 4-62 Unincorporated County Parcels in Fire Threat Area Critical Facilities and Lifelines
Critical facilities are those community components that are most needed to withstand the impacts of a disaster, as previously described in the Assets section. Wildfire impacts on critical facilities can include structural damage or destruction, risk to persons located within facilities, disruption of transportation, shipping, and evacuation operations, and interruption of facility operations and critical functions.
Critical facilities and infrastructure also create an increased risk for the occurrence of wildfires. Overhead electric transmission lines have been known to spark wildfires. According to data from the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), the State’s three largest utility companies collectively reported 1,744 ignitions statewide between 2019-2021 (CPUC, 2023). Most of these instances were small, less than one acre in size, however these fires can grow rapidly under the right fire conditions. Identifying critical facilities and infrastructure and mitigating their potential risks is important both for maintaining the County’s resilience and for reducing the potential impacts of wildfire.
The locations of critical facilities identified by HIFLD throughout the County are summarized by their exposure to the various wildfire threat levels in Table 4-88.
Table 4-88 Critical Facilities Within Wildfire Threat Zones by Jurisdiction and FEMA Lifeline WILDFIRE THREAT ZONE JURISDICTION COMMUNICATIONS ENERGY FOOD, WATER, SHELTER HAZARDOUS MATERIAL HEALTH AND MEDICAL SAFETY AND SECURITY TRANSPORTATION TOTAL Low Avenal 2 1 - - 1 - - 4
Unincorporated 8 2 - - - - 16 26
Total 10 3 - - 1 - 16 30
3%
13%
84%
Structure Count Very
High
Structure Count High
Structure Count
Moderate
May 23, 2024 Pg. 510
Kings County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
2023 Update Page 4-181 WILDFIRE THREAT ZONE JURISDICTION COMMUNICATIONS ENERGY FOOD, WATER, SHELTER HAZARDOUS MATERIAL HEALTH AND MEDICAL SAFETY AND SECURITY TRANSPORTATION TOTAL Moderate Avenal 3 1 - - - - 1 5
Unincorporated 9 8 - - - - 2 19
Total 12 9 - - - - 3 24
High Avenal 1 1 - - - - - 2
Unincorporated 4 1 - - - - - 5
Total 5 2 - - - - - 7
Very
High
Avenal - - - - - - - -
Unincorporated 4 - - - - - - 4
Total 4 - - - - - - 4
Source: Kings County, HIFLD, Cal FIRE, FRAP, WSP GIS Analysis According to the analysis conducted, there are 35 critical facilities exposed to at least a moderate wildfire threat area. The highest rates of exposure to wildfire threat areas are facilities in the Communication and Energy Lifeline categories, both of which are crucial for response and evacuations in the event of a significant fire.
Economy
The economic impacts of wildfires include loss of property, direct agricultural sector job loss, secondary economic losses to businesses in or near wildland resources like parks and national forests, and loss of public access to recreational resources. Fire suppression may also require increased costs to local and state governments for water acquisition and delivery, especially during periods of drought when water resources are scarce. Effects on agriculture can be significant, which makes up a large portion of Kings County’s economy. In addition to the obvious impacts on crops and animals, wildland fire can have damaging effects on soil and water that will impact agriculture for an extended period.
Cultural, Historic and Natural Resources
The County has three historic sites according to the California Office of Historic Preservation (refer to Subsection 4.2.1). Only one of these sites, No. 206 El Adobe de Los Robles Rancho, involves a structure. A re-built adobe house dating back to 1856, this structure is sensitive in nature and may not meet the latest building codes; it is expected that it might be at risk of wildfires (e.g., because of its potential inability to withstand significant heat). Parks and open spaces, particularly in the foothills, could also be at risk of a wildfire.
Development Trends
A fire threat GIS analysis within SOI boundaries is summarized in the table below. The methodology resembles what was used for the General Property subsection above. These parcels are also included in Table 4-87, and they fall under “Unincorporated” in terms of their jurisdiction. Parcels shown below in Table 4-89 are those that fall within each jurisdiction’s SOI and are located within different wildfire threat areas. As shown in Table 4-89, only parcels located within the SOIs of the Cities of Hanford and Lemoore are exposed to wildfire threat. The majority of these parcels are located in moderate fire threat areas.
May 23, 2024 Pg. 511
Kings County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
2023 Update Page 4-182
Table 4-89 Sphere of Influence Fire Threat Analysis
Jurisdiction Hanford Lemoore Total
Parcel Count High 2 0 2
Building Count High 2 0 2
Parcel Count Moderate 2 5 7
Building Count Moderate 2 6 8
Total Parcel Count 4 5 9
Total Building Count 4 6 10
Improved Value $528,005 $1,862,074 $2,390,079
Estimated Content Value $264,003 $1,126,907 $1,390,909
Total Value $792,008 $2,988,981 $3,780,988
Population 12 18 30
Source: Kings County, HIFLD, Cal FIRE, FRAP, WSP GIS Analysis Any population increases in the Planning Area will continue to make wildfire vulnerability a growing issue, especially as Development Trends expands into higher fire risk areas. These risks can however be managed with strong land use regulations and building code requirements, and with policies established in the Safety Element of the 2035 General Plan. For example, policies requiring fire-resistant vegetation, clustered development, and vegetation clear zones in areas with high and extreme fire hazard, can all decrease the County’s vulnerability to fire.
4.5.15.8 Risk Summary
• The overall significance of wildfire in Kings County is Medium. These events are recurring in nature and can cause significant damage, loss of life, and disruption to critical infrastructure. • The County experiences an average of one wildfire every 3 years and an average of 1,355 acres burned per year. As impacts of climate change such as increased temperatures and prolonged drought conditions continue in coming years, this frequency and intensity may increase. • Powerlines and vehicle or equipment use present a significant source of ignitions. • Wildfires can destroy homes, businesses, and critical infrastructure; almost $146 million worth of property in the County is located in a Fire Threat Zone. • Wildfires can disrupt access to, or even destroy critical facilities and infrastructure; 24 critical facilities are in the Moderate Fire Threat Zone, 7 critical facilities are in the High Fire Threat Zone, and 4 critical facilities are in the Very High Fire Threat Zone.
• Wildfire impacts can include loss of property, direct agricultural sector job loss, secondary economic losses to businesses, and loss of public access to recreational resources. • Wildfires can significantly impact water and air quality, even at great distances from the area burning.
Damages to agriculture, natural resource areas, and habitats are very likely during a wildfire. • Related Hazards – Agricultural Pests and Diseases, Drought, Extreme Temperatures
JURISDICTION GEOGRAPHIC
AREA
PROBABILITY OF
FUTURE
OCCURRENCE
MAGNITUDE/
SEVERITY
OVERALL
SIGNIFICANCE
PRIORITY
HAZARD?
Kings County Significant Likely Negligible Medium Yes
City of Avenal Limited Likely Negligible Medium Yes
City of Corcoran Limited Likely Negligible Low No
City of Hanford Limited Likely Negligible Low No
City of Lemoore Limited Likely Negligible Low No
May 23, 2024 Pg. 512
Kings County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
2023 Update Page 4-183
This page is intentionally left blank.
May 23, 2024 Pg. 513
Kings County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Mitigation Strategy
2023 Update Page 5-1
5 MITIGATION STRATEGY
Requirement §201.6(c)(3):
[The plan shall include the following:] 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.
This section describes the mitigation strategy process and mitigation action plan for the Kings County MJHMP. It describes how the County and participating jurisdictions met the requirements for the following from the 10-step planning process:
• Planning Step 6: Set Goals
• Planning Step 7: Review Possible Activities
• Planning Step 8: Draft an Action Plan
The mitigation strategy reflects the results of the collaborative work of the HMPC. Subsection 5.3 Mitigation Action Plan is based on the updated planning process, risk assessment, capability assessment, consequence analysis, goal setting, and the identification of mitigation actions. Taking all of these into consideration, the HMPC developed the following overall mitigation strategy, which builds upon the 2012 LHMP strategy:
• Communicate the hazard information collected and analyzed through this planning process as well as HMPC success stories so that the community better understands what can happen where and what they themselves can do to be better prepared.
• Implement the action plan recommendations of this plan to reduce the County’s vulnerability to hazards.
• Use existing rules, regulations, policies, and procedures already in existence. Given the flood hazard in the planning area, an emphasis should be placed on continued compliance with the NFIP. • Lessen the impact of disasters and the speed of the response and recovery process. • Build awareness to help the community become more sustainable and reliant to disasters. • Monitor multi-objective management opportunities so that funding opportunities may be shared and packaged, and broader constituent support may be garnered.
5.1 MITIGATION GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
§201.6(c)(3)(i)
[The hazard mitigation strategy shall include a] description of mitigation goals to reduce or avoid long‐term vulnerabilities to the identified hazards.
Up to this point in the planning process, the HMPC has organized resources, assessed hazards and risks, and documented mitigation capabilities. The resulting goals, objectives, and mitigation actions were developed based on these tasks. The HMPC held a series of meetings and exercises designed to achieve a collaborative, updated mitigation strategy as described further throughout this section.
Over a series of meetings during the 2022 – 2023 update process, the HMPC reviewed the results of the hazard identification, vulnerability assessment, and capability assessment update. This analysis of the risk assessment identified areas where improvements could be made and provided the framework for the HMPC to update planning goals and objectives and the ultimate mitigation strategy for the Kings County planning area.
Mitigation goals are defined as general guidelines that explain what the County wants to achieve in terms of hazard and loss prevention. Goals are typically long-range statements representing community-wide visions. The HMPC reviewed the goals from the 2012 MJHMP which focused on reducing the impacts of natural hazards to life, property, and the environment, as well as agriculture and the economies of communities, and implementing identified mitigation activities. The goals were developed to be compatible with the goals of the community as expressed in the Health and Safety Element of the General Plan, and the 2015 EOP. The County’s Mitigation Strategy is guided by the vision of a safe and resilient County. The mission is to integrate existing laws and programs into a mitigation strategy that will serve the citizens by reducing and preventing injury and damage from natural hazards.
May 23, 2024 Pg. 514
Kings County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Mitigation Strategy
2023 Update Page 5-2
Kings County routinely performs activities such as issuing building permits, approving development plans, and repairing roads. The County is conscious that these activities should reflect the vision and goals by using the most current building code, restricting development in hazard-prone areas, or making infrastructure decisions based on the risk assessment findings. As a result, goals were defined for this mitigation plan as broad-based public policy statements that:
• Represent basic desires of the community;
• Encompass all aspects of community, public and private; • Are nonspecific, in that they refer to the quality (not the quantity) of the outcome; • Are future-oriented, in that they are achievable in the future; and • Are time-independent, in that they are not scheduled events.
Goals are stated without regard to implementation. Implementation cost, schedule, and means are not considered. Goals are defined before considering how to accomplish them so that they are not dependent on the means of achievement. Goal statements form the basis for objectives and actions that will be used as means to achieve the goals. Objectives define strategies to attain the goals and are more specific and measurable. Goals are listed below. The County decided not to develop specific objective statements.
5.1.1 Mitigation Goals
• Goal 1: Reduce impacts of natural hazards to life, property, and the environment. • Goal 2: Minimize impacts of natural disasters to agriculture and the economies of communities. • Goal 3: Implement identified mitigation activities.
• Goal 4: Plan for and adapt to the effects of climate change.
5.2 IDENTIFICATION AND ANALYSIS OF MITIGATION ACTIONS
§201.6(c)(3)(ii):
[The hazard 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. All plans approved by FEMA after October 1, 2008, must also address the jurisdiction’s participation in the NFIP, and continued compliance with NFIP requirements, as appropriate.
In order to identify and select mitigation measures to support the mitigation goals, each hazard identified in Section 4: Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment was evaluated. The HMPC analyzed a comprehensive set of viable mitigation alternatives for both new and existing buildings and infrastructure that would support identified goals and objectives and reduce or eliminate risks to persons or property or lessen the actual or potential effects or consequences of a disaster. Each HMPC member was provided with the following list of categories of mitigation measures, which originate from the NFIP CRS:
• Prevention: Administrative or regulatory actions or processes that influence the way land and buildings are developed and built.
• Property protection: Actions that involve the modification of existing buildings or structures to protect them from a hazard or remove them from the hazard area. • Structural: Actions that involve the construction of structures to reduce the impact of a hazard. • Natural resource protection: Actions that, in addition to minimizing hazard losses, also preserve or restore the functions of natural systems.
• Emergency services: Actions that protect people and property during and immediately after a disaster or hazard event.
• Public information/education and awareness: Actions to inform and educate citizens, elected officials, and property owners about the hazards and potential ways to mitigate them.
At the HMPC Meeting #3, the HMPC was provided with a matrix showing examples of potential mitigation action alternatives for each of the above categories, for each of the identified hazards. The HMPC was also provided a handout that explains the categories and provided further examples. These documents list the common alternatives for mitigation by hazard and actions funded by FEMA. The HMPC was also instructed to consider both future and existing buildings in considering possible mitigation actions. This reference provides four categories of mitigation actions that were discussed at the HMPC meeting in addition to the NFIP/CRS categories. These include:
May 23, 2024 Pg. 515
Kings County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Mitigation Strategy
2023 Update Page 5-3
• Plans and Regulations
• Structure and Infrastructure Projects
• Education and Awareness
• Natural systems protection
Other alternatives discussed in the webinar include the four A’s of mitigation:
• Alter the physical nature of the hazard.
- Such as wildfire defensible space and fuels treatments, snow fences etc. • Avert the hazard away from people, buildings, and infrastructure. - Can include engineered solutions, drainage, and channel improvements, floodproofing, fuel breaks. • Adapt to the hazard.
- Through land use planning, building codes and design standards, warning systems etc. • Avoid the hazard.
- Natural systems protection, open space, acquisition, or relocation of properties out of hazardous areas As part of the review of mitigation options, long-term climate change adaptation strategies were also discussed, such as climate adaptation strategies included in the Final Regional Climate Action Plan for the cities of Avenal and Hanford (e.g., Trees, Parks, and Open Space Measures, Community Education and Outreach Measures). HMPC members were encouraged to incorporate climate change adaptation measures into the mitigation strategy of their respective jurisdictions by utilizing resources and guidance available on the Cal-Adapt website and California APG. These adaptation strategies were considered for inclusion in the mitigation strategy and to comply with California Government Code Section 65302.3(g) requirements. Further, the County was provided a list of over 12 suggested ideas for new mitigation actions during HMPC Meeting #3 to consider when developing new mitigation actions (see Appendix D).
To facilitate the brainstorming process, the HMPC was provided a matrix of typical mitigation alternatives organized by CRS category for the hazards identified in the plan, in addition to a handout that explains the categories and provided examples. These materials are included in Appendix B. During a group activity during HMPC Meeting #3 the HMPC members were encouraged to develop mitigation alternatives that would protect future, as well as existing, development from hazards per the DMA 2000 regulations. A facilitated discussion then took place to examine the existing actions in the 2012 MJHMP and analyze the other possible mitigation alternatives from the suggested ideas for new mitigation ideas (previously noted) and by incorporating policies and implementation measures from each jurisdiction’s Safety Element, Emergency Operations Plan, and Capital Improvement Program (e.g. storm water drainage facility policies; emergency preparedness policies; and natural hazard policies for drought, earthquake, extreme heat, dam failure, and other hazards). This facilitated discussion resulted in a full list of mitigation actions from which the HMPC could select mitigation actions. With an understanding of all the alternatives, the group activity was conducted to generate a list of preferred mitigation actions to carry forward into the mitigation strategy. The result was new and updated project ideas with the intent of meeting the identified goals and mitigating identified hazards. These new and updated project mitigation actions were expanded on during numerous follow-up meetings with County OES staff and participating jurisdictions to focus on the refinement and prioritization of new mitigation activities added later in the planning process.
Once new mitigation actions were defined, the HMPC selected and prioritized the mitigation actions by ranking them during another group activity that asked the participants to rank actions as either low, medium, or high-priority projects; additional information on this process is described below. WSP also discussed remaining information or mitigation gaps that needed to be addressed during the final followup meetings. These meetings were more focused on stakeholder group sessions intended to wrap up mitigation gaps, discuss opportunities for plan integration, and review the plan implementation and maintenance procedures.
5.2.1 Prioritization Process
Once the mitigation actions were identified, the HMPC was provided with several decision-making tools, including FEMA’s recommended prioritization criteria, STAPLEE, to assist in deciding why one recommended action might be more important, more effective, or more likely to be implemented than another. STAPLEE stands for the following:
May 23, 2024 Pg. 516
Kings County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Mitigation Strategy
2023 Update Page 5-4
• Social: Does the measure treat people fairly? (e.g., different groups, different generations) Does it consider social equity, disadvantaged communities, or vulnerable populations? • Technical: Will it work? (Is the action technically feasible? Does it solve the problem?) • Administrative: Is there capacity to implement and manage the project? (adequate staffing, funding, and other capabilities to implement the project?)
• Political: Who are the stakeholders? Did they get to participate? Will there be adequate political and public support for the project?
• Legal: Does the jurisdiction have the legal authority to implement the action? Is it legal? Are there liability implications?
• Economic: Is the action cost-beneficial? Is there funding available? Will the action contribute to the local economy?
• Environmental: Does the action comply with environmental regulations? Will there be negative environmental consequences from the action?
In accordance with the DMA requirements, an emphasis was placed on the importance of a benefit-cost analysis in determining action priority. Other criteria used to assist in evaluating the benefit-cost of a mitigation action included:
• Does the action address hazards or areas with the highest risk? • Does the action protect lives?
• Does the action protect infrastructure, community assets or critical facilities? • Does the action meet multiple objectives (Multiple Objective Management)? • What will the action cost?
• What is the timing of available funding?
The mitigation categories, multi-hazard actions, and criteria are included in Appendix D.
At the HMPC Meeting #3: mitigation strategy meeting, the HMPC reviewed and discussed the STAPLEE considerations to determine which of the identified actions were most likely to be implemented and effective. Prioritization of previous mitigation actions identified in the 2012 MJHMP were carried forward in the updated plan. New actions identified and selected for further consideration during the 2022-2023 process also were prioritized based on the group activity (sticky dot exercise) and a follow-up discussion.
With the STAPLEE criteria in mind, HMPC participants completed the group activity to select and rank the existing and new mitigation actions, which corresponds to the final list of mitigation actions summarized below in Section 5.4 (e.g., a full list of recommended mitigation actions consisted of recommended actions and actions that would incorporate policies and implementation measures from other planning documents).
The team was asked to prioritize projects with the above criteria in mind, essentially voting on the projects. The projects with the most points or votes using a sticky dot exercise became the higher priority projects, and those with the next highest number of sticky dots became the medium priority projects.
Those projects with less than three or no sticky dots were the low priority projects. The HMPC decided that the high priority projects would be those the County and participating jurisdictions would focus on for implementation during this planning cycle. The HMPC decided that the low priority actions would not be prioritized for implementation during this planning cycle. The HMPC also re-prioritized projects that were added during final review of the plan to ensure mitigation actions were explicitly linked to each known natural hazard assessed and the key vulnerabilities. This process provided both consensus and priority for the recommendations.
The process of identification and analysis of mitigation alternatives allowed the HMPC to come to a consensus and to collectively prioritize recommended mitigation actions. During the voting process, emphasis was placed on the importance of a benefit-cost review in determining project priority; however, this was not a quantitative analysis.
Cost-Benefit Review
A cost-benefit review was applied to prioritize the mitigation recommendations for implementation. The priority for implementing mitigation recommendations depends upon the overall cost-effectiveness of the recommendation when taking into account monetary and non-monetary costs and benefits associated with each action. The cost-benefit table for each hazard provides an analysis of the benefit, cost, and relative priority rank (High, Medium, and Low) for each mitigation activity. The guidelines are listed below.
May 23, 2024 Pg. 517
Kings County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Mitigation Strategy
2023 Update Page 5-5
• High – Benefits are perceived to exceed costs without further study or evaluation. • Medium – Benefits are perceived to exceed costs but may require further study or evaluation prior to implementation.
• Low – Benefits and cost evaluations requires additional evaluation prior to implementation.
Funding projects that will help mitigate imminent hazards are cost-effective and assist in efforts to help communities recover from disasters. Most of the projects are already funded through general fund, application fees or state/federal funds. The majority of the projects are ongoing to ensure mitigation measures are implemented within the County. It is not anticipated that all future projects will be identified in the 2023 MJHMP. The County’s MJHMP will also help guide local government to prioritize, be flexible, and identify critical mitigation strategy needs that may arise from a disaster when there is no time to update the local plan.
Benefit-cost was considered in greater detail in the development of the Mitigation Action Plan. For example, parameters were established for assigning the subjective ratings (high, medium, low) to the benefits and costs of each mitigation action. Specifically, each action developed for this plan contains a description of the problem and proposed project, the entity with primary responsibility for implementation, any other alternatives considered, a cost estimate, expected project benefits, potential funding sources, and an implementation schedule. Development of these project details for each action led to the determination of an overall high, medium, or low priority for each action.
Recognizing the limitations in prioritizing actions from multiple departments and the regulatory requirement to prioritize by benefit-cost to ensure cost-effectiveness, the HMPC decided to pursue mitigation action strategy development and implementation according to the nature and extent of damages, the level of protection and benefits each action provides, political support, project cost, available funding, and jurisdiction and department priority. This process guided the development of a prioritized action plan for Kings County and the participating jurisdictions.
Cost-effectiveness will be considered in greater detail through a formal benefit-cost analysis when seeking FEMA mitigation grant eligibility and funding (e.g. HMGP, BRIC grant programs) for eligible actions associated with this plan. It is also important for the County to protect critical facilities and infrastructure. Areas of repetitive loss are high priorities for mitigation funding as they can drain County coffers.
5.2.2 Continued NFIP Participation
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 (FIS). The study presents water surface elevations for floods of various magnitudes, including the 1% annual chance flood (or 100-year flood) and the 0.2% annual chance flood (or 500-year flood). Base flood elevations and the boundaries of the 100- and 500-year floodplains are shown on Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM), which are the principal tools for identifying the extent and location of the riverine flood hazard. FIRMs are the most detailed and consistent data source available, and for many communities, they represent the minimum area of oversight under their floodplain management program.
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 100-year 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.
Kings County and all four jurisdictions participate in the NFIP. Under the NFIP, buildings that were built before the flood hazard was identified on the community’s FIRMs are generally referred to as “pre-FIRM” buildings. When the NFIP was created, the U.S. Congress recognized that insurance for pre-FIRM buildings would be prohibitively expensive if the premiums were not subsidized by the Federal Government. Congress also recognized that most of these flood-prone buildings were built by individuals May 23, 2024 Pg. 518
Kings County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Mitigation Strategy
2023 Update Page 5-6
who did not have sufficient knowledge of the flood hazard to make informed decisions. The NFIP requires that full actuarial rates reflecting the complete flood risk be charged on all buildings constructed or substantially improved on or after the effective date of the initial FIRM for the community or after December 31, 1974, whichever is later. These buildings are generally referred to as “Post-FIRM” buildings.
Table 5-1 below shows the dates when Kings County and the jurisdictions joined the NFIP.
Table 5-1 Kings County and Its Jurisdictions’ NFIP Entry Date
COUNTY/JURISDICTION NFIP ENTRY DATE
Kings County August 4, 1988
City of Avenal April 5, 1989
City of Corcoran November 28, 1997
City of Hanford March 18, 1987
City of Lemoore April 3, 1987
Source: CIS 2023
Post-FIRM structures built in compliance with the floodplain regulations are mitigated to withstand floods up through the 100-year event. The insurance rate is different for the two types of structures, as pre-FIRM structures are at higher risk of flooding. The effective date for the current countywide FIRM is September 16, 2015.
The County and participating jurisdictions are currently in good standing with the provisions of the NFIP.
Compliance is monitored by FEMA regional staff. Maintaining compliance with the NFIP is an important component of flood mitigation and risk reduction and Kings County and the four participating jurisdictions will continue to make every effort to remain in good standing with the program. This includes continuing to comply with the NFIP’s standards for adopting floodplain maps and maintaining and periodically updating local floodplain regulations. Actions related to continued compliance also include:
• Continued designation of a local floodplain manager whose responsibilities include reviewing floodplain development permits to ensure compliance with the local floodplain management ordinances and rules;
• Suggest changes to improve enforcement of and compliance with regulations and programs; • Participate in FIRM updates by adopting new maps or amendments to maps; • Utilize Digital FIRMs in conjunction with GIS to improve floodplain management, such as improved risk assessment and tracking of floodplain permits;
• Promote and disperse information on the benefits of flood insurance.
5.3 MITIGATION STRATEGY ACTION PLAN
§201.6(c)(3)(iii)
[The hazard mitigation strategy shall include an] action plan, describing how the action identified in paragraph (c)(3)(ii) of this section 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.
§201.6(c)(3)(iv)
For multi‐jurisdictional plans, there must be identifiable action items specific to the jurisdiction requesting FEMA approval or credit of the plan.
This action plan was developed to present the recommendations developed by the HMPC for how the Kings County planning area can reduce the vulnerability of people, property, infrastructure, and natural and cultural resources to future disaster losses. Over time the implementation of these projects will be tracked as a measure of demonstrated progress on meeting the plan’s goals.
May 23, 2024 Pg. 519
Kings County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Mitigation Strategy
2023 Update Page 5-7
5.3.1 Progress on Previous Mitigation Actions
A review of 2012 mitigation actions progress reports indicates that Kings County has been successful in implementing actions identified in the 2012 MJHMP Mitigation Strategy, thus, working diligently towards meeting the 2012 plan goals.
The 2012 mitigation strategy contained 20 separate mitigation actions. Three of these actions were multijurisdictional, four applied to the City of Avenal, two applied to the City of Corcoran, and the remaining 11 were County-wide actions. As of July 2023, five of these actions have been completed, one has been deleted, and 14 actions are continuing and carried forward into the 2023 MJHMP.
Table 5-2 summarizes progress implementing mitigation actions. The total continuing actions row summarizes the actions from 2012 that are either still in-progress, have annual implementation, or are continuing but not completed. The new actions in 2023 summarizes the number of actions that were identified during the 2022- 2023 plan update process.
Table 5-2 Mitigation Action Progress Summary for County PROGRESS CATEGORY # OF MITIGATION ACTIONS
Completed 5
Deleted 1
Total Removed Actions 6
Continue: In-Progress 9
Continue: Not Started 3
Continue: Revised 2
New Actions in 2023 69
Total Active Actions 78
Source: HMPC 2023
Table 5-3 indicates the details for each of the 2012 mitigation action items. One deleted action was multijurisdictional, three actions were completed by the County, one action was completed by the City Corcoran, and one action was completed by the City of Avenal.
Table 5-3 Status of 2012 Mitigation Actions
ID HAZARD(S)
ADDRESSED
MITIGATION ACTION LEAD AGENCY ACTION STATUS
NOTES
1 Earthquake, Land
Subsidence,
Landslide
Housing Rehabilitation Program -
Continue and enhance housing
rehabilitation program.
City of Avenal
Community
Development Director
Ongoing.
2 Drought,
Earthquake,
Extreme
Temperatures:
Freeze and Heat,
Flood, Fog,
Wildfire
Emergency Power System for the
Emergency Operations Center at
the Ken Brown Public Safety
Center - Purchase, Install, test, and
utilize a 200 KW Propane/Natural
Gas-powered emergency
Generator system for the
Emergency Operations Center.
Avenal OES/Police
Department, Kings
County OES
Completed in 2018,
creating the City’s EOC
at the APD
3 Earthquake Vulnerability of Water Distribution
System
City of Avenal Public
Works Department
In progress.
4 Earthquake,
Subsidence,
Landslide
Loss Reduction Program for URM
Buildings
City of Avenal City
Manager’s Office,
California Seismic
Safety Commission,
City of Avenal Public
Works Department
In progress.
5 Drought,
Earthquake,
Extreme
Temperatures:
Freeze and Heat,
Expand the Veterans’ Memorial
Building and designate it as an
emergency shelter.
City of Corcoran Public
Works
Revised Action in 2023.
Use of the Veteran’s
Hall is no longer
needed now that the
RAC gymnasium is
May 23, 2024 Pg. 520
Kings County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Mitigation Strategy
2023 Update Page 5-8
ID HAZARD(S)
ADDRESSED
MITIGATION ACTION LEAD AGENCY ACTION STATUS
NOTES
Flood, Fog,
Wildfire
outfitted and serves a
larger population.
6 Drought,
Earthquake,
Extreme
Temperatures:
Freeze and Heat,
Flood, Fog,
Wildfire
Assess vulnerability of critical
infrastructure and lifeline utilities,
that may be disrupted due to the
construction of high-speed rail
through Kings County.
Kings County, Cities of
Hanford and Corcoran
Deleted. Construction
of high-speed rail has
begun.
7 Drought,
Earthquake,
Extreme Heat,
Flood, Fog,
Freeze, Wildfire
Emergency Power System for
shelter site
City of Corcoran Public
Works, Kings County
Office of Emergency
Services
Revised Action. Use of
the Veteran’s Hall is no
longer needed now
that the RAC
gymnasium is outfitted
and serves a larger
population. The next
critically identified
need area is the
Corcoran Depot
apartment complex as
it houses a
concentrated area of
senior and special
needs individuals.
8 Drought,
Earthquake,
Extreme
Temperatures:
Freeze and Heat,
Flood, Fog,
Wildfire
New Public Safety Building Corcoran Police
Department
Completed, October
2019
9 Drought, EQ,
Extreme Heat,
Flood, Fog,
Freeze, Wildfire
Public Education Program County and City Public
Works, Kings County
Health Dept., Kings
County OES
In progress.
10 Drought,
Earthquake,
Extreme Heat,
Flood, Fog,
Freeze, Wildfire
Emergency Power Switching
System for Primary Care Clinics
County Public Health
Emergency
Preparedness
Completed, December
2018
11 Drought,
Earthquake,
Extreme Heat,
Flood, Fog,
Freeze,
Wildfire
Hospitals HVAC County Public Health
Emergency
Preparedness
Completed, December
2018
12 Drought,
Earthquake,
Extreme Heat,
Flood, Fog,
Freeze, Wildfire
Water Recharge Basin
Partnership Program
State DWR led joint
powers authority
should be developed
to manage this multijurisdictional project.
California Department
of Water Resources
(DWR), Kings County
water and irrigation
districts, Kings County
OES, Community
Development
In progress. Funding
not yet secured but
grant has been applied
for with HMGP
May 23, 2024 Pg. 521
Kings County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Mitigation Strategy
2023 Update Page 5-9
ID HAZARD(S)
ADDRESSED
MITIGATION ACTION LEAD AGENCY ACTION STATUS
NOTES
13 Drought,
Earthquake,
Extreme Heat,
Flood, Fog,
Freeze, Wildfire
Community Alert and Warning Kings County OES,
Sheriff and City Law
Enforcement, Kings
County Operational
Area partners, county
communications and
Cal OES, State
Department of
Corrections, State High
Speed Rail Authority.
Ongoing
14 Drought,
Earthquake,
Extreme Heat,
Flood, Fog,
Freeze, Wildfire
Transportable Shelter Caches for
Displaced Populations
County Public Health
Emergency
Preparedness
Completed, December
2022
15 Drought,
Earthquake,
Extreme Heat,
Flood, Fog,
Freeze, Wildfire
New County EOC Assessment Kings County OES,
County Departments,
Kings County Fire
Department, Kings
County Environmental
Health, Kings County
Information
Technology
Department, and
Kings County Public
Works Department
Not started. Funding
not yet secured.
16 Drought,
Earthquake,
Extreme Heat,
Flood, Fog,
Freeze, Wildfire
Inter-jurisdictional GIS Program Kings County
Community
Development, OES,
City GIS, IT, Cities of
Avenal, Corcoran,
Lemoore, and Hanford;
special districts; water
and irrigation districts;
Local Agency
Formation
Commission of Kings
County; and Kings
County Association of
Governments
In progress.
17 Drought, EQ,
Extreme Heat,
Flood, Fog,
Freeze, Wildfire
Kings County Area Disaster
Council
Kings County OES,
County Admin Office,
Board of Supervisors
In progress.
Organizational work to
establish the Council
was accomplished but
formal meetings have
not yet commenced.
18 Extreme Heat Livestock Disposal Plan Kings County
Agricultural
Commissioner, Kings
County Agricultural
Advisory Committee,
University of California
at Davis Extension,
Environmental Health
Services, Natural
Resources
Conservation Service,
Kings County
Not started. Funding
not yet secured
May 23, 2024 Pg. 522
Kings County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Mitigation Strategy
2023 Update Page 5-10
ID HAZARD(S)
ADDRESSED
MITIGATION ACTION LEAD AGENCY ACTION STATUS
NOTES
Community
Development Agency,
Kings County
Environmental Health,
County OES, PHEP
19 Drought, EQ,
Extreme Heat,
Flood, Fog,
Freeze, Wildfire
Disaster Evacuation Routes Kings County Public
Works Department,
Kings County Sheriff /
City Police, County
OES, Human Services
Agency (HAS), Kings
Rural Area Transit,
Public Health
Emergency
Preparedness, Kings
County Planning
Agency; Cities of
Avenal, Corcoran,
Lemoore, and Hanford;
California Department
of Transportation
In progress. Funding
has not been secured,
may do this internally
20 Fog Traffic Safety Fog Events Kings County Public
Works, Kings OES,
County and City Law
Enforcement, CHP,
Caltrans
Not started, funding
not secured
Source: HMPC 2023
5.3.2 Updated Action Plan
The results of the project identification and prioritization exercise from the third HMPC meeting are summarized in Table 5-4. These projects detail specific actions for reducing future hazard-related losses within Kings County. The projects are organized by jurisdictions and include notes about the department and partners necessary to implement the project.
Table 5-4 provides details on 83 existing and new mitigation actions, including the mitigation action description estimated cost, potential funding sources, timeline, indication of the goal(s) that the projects primarily align with, and are marked with their relative level of priority high, medium, and low. The following table also provides status/implementation notes that describe progress made on the actions so far, using the following categories, and, where applicable, notes if there were changes in the priority level from the previous plan:
• Not Started: Work has not begun
• In Progress: Work has begun but not completed
• Annual Implementation: Ongoing with no specific end date • New in 2023: The action is new to this plan update; little to no work has been completed.
The Cost Estimate column describes the estimated project costs using the following categories:
• Little to no cost
• Low: Less than $10,000
• Moderate: $10,000-$100,000
• High: $100,000-$1,000,000
• Very High: More than $1,000,000
The Timeline column describes the estimated time of completion for each project using the following categories:
May 23, 2024 Pg. 523
Kings County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Mitigation Strategy
2023 Update Page 5-11
• Short Term: 1-2 years
• Medium Term: 3-5 years
• Long Term: 5+ years
• Ongoing: action is implemented every year
Of the 83 mitigation actions in the updated plan, 14 were carried over from the previous plan, two actions were revised, and 69 are new mitigation actions, including 28 Kings County actions and 55 jurisdictionspecific actions. Many of these mitigation actions are intended to reduce impacts to existing development. Those that protect future development from hazards, as required per the DMA 2000 regulations, are indicated by an asterisk in the action identification number. These actions include those that promote wise development and hazard avoidance, such as updating mapping and continued enforcement of floodplain development regulations. Those projects with two asterisks are emergency preparedness actions, most of which were carried forward from the 2017 plan. There is at least one mitigation actions for each natural hazard identified in the plan.
May 23, 2024 Pg. 524
Kings County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Mitigation Strategy
2023 Update Page 5-12
Table 5-4 Kings County Mitigation Actions
ID LINKS TO
GOALS
HAZARD(S)
MITIGATED
DESCRIPTION/
BACKGROUND/
BENEFITS
JURISDICTION LEAD AGENCY
AND PARTNERS
COST
ESTIMATE
POTENTIAL
FUNDING
FEMA LIFELINE PRIORITY TIMELINE IMPLEMENTATION
STATUS
KC-1 Goal 1, Goal
2, Goal 3
Drought,
Subsidence
Water Recharge Basin
Partnership Program
Partner with the State
and contiguous
counties to improve
coordination, planning,
and investment in
long‐term water
supplies by developing
a comprehensive water
recharge basin project
to meet demands of
ongoing growth and
development.
Kings County State DWR led
joint powers
authority should
be developed to
manage this
multijurisdictional
project.
California
Department of
Water Resources
(DWR), Kings
County water
and irrigation
districts, Kings
County OES,
Community
Development
High Possible grant
and bond
funds through
recent State
Propositions,
DWR Grants,
HMGP
Food, Hydration,
Shelter
Medium Ongoing In progress. Funding
not secured but has
been applied for
with Hazard
Mitigation Grant
Program
KC-2** Goal 1, Goal
2, Goal 3
Dam Incidents,
Earthquake,
Flood, Dense
Fog, Heavy Rain,
Thunderstorms,
Hail, and
Lightning
Community Alert and
Warning System -
Purchase, install, test,
and utilize a
community wide alert
and early warning
system that alerts
residents by phone,
email, cell phone and
other electronic
communication
devices.
Kings County Kings County
OES, Sheriff and
City Law
Enforcement,
Kings County
Operational Area
partners, county
communications
and Cal OES,
State
Department of
Corrections, State
High Speed Rail
Authority.
High HMGP,
Emergency
Management
Performance
Grant (EMPG),
Homeland
Security Grant
Program
(HSGP) and
potentially the
EOC Grant
Program
Safety and
Security;
Communications
High Ongoing In progress. Funding
has been secured
through EMPG grant
KC-3** Goal 1, Goal
2, Goal 3
Drought,
Earthquake,
Extreme
Temperatures:
Freeze and
Heat, Flood, Fog,
Wildfire
New County EOC
Assessment - Develop a
standing EOC group to
review and discuss
specifications,
supervise the creation
of construction plans,
identify funding
mechanism and
requirements, and
identify the site for the
new Kings County EOC.
Kings County Kings County
OES, County
Departments,
Kings County Fire
Department,
Kings County
Environmental
Health, Kings
County
Information
Technology
Department, and
Kings County
High General Fund,
HMP Grants,
EOC Grant
Program,
Partnership
with State,
County and
Transportation
Agencies,
EMPG,
Homeland
Security Grant
Program
Safety and
Security;
Communications
High ShorttermIn progress. Funding
not secured yet
May 23, 2024 Pg. 525
Kings County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Mitigation Strategy
2023 Update Page 5-13
ID LINKS TO
GOALS
HAZARD(S)
MITIGATED
DESCRIPTION/
BACKGROUND/
BENEFITS
JURISDICTION LEAD AGENCY
AND PARTNERS
COST
ESTIMATE
POTENTIAL
FUNDING
FEMA LIFELINE PRIORITY TIMELINE IMPLEMENTATION
STATUS
Public Works
Department
KC-4* Goal 1, Goal
2, Goal 3
Agricultural
Pests and
Disease, Dam
Incidents,
Earthquake,
Flood, Land
Subsidence,
Landslide,
Wildfire
Inter-jurisdictional GIS
Program -– Establish a
centralized, interjurisdictional GIS
program to improve all
phases of emergency
management.
Kings County Kings County
Community
Development,
OES, City GIS, IT,
Cities of Avenal,
Corcoran,
Lemoore, and
Hanford; special
districts; water
and irrigation
districts; Local
Agency
Formation
Commission of
Kings County;
and Kings County
Association of
Governments.
Moderate Local
government
funds and
possible grant
funds through
recent
Safety and
Security;
Communications;
Transportation
Medium ShorttermIn progress. The
County has been
completely mapped;
Hanford and Avenal
have joined in on the
project contracting
with County GIS to
meet their mapping
needs. The project is
planned to expand
to include all the
incorporated Cities
and continue to
create an integrated
countywide GIS
system and
database.
KC-5 Goal 1, Goal
2, Goal 3
Drought,
Earthquake,
Extreme
Temperatures:
Freeze and
Heat, Flood, Fog,
Wildfire
Kings County Area
Disaster Council -
Review and update
items related to the
Kings County Area
Disaster Council in the
Kings County
Emergency Services
Ordinance to improve
countywide
coordination and the
monitoring and
implementation of the
mitigation plan
Kings County Kings County
OES, County
Admin Office,
Board of
Supervisors
Low Kings County
General Fund,
EMPG
Safety and
Security
High ShorttermIn progress.
Organizational work
to establish the
Council was
accomplished but
formal meetings
have not yet
commenced.
KC-6 Goal 1, Goal
2, Goal 3
Agriculture and
Pest Disease,
Public Health,
Extreme
Temperatures:
Freeze and Heat
Livestock Disposal Plan
- Establish a livestock
disposal plan and
compost team to
address livestock
fatality during extreme
heat events. This action
would reduce impacts
to the agricultural
industry during
extreme temperature
events, reduce the
potential for
Kings County Kings County
Agricultural
Commissioner,
Kings County
Agricultural
Advisory
Committee,
University of
California at
Davis Extension,
Environmental
Health Services,
Natural
Moderate Hospital
Preparedness
Grant, the
actual costs to
bury the
carcasses
would be the
responsibility of
the animal
facility
owner/operator
.
Safety and
Security
High ShorttermNot started, funding
not yet secured
May 23, 2024 Pg. 526
Kings County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Mitigation Strategy
2023 Update Page 5-14
ID LINKS TO
GOALS
HAZARD(S)
MITIGATED
DESCRIPTION/
BACKGROUND/
BENEFITS
JURISDICTION LEAD AGENCY
AND PARTNERS
COST
ESTIMATE
POTENTIAL
FUNDING
FEMA LIFELINE PRIORITY TIMELINE IMPLEMENTATION
STATUS
agricultural pests and
diseases and public
health concerns, and
avoid overwhelming
critical rendering
infrastructure.
Resources
Conservation
Service, Kings
County
Community
Development
Agency, Kings
County
Environmental
Health, County
OES, PHEP
KC-7 Goal 1, Goal
2, Goal 3
Earthquake,
Extreme
Temperatures:
Freeze and
Heat, Flood, Fog,
Wildfire
Disaster Evacuation
Routes - Ensure the
maintenance and
enhancement of
established disaster
evacuation routes
Kings County Kings County
Public Works
Department,
Kings County
Sheriff / City
Police, County
OES, Human
Services Agency
(HAS), Kings
Rural Area
Transit, Public
Health
Emergency
Preparedness,
Kings County
Planning Agency;
Cities of Avenal,
Corcoran,
Lemoore, and
Hanford;
California
Department of
Transportation
Moderate Gas tax,
federal/state
transportation
funding, Kings
County General
Fund for staff
time,
Community
Power
Resiliency
Allocation
Program,
EMPG, HMGP
Transportation High ShorttermIn progress. Funding
has not been
secured, may do this
internally.
KC-8 Goal 1, Goal
2, Goal 3
Severe Weather
– Dense Fog
Traffic Safety Fog
Events - Improve
lighting, signage, and
traffic controls at
critical intersections
and roadways to
improve safety during
fog events.
Kings County Kings County
Public Works,
Kings OES,
County and City
Law
Enforcement,
CHP, Caltrans
Moderate Cal Trans
Grants, EMPG,
HSGP
Transportation Medium ShorttermNot started, funding
not secured yet.
KC-9** Goal 1 Dam Incidents,
Earthquake,
Flood, Land
Subsidence,
Landslide,
Automated
Transportation App -
Develop a
transportation routing
app, similar to the
Kings County Kings County
Public Works,
Kings County
Administration,
City GIS, and
Moderate Community
Power
Resiliency
Allocation
Transportation,
Communications
Low ShorttermNew Action in 2023.
May 23, 2024 Pg. 527
Kings County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Mitigation Strategy
2023 Update Page 5-15
ID LINKS TO
GOALS
HAZARD(S)
MITIGATED
DESCRIPTION/
BACKGROUND/
BENEFITS
JURISDICTION LEAD AGENCY
AND PARTNERS
COST
ESTIMATE
POTENTIAL
FUNDING
FEMA LIFELINE PRIORITY TIMELINE IMPLEMENTATION
STATUS
Severe Weather:
Dense Fog
Caltrans app, to divert
traffic due to road
conditions during
hazard events
Emergency
Management
Department
Program,
EMPG, HMGP
KC-10* Goal 2, Goal
3, Goal 4
Drought Water Conservation
Campaign - Create a
water conservation
campaign, utilizing
social media, signage,
and grass roots
outreach
Kings County Kings County
Administration,
Water Manager,
Utility Districts
Low DWR, FEMA
HMA HMGP
Funds
Food, Water,
Shelter
High ShorttermNew Action in 2023.
KC-11* Goal 2, Goal
4 Drought Floodwater Recharge
Project - Create a flood
water recharge project
utilizing a feasibility
study, pumps, and land
for recharge.
Kings County Kings County
Administration,
Water Manager,
Utility Districts,
City and County
Engineering
Departments
Very High FEMA HMA
HMGP Funds,
DWR
Food, Water,
Shelter
High MediumtermNew Action in 2023.
KC-12* Goal 1, Goal
2, Goal 3,
Goal 4
Drought,
Subsidence
Land Subsidence Study
- Conduct updated
land subsidence study
to understand
elevation, shifts, and
vulnerability.
Kings County Kings County
Administration,
Water Manager,
City and County
Engineering
Departments
Moderate DWR, USACE,
Cal OES
Safety and
Security; Food,
Water, Shelter;
Transportation
Medium ShorttermNew Action in 2023.
KC-13* Goal 1, Goal
2 Flooding, Fire Debris Management
Plan - Create a flood
channel debris
management plan to
allow the flow of water,
increase capacity, and
remove fire hazards.
Kings County Kings County
Public Works,
Water and
Irrigation
Districts, City
Public Works
High Proposition 68,
Federal and
State
Resources
Safety and
Security
High ShorttermNew Action in 2023.
KC-14* Goal 1, Goal
2, Goal 3,
Goal 4
Flood, Severe
Weather – Heavy
Rain/Thunderst
orm/Hail/Lightni
ng, Drought,
Subsidence
Develop a series of
flood control basins on
the Kings River that
either recharge or store
water during flood
flows.
Kings County Kings County
Conservation
District (KRCD),
Local GSAs
Very High DWR Grants Safety and
Security, and
Food, Water,
Shelter
High LongtermNew Action in 2023.
KC-15* Goal 1, Goal
2, Goal 3,
Goal 4
Flood,
Subsidence,
Severe Weather
– Heavy
Rain/Thunderst
orms/Hail/Light
ning
Sediment Removal -
Remove sediment from
the Kings to River to
avoid future capacity
issues.
Kings County KRCD Very High HMPG Funds,
Prop 68
Safety and
Security
High MediumtermNew Action in 2023.
KC-16** Goal 1, Goal
4 Drought Establish a Drought
Task Force – Kings
County will establish
Kings County Water Districts,
Small Water
Suppliers, NonHigh General Fund Water Systems,
Safety and
Security
High ShorttermNew Action in 2023.
May 23, 2024 Pg. 528
Kings County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Mitigation Strategy
2023 Update Page 5-16
ID LINKS TO
GOALS
HAZARD(S)
MITIGATED
DESCRIPTION/
BACKGROUND/
BENEFITS
JURISDICTION LEAD AGENCY
AND PARTNERS
COST
ESTIMATE
POTENTIAL
FUNDING
FEMA LIFELINE PRIORITY TIMELINE IMPLEMENTATION
STATUS
and convene a task
force that develops
water shortage
preparedness planning
efforts for domestic
wells, privately
supplied homes, and
small state water
systems.
Transient NonCommunity
Water Systems;
Kings County
Department of
Public Health
KC-17 Goal 1, Goal
2, Goal 4
Drought Regularly review and
incorporate
information from the
Water Storage
Vulnerability Tool to
update information
about drought and
water shortage
vulnerabilities in the
County’s MJHMP,
WSCPs, and Drought
Resiliency Plan
Kings County Kings County
Office of
Emergency
Services, Water
Districts, Small
Water Suppliers,
Non-Transient
Non-Community
Water Systems,
Kings County
Department of
Public Health
Little to No
Cost
General Fund Water Systems High ShorttermNew Action in 2023.
KC-18 Goal 1, Goal
2, Goal 3,
Goal 4
Drought Water Shortage
Contingency Plans
(WSCPs) - The County
will work with small
water providers to
develop a WSCP and
update the plans every
5 years.
Kings County Kings River
Hardwick School,
Hanford Christian
School, Island
Union School,
Pioneer Union
Elementary
School, Lakeside
Union School,
Kings Ranch
Ministries, Villa
Terrace
Apartments,
Rollerland
Company,
Westlake Farms
Headquarters,
Couture Farms,
State Water
Resources
Control Board
(SWRCB)
Moderate FEMA HMA, CA
DWR
Water Systems Medium ShorttermNew Action in 2023.
KC-19 Goal 1, Goal
2, Goal 3,
Goal 4
Drought County Drought
Resiliency Plan – The
County will develop a
Drought Resiliency
Kings County Water Districts,
Small Water
Suppliers, NonTransient NonModerate FEMA HMA
HMGP, DWR
Water Systems Medium ShorttermNew Action in 2023.
May 23, 2024 Pg. 529
Kings County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Mitigation Strategy
2023 Update Page 5-17
ID LINKS TO
GOALS
HAZARD(S)
MITIGATED
DESCRIPTION/
BACKGROUND/
BENEFITS
JURISDICTION LEAD AGENCY
AND PARTNERS
COST
ESTIMATE
POTENTIAL
FUNDING
FEMA LIFELINE PRIORITY TIMELINE IMPLEMENTATION
STATUS
Plan that includes
water districts, small
water suppliers, and
Non-Transient NonCommunity Water
Systems
Community
Water Systems
KC-20 Goal 1, Goal
2, Goal 3,
Goal 4
Drought Perform a countywide
service area
assessment to address
the needs of
maintaining an
adequate level of
service for all small
public water systems.
Kings County Water Districts,
Small Water
Suppliers, NonTransient NonCommunity
Water Systems,
Kings County
Department of
Public Health
Moderate FEMA HMA
HMGP
Water Systems Medium ShorttermNew Action in 2023.
KC-21 Goal 1, Goal
3 Earthquake Adopt HazardResistant and Modern
Building Ordinance to
improve Seismic
Resiliency – Residential
properties would be
most vulnerable during
a major earthquake.
This action promotes
the regular local
adoption of applicable
building code updates
to the Building
Ordinance that are
consistent with the
minimum
requirements in the
California Building
Code (CBC) and make
use of the International
Code Council (ICC)
model building codes
to provide a higher
level of protection
against seismic
hazards.
Kings County Kings County
Community
Development
Agency
Moderate FEMA Public
Assistance,
National
Earthquake
Hazards
Reduction
Program’s State
Assistance
Grant Program
Safety and
Security; Health
and Medical,
Energy,
Communications,
Transportation
Low ShorttermNew Action in 2023.
KC-22 Goal 1, Goal
2, Goal 3,
Goal 4
Extreme
Temperatures –
Heat
Collaborate with the
Kings County Farm
Bureau to promote
Climate-Smart
Agricultural Practices
that improve crop
Kings County Kings County
Agricultural
Commissioner’s
Office,
Department of
Public Health,
High California
Climate
Investments
Technical
Assistance
Program
Safety and
Security; Health
and Medical,
Energy,
Transportation
Low MediumtermNew Action in 2023.
May 23, 2024 Pg. 530
Kings County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Mitigation Strategy
2023 Update Page 5-18
ID LINKS TO
GOALS
HAZARD(S)
MITIGATED
DESCRIPTION/
BACKGROUND/
BENEFITS
JURISDICTION LEAD AGENCY
AND PARTNERS
COST
ESTIMATE
POTENTIAL
FUNDING
FEMA LIFELINE PRIORITY TIMELINE IMPLEMENTATION
STATUS
resilience to extreme
heat to ensure Kings
County’s working lands
are productive and
vulnerable and
underserved
communities can
access produce
throughout the year
and refrigeration
infrastructure.
Kings County
Farm Bureau
KC-23 Goal 1, Goal
3, Goal 4
Extreme
Temperatures –
Heat,
Earthquake,
Severe Weather:
Heavy
Rain/Thunderst
orm/Hail/Lightni
ng, Severe
Weather:
Wind/Tornado
Kings County Cool
Zone and Warm Zone
Program – Expand
participating
businesses and
continuums of care in
Kings County in
partnership with major
hospitals and medical
clinics to ensure there
are protections in place
for the unhoused and
other vulnerable
populations during
extreme temperature
events. Also consider
retrofitting designated
facilities included in
the Program that can
also serve as Safe
Rooms during
earthquake and severe
weather events.
Kings County Kings County
Department of
Public Health,
Kings County
Office of
Emergency
Services, Kings
Partnership
Moderate EPA Grants,
Office of
Environmental
Health Hazard
Assessment
(OEHHA),
Health and
Human
Services
Agency
Technical
Support
Safety and
Security; Health
and Medical,
Energy,
Transportation
Low MediumTermNew Action in 2023.
KC-24 Goal 1, Goal
3, Goal 4
Extreme
Temperatures –
Heat and
Freeze,
Earthquake,
Severe Weather:
Heavy
Rain/Thunderst
orms/Hail/Light
ning, Severe
Weather:
Wind/Tornado
Conduct a Public
Survey on At-Risk
Community
Demographics and
Disability Needs – A
public survey will be
developed around atrisk communities to
understand those in
the County with Access
and Functional Needs
(AFNs) and other
disabilities, household
Kings County Kings County
Department of
Public Health,
Kings County
Office of
Emergency
Services, Kings
Partnership
Low FEMA HMA
HMGP
Safety and
Security; Health
and Medical,
Energy,
Transportation
High ShortTermNew Action in 2023
May 23, 2024 Pg. 531
Kings County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Mitigation Strategy
2023 Update Page 5-19
ID LINKS TO
GOALS
HAZARD(S)
MITIGATED
DESCRIPTION/
BACKGROUND/
BENEFITS
JURISDICTION LEAD AGENCY
AND PARTNERS
COST
ESTIMATE
POTENTIAL
FUNDING
FEMA LIFELINE PRIORITY TIMELINE IMPLEMENTATION
STATUS
emergency
preparedness and
evacuation and
support needs, and
medical devices and
equipment needs at
sheltering facilities.
KC-25 Goal 1, Goal
3, Goal 4
Landslide Development
Regulations in
Landslide Hazard Areas
- Define steep
slope/high-risk areas in
land use, community
plans, and specific
plans in western Kings
County and create
guidelines for
development in these
areas or restrict
development. The
regulations should also
ensure protections are
in place for critical
facilities, like
transportation and
communications
facilities.
Kings County Kings County
Community
Development
Agency
Low FEMA HMA
HMGP
Safety and
Security; Energy,
Transportation
Low MediumTermNew Action in 2023.
KC-26 Goal 1, Goal
3, Goal 4
Severe Weather
– All
Protect Existing
Substandard Housing
and New Residential
Construction from
Severe Weather
Hazards – Identify
Housing Rehabilitation
Funding Opportunities
and Review Building
Ordinance and
consider inclusion of
techniques such as
structural bracing
(straps or clips, anchor
bolts), shutters, roof
coverings or
interlocking shingles,
flashing, and bracing
elevated components
in building design to
Kings County Kings County
Community
Development
Agency, City of
Avenal, City of
Corcoran, City of
Hanford, City of
Lemoore
Low FEMA HMA
HMGP
Safety and
Security
Low MediumtermNew Action in 2023.
Complements
Mitigation Action
KC-21.
May 23, 2024 Pg. 532
Kings County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Mitigation Strategy
2023 Update Page 5-20
ID LINKS TO
GOALS
HAZARD(S)
MITIGATED
DESCRIPTION/
BACKGROUND/
BENEFITS
JURISDICTION LEAD AGENCY
AND PARTNERS
COST
ESTIMATE
POTENTIAL
FUNDING
FEMA LIFELINE PRIORITY TIMELINE IMPLEMENTATION
STATUS
minimize severe
weather, hail, and wind
hazards.
KC-27 Goal 1, Goal
3, Goal 4
Severe Weather
– Wind/Tornado
Protect Power Line
Infrastructure and
Coordinate a
Community Back-Up
Power Resiliency Plan
during PSPS Events –
This will involve
coordination with the
CPUC, PG&E and SCE
and the purchase of
permanent generators
in partnership with
hospitals, nursing
homes, and sheltering
facilities.
Kings County CPUC, Electric
Safety and
Reliability
Branch, PG&E,
SCE, City of
Avenal
High FEMA HMA
HMGP, CPUC
Rule 20
Undergroundin
g Programs,
Federal
Transportation
Enhancements
Program (under
TEA-21)
Energy Low MediumtermNew Action in 2023.
KC-28 Goal 1, Goal
3, Goal 4
Wildfire Regulate Development
in Wildfire Urban
Interface (WUI) in
Western Portion of
County – Update Safety
Element policies to
address current wildfire
risk, discourage
development in the
WUI (very high Fire
Hazard Severity Zones
[VHFHSZs] or State
Responsibility Area
[SRA]), and implement
defensible space
inspection
requirements through
zoning or land use
regulations related to
emergency
accessibility, water
supply and flow for fire
suppression, visible
street addressing and
signage, defensible
space clearances, fuel
modifications, and fire
breaks.
Kings County Kings County Fire
Department
Moderate General Fund Safety and
Security; Food,
Hydration,
Shelter; Health
and Medical;
Energy;
Communications,
Transportation;
Water Systems
Low ShorttermNew Action in 2023.
May 23, 2024 Pg. 533
Kings County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Mitigation Strategy
2023 Update Page 5-21
ID LINKS TO
GOALS
HAZARD(S)
MITIGATED
DESCRIPTION/
BACKGROUND/
BENEFITS
JURISDICTION LEAD AGENCY
AND PARTNERS
COST
ESTIMATE
POTENTIAL
FUNDING
FEMA LIFELINE PRIORITY TIMELINE IMPLEMENTATION
STATUS
A-1 Goal 1, Goal
3, Goal 4
Earthquake,
Land
Subsidence,
Landslide
Housing Rehabilitation
Program - Continue
and enhance housing
rehabilitation program.
Avenal City of Avenal
Community
Development
Director
High General Fund,
Housing and
Urban
Development
(HUD)
Community
Development
Block Grant
(CDBG) Funds,
HOME, Cal
Home Program
Food, Hydration,
Shelter
Medium MediumtermIn progress. Homes
continue to be
rehabbed with these
funds-first come first
serve. The City has
received funding
from CDBG, HOME,
and the Cal Home
Program to
rehabilitate homes.
Under this program
most homes are torn
down and
reconstructed to
current codes.
A-2 Goal 1, Goal
2, Goal 3,
Goal 4
Flood, Drought,
Earthquake,
Land
Subsidence
Vulnerability of Water
Distribution System –
Upgrade the two water
transmission lines that
supply water to the city
and Avenal State Prison
(one 18‐inch line and
one 12‐inch line) that
experience water leaks
and movement due to
earthquakes that lead
to slope failure.
Avenal City of Avenal
Public Works
Department
High FEMA HMA
HMPG, BRIC
Food, Hydration,
Shelter
Medium LongtermIn progress.
Expected to be
completed
December 2023.
A-3 Goal 1, Goal
3, Goal 4
Earthquake,
Subsidence,
Landslide
Loss Reduction
Program for
unreinforced masonry
(URM) Buildings -
Establish a loss
reduction program for
URM buildings in
compliance with the
California URM Law of
1986. In response to the
danger posed by the
great number of
potentially hazardous
buildings in California,
in 1986 the state
legislature enacted the
URM building law
(Chapter 250, Statutes
of 1986: SF547 [Alquist];
Government Code
Avenal City of Avenal
City Manager’s
Office, California
Seismic Safety
Commission, City
of Avenal Public
Works
Department
Very High FEMA HMA
HMGP, BRIC,
General Fund,
Staff Time
Food, Hydration,
Shelter
Medium LongtermIn progress.
May 23, 2024 Pg. 534
Kings County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Mitigation Strategy
2023 Update Page 5-22
ID LINKS TO
GOALS
HAZARD(S)
MITIGATED
DESCRIPTION/
BACKGROUND/
BENEFITS
JURISDICTION LEAD AGENCY
AND PARTNERS
COST
ESTIMATE
POTENTIAL
FUNDING
FEMA LIFELINE PRIORITY TIMELINE IMPLEMENTATION
STATUS
Section 8875 et seq.).
The law mitigates
hazards posed by
URMs and applies to all
jurisdictions in
California's Seismic
Hazard Zone 4, the
region of highest
earthquake activity in
the nation.
A-4 Goal 2, Goal
4 Earthquake Replace Existing Valves
at Tank Sites with
Earthquake Valves to
Protect Water Supply
Avenal City of Avenal
Public Works
Moderate General Fund Safety and
Security
Medium Medium
Term
New Action in 2023.
A-5 Goal 2, Goal
3, Goal 4
Drought Water Supply
Rehabilitation - Install
valve at the City water
source to isolate from
joint use facilities to
maintain water supply
during unexpected
outages of Westland
Water District facility.
Avenal DWR, City of
Avenal,
Westlands Water
District
Very High FEMA HMA
HMGP, BRIC,
USDA DWSRF,
DWR Urban
Community
Drought Relief
Grant Program
Food, Hydration,
Shelter
Low Medium
Term
New Action in 2023.
A-6 Goal 1, Goal
2, Goal 3,
Goal 4
Flood; Severe
Weather: Heavy
Rain, Thunder,
Hail, and
Lightning
Improve Flow Design
for Arroyo Esquinado
Channel
Avenal City of Avenal
Public Works
Department
Moderate FEMA HMA
HMGP, BRIC
Water Systems Medium Medium
Term
New Action in 2023.
A-7 Goal 1, Goal
2, Goal 3,
Goal 4
Flood Stormwater Drainage
Master Plan
Avenal City of Avenal
Public Works
Department
Moderate General Fund Water Systems Medium Medium
Term
New Action in 2023.
A-8* Goal 1, Goal
2, Goal 3,
Goal 4
Flood Investigate Capacity for
Floodwater
Conveyance Facilities
(Drainage Ditches and
Culverts) along Arroyo
del Camino
Avenal City of Avenal
Public Works
Department
Moderate FEMA HMA
HMGP, BRIC,
General Fund
Water Systems Low Medium
Term
New Action in 2023.
A-9* Goal 1, Goal
2, Goal 3,
Goal 4
Land
Subsidence
Conduct updated Land
Subsidence Study to
understand Elevation,
Shifts, and
Vulnerability.
Avenal Kings County
Administration,
Water
Management
Agencies, City of
Avenal Public
Works
Department
Moderate DWR, FEMA
HMA HMGP,
USACE
Safety and
Security, Food
and Water,
Shelter,
Transportation
Medium Long
Term
New Action in 2023.
May 23, 2024 Pg. 535
Kings County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Mitigation Strategy
2023 Update Page 5-23
ID LINKS TO
GOALS
HAZARD(S)
MITIGATED
DESCRIPTION/
BACKGROUND/
BENEFITS
JURISDICTION LEAD AGENCY
AND PARTNERS
COST
ESTIMATE
POTENTIAL
FUNDING
FEMA LIFELINE PRIORITY TIMELINE IMPLEMENTATION
STATUS
A-10 Goal 1, Goal
2, Goal 3,
Goal 4
Wildfire Undergrounding of
Utilities along City’s
Main Corridors
Avenal Kings County Fire
Department
High FEMA HMA
HMGP, US
Forest Service
WUI Grants
Energy Medium Medium
Term
New Action in 2023.
A-11 Goal 1, Goal
3, Goal 4
Extreme
Temperatures –
Heat and
Freeze,
Earthquake,
Severe Weather:
Heavy Rain,
Thunderstorms,
Hail, and
Lightning,
Severe Weather:
Wind and
Tornado
Conduct a Public
Survey on At-Risk
Community
Demographics and
Disability Needs – A
public survey will be
developed around atrisk communities to
understand those in
the County with Access
and Functional Needs
(AFNs) and other
disabilities, household
emergency
preparedness and
evacuation and
support needs, and
medical devices and
equipment needs at
sheltering facilities.
Avenal Kings County
Department of
Public Health,
Kings County
Office of
Emergency
Services, Kings
Partnership
Low FEMA HMA
HMGP
Health and
Medical, Energy,
Transportation
High Short
Term
New Action in 2023.
C-1 Goal 1, Goal
2, Goal 3
Extreme
Temperatures:
Freeze and Heat
Equip and maintain
the Recreational
Association of Corcoran
(RAC) Gymnasium
Building, and Corcoran
Transit Station with
climate control
features and designate
each site as an
Emergency Warming
and Cooling Center for
Sensitive Populations
Corcoran City of Corcoran
Public Works
Department
High FEMA HMA
HMGP, Other
State Grants
Safety and
Security
High Long
Term
In progress - revised
in 2023. This project
has been carried
over from the 2007
and 2012 MJHMPs.
This action has also
been modified to
now include the RAC
Building and the
Corcoran Transit
Station. These
facilities are already
in use for this
purpose and now
need to be
maintained for this
use.
C-2** Goal 1, Goal
3 Extreme
Temperatures:
Extreme Heat
Emergency Power
System for the
Corcoran Depot
Apartment complex
operated by the Kings
Corcoran City of Corcoran
Public Works,
Kings County
Office of
Emergency
Services
High, Community
Power
Resiliency
Allocation
Program,
EMPG, FEMA
Energy High Short
Term
In progress - revised
in 2023. Use of the
Veteran’s Hall is no
longer needed now
that the RAC
gymnasium is
May 23, 2024 Pg. 536
Kings County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Mitigation Strategy
2023 Update Page 5-24
ID LINKS TO
GOALS
HAZARD(S)
MITIGATED
DESCRIPTION/
BACKGROUND/
BENEFITS
JURISDICTION LEAD AGENCY
AND PARTNERS
COST
ESTIMATE
POTENTIAL
FUNDING
FEMA LIFELINE PRIORITY TIMELINE IMPLEMENTATION
STATUS
County Housing
Authority.
HMA HMGP,
SHSGP Grant
Program
outfitted and serves
a larger population.
The next critically
identified need area
is the Corcoran
Depot apartment
complex as it houses
a concentrated area
of senior and special
needs individuals.
C-3 Goal 1, Goal
2, Goal 3,
Goal 4
Earthquake,
Flood, Land
Subsidence
Assess the Vulnerability
of Critical Facilities –
Assess vulnerability of
critical facilities,
including police/fire
stations, hospitals,
schools, and others, to
identify and prioritize
projects for multi‐
hazard risk reduction.
Corcoran City of Corcoran
Public Works,
Police
Department
High General Fund Water Systems High Ongoing In progress. This was carried over from the
2012 MJHMP. The
Police Department
building is a newly
constructed building
that shifted all Police
Department
operations to the
new facility in 2019.
Other City facilities
are routinely
reviewed through
risk management
authority in order to
maintain current
insurance.
C-4 Goal 1, Goal
2, Goal 3,
Goal 4
Drought Assess Community
Lifelines related to
Water Distribution
Systems – Assess
vulnerability of lifeline
utilities, including
water distribution
systems, to identify and
prioritize projects for
multi‐hazard risk
reduction.
Corcoran City of Corcoran
Public Works
Department
High Department of
Water
Resources
(DWR) and
Regional Water
Quality Control
Board (RWQCB)
Safety and
Security, Water
Systems
High Ongoing In progress. This was
carried over from the
2007 MJHMP.
Upgrades and
investments are
routinely planned for
the City’s CIP and
funding through
grants, loans, and
other City funding.
The City’s Water
system is monitored
and upgraded to
maintain reliable
system services,
which also proactively addresses
challenges posed by
the drought. The
City’s Wastewater
May 23, 2024 Pg. 537
Kings County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Mitigation Strategy
2023 Update Page 5-25
ID LINKS TO
GOALS
HAZARD(S)
MITIGATED
DESCRIPTION/
BACKGROUND/
BENEFITS
JURISDICTION LEAD AGENCY
AND PARTNERS
COST
ESTIMATE
POTENTIAL
FUNDING
FEMA LIFELINE PRIORITY TIMELINE IMPLEMENTATION
STATUS
ponds and
connecting system
were recently
upgraded using
American Rescue
Plan (ARP) funding.
C-5 Goal 3 Cyber Threat Use antivirus solutions,
malware, and firewalls
to block threats
Corcoran City of Corcoran,
Public Works
Department
Moderate General Fund Safety and
Security;
Communications
Medium Ongoing New Action in 2023.
The City has assessed
network
vulnerabilities and is
currently
Implementing
measures for
cybersecurity.
Monitoring and
evaluation will be
ongoing to evaluate
changes and risks.
C-6** Goal 1, Goal
2, Goal 3
Dam Incidents,
Earthquake,
Flood, Severe
Weather: Dense
Fog, Severe
Weather: Heavy
Rain,
Thunderstorms,
Lightning, and
Hail
Community Alert and
Warning System -
Purchase, install, test,
and utilize a
community wide alert
and early warning
system that alerts
residents by phone,
email, cell phone and
other electronic
communication
devices. This system
can be expanded to
include a Flood Early
Warning System
(FEWS) component
(HMGP eligible
component) that
utilizes USGS and
NOAA rainfall and flood
gauges to initiate
flood-specific warnings
and downstream
evacuations.
Corcoran City of Corcoran,
Corcoran Police
Department, and
Kings County
OES
Moderate Emergency
Management
Performance
Grant (EMPG),
Homeland
Security Grant
Program
(HSGP), High
Hazard
Potential Dam
(HHPD), FEWS
designs that
are eligible for
HMPG funding
Safety and
Security, Water
Systems
High Ongoing New Action in 2023.
The City has
implemented NIXLE
Alert System, and
utilizes City
associated social
media for
community
announcements.
Extended
Countywide alert
notification system is
in development
through Kings
County OES –
Funding has been
secured through a
EMPG Grant.
C-7 Goal 1, Goal
2, Goal 3
Drought Public Education
Program for Water
Conservation
Corcoran City of Corcoran,
City Public Works
Department
Low General Fund,
City Water
Enterprise
Fund, and
Department of
Water Systems High Ongoing New Action in 2023.
The City is currently
implementing
citywide water meter
installation along
May 23, 2024 Pg. 538
Kings County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Mitigation Strategy
2023 Update Page 5-26
ID LINKS TO
GOALS
HAZARD(S)
MITIGATED
DESCRIPTION/
BACKGROUND/
BENEFITS
JURISDICTION LEAD AGENCY
AND PARTNERS
COST
ESTIMATE
POTENTIAL
FUNDING
FEMA LIFELINE PRIORITY TIMELINE IMPLEMENTATION
STATUS
Water
Resources
funding.
with public use
property water use
application, water
restriction
notifications, and
enhancing water
utility payment
information.
Together, these
systems are
providing enhanced
water conservation
education to the
public and is
anticipated to affect
greater conservation
headed into 2024
summer.
C-8* Goal 1, Goal
2, Goal 3,
Goal 4
Flooding,
Drought,
Subsidence
Corcoran Flood
Protection – MultiAgency Strategic Plan
for Upstream
Floodwater Diversion to
Reduce Tulare Lake
Flooding
Corcoran City of Corcoran,
Cross Creek Flood
Control District,
other Water &
Irrigation Districts
representing the
Tulare Lake Basin,
and DWR
Very High FEMA HMA
HMGP, DWR
Riverine
Stewardship
Program and
Urban Stream
Restoration
Program, Prop
68 Funds
(Floodplain
Management,
Protection, and
Risk Awareness
Grant Program)
Water Systems High Long
Term
New Action in 2023.
Acknowledges that
the USACE controls
water releases from
Pine Flat, Terminus,
Schaefer, and
Isabella Dams, and
water and irrigation
districts in Kings,
Tulare, Fresno, and
Kern counties. It is
critical to beneficial
groundwater
recharge and
management.
C-9* Goal 1, Goal
3, Goal 4
Dam Failure;
Flood; Severe
Weather:
Heavy Rain,
Thunder, Hail,
and Lightning
Enhanced Erosion
Control and Protection
of the Flood Control
Levee
Corcoran City of Corcoran,
Cross Creek Flood
Control District
High FEMA HMA
HMGP, DWR
Urban
Community
Drought Relief
Program
Safety and
Security
Medium Long
Term
New Action in 2023.
DWR response to
2023 flooding
provided erosion
control measures
along the Corcoran
Levee for enhanced
erosion control. This
established a flood
response measure
that can be
replicated in future
years with flood
disasters.
May 23, 2024 Pg. 539
Kings County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Mitigation Strategy
2023 Update Page 5-27
ID LINKS TO
GOALS
HAZARD(S)
MITIGATED
DESCRIPTION/
BACKGROUND/
BENEFITS
JURISDICTION LEAD AGENCY
AND PARTNERS
COST
ESTIMATE
POTENTIAL
FUNDING
FEMA LIFELINE PRIORITY TIMELINE IMPLEMENTATION
STATUS
C-10* Goal 2, Goal
3, Goal 4
Flooding,
Drought,
Subsidence
Increase Reservoir
Storage for Control of
Floodwater
Corcoran Cross Creek Flood
Control District,
City of Corcoran,
USACE, Kings
County, Other
Water Districts
Very High FEMA HMA
HMGP, DWR
Grants
Water Systems High Long
Term
New Action in 2023.
C-11 Goal 3 Public Health
Hazards
Utilize trainings and
exercises,
epidemiology, and
surveillance to control
and combat public
health risks
Corcoran Kings County,
City of Corcoran
Moderate General Fund Health and
Medical
Medium Short
Term
New Action in 2023.
This would be a
Kings County Public
Health Department
initiated effort that
the City supports
and helps to
facilitate in Corcoran.
C-12* Goal 1, Goal
2, Goal 3
Flooding Update the City’s
Storm Drain Master
Plan every Few Years to
included Planned
Growth Areas
Corcoran City of Corcoran Low General Fund Water Systems Low Short Term
New Action in 2023.
This is needed
infrastructure for the
City to diversify
disbursement of
stormwater drainage
within the City.
C-13* Goal l, Goal
2, Goal 3
Flooding Continue to Participate
with the Cross Creek
Flood Control District
to Ensure Levees
Protecting Corcoran
from Tulare Lake
Flooding are
Adequately Monitored
Corcoran City of Corcoran,
Cross Creek Flood
Control District
Low General Fund Water Systems,
Safety and
Security
High Short
Term
New Action in 2023.
This is ongoing
monitoring and
maintenance efforts
that are needed.
New Action in 2023;
this was integrated
from the Safety
Element (Policy 4.17).
C-14 Goal 1, Goal
3, Goal 4
Extreme
Temperatures –
Heat and
Freeze,
Earthquake,
Severe Weather:
Heavy Rain,
Thunderstorms,
Hail, and
Lightning,
Severe Weather:
Wind and
Tornado
Conduct a Public
Survey on At-Risk
Community
Demographics and
Disability Needs – A
public survey will be
developed around atrisk communities to
understand those in
the County with Access
and Functional Needs
(AFNs) and other
disabilities, household
emergency
preparedness and
evacuation and
support needs, and
Corcoran Kings County
Department of
Public Health,
Kings County
Office of
Emergency
Services, Kings
Partnership
Low FEMA HMA
HMGP
Safety and
Security, Health
and Medical,
Energy,
Transportation
High Short
Term
New Action in 2023/
May 23, 2024 Pg. 540
Kings County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Mitigation Strategy
2023 Update Page 5-28
ID LINKS TO
GOALS
HAZARD(S)
MITIGATED
DESCRIPTION/
BACKGROUND/
BENEFITS
JURISDICTION LEAD AGENCY
AND PARTNERS
COST
ESTIMATE
POTENTIAL
FUNDING
FEMA LIFELINE PRIORITY TIMELINE IMPLEMENTATION
STATUS
medical devices and
equipment needs at
sheltering facilities.
H-1 Goal 1, Goal
2, Goal 3
Drought,
Earthquake,
Extreme
Temperatures,
Flood, Public
Health Hazards,
Wildfire
Public Education
Program for All
Hazards
Hanford County and City
Public Works,
Kings County
Health Dept.,
Kings County
OES
Low General Fund Safety and
Security
High Ongoing In progress. The
Hanford Fire
Department hired a
Fire Mashal to lead
Community Risk
Reduction and
public education
program for the
department.
Outreach now
includes numerous
events such as
school programs and
other monthly
events.
H-2 Goal 1, Goal
3 Drought Retrofits to Water
Storage Tanks – Two
water storage tanks
holding 800,000
gallons of water need
to be seismically
retrofitted against
seismic and fire
hazards following
earthquakes
Hanford City of Hanford
Public Works
Department
Moderate DWR Grants,
HMGP
Food, Water
Shelter
High Ongoing In progress. Drilled
two new wells to
feed the system and
added two
additional 500,000
water tanks being
proposed as part of
the City
Infrastructure Plan.
H-3 Goal 1, Goal
2, Goal 3
Earthquake GIS Database of
Unreinforced Masonry
(URM) Buildings
Hanford City of Hanford
Fire Department,
Kings County
Community
Development,
OES, City GIS, IT
Moderate General Fund Safety and
Security;
Communication;
Transportation
Medium Short
Term
Not started. Funding
not secured yet.
H-4 Goal 1, Goal
3, Goal 4
Earthquake Retrofit 58 URM
Buildings in Downtown
Hanford
Hanford City of Hanford
City Manager’s
Office
Very High FEMA HMA
HMGP
Food, Hydration,
Shelter
Medium Long
Term
In progress. In
certain cases, the
City has required
developers to
conform to the most
recent
H-5 Goal 1, Goal
2 Earthquake,
Dam Incidents,
Flood, Wildfire
Disaster Evacuation
Routes - Ensure the
maintenance and
enhancement of
established disaster
evacuation routes
Hanford City of Hanford
City Manager’s
Office, City of
Hanford Public
Works
Department,
Moderate General Fund Transportation Medium Medium
Term
Not started.
May 23, 2024 Pg. 541
Kings County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Mitigation Strategy
2023 Update Page 5-29
ID LINKS TO
GOALS
HAZARD(S)
MITIGATED
DESCRIPTION/
BACKGROUND/
BENEFITS
JURISDICTION LEAD AGENCY
AND PARTNERS
COST
ESTIMATE
POTENTIAL
FUNDING
FEMA LIFELINE PRIORITY TIMELINE IMPLEMENTATION
STATUS
Kings County
OES
H-6 Goal 1 Dam Incidents,
Earthquake,
Flood,
Subsidence,
Landslide, Fog,
Severe Storms,
Wildfire
Develop a
transportation routing
app, like the Caltrans
app, to divert traffic
due to road conditions
during hazard events.
Hanford Kings County
Public Works,
Kings County
Administration
Moderate Community
Power
Resiliency
Allocation
Program,
Emergency
Management
Performance
Grant (EMPG),
HMGP
Transportation,
Communication
Low Short
Term
New Action in 2023.
H-7 Goal 1, Goal
2 Flooding,
Wildfire
Create a flood channel
debris management
plan to allow the flow
of water, increase
capacity, and remove
fire hazards.
Hanford Kings County
Public Works,
Water and
Irrigation
Districts, City
Public Works
High Proposition 68,
Federal and
State
Resources
Safety and
Security
High Short
Term
New Action in 2023.
H-8 Goal 1, Goal
2, Goal 3,
Goal 4
Flood; Severe
Weather: Heavy
Rain, Thunder,
Hail and
Lightning;
Drought;
Subsidence
Develop a series of
flood control basins on
the Kings River that
either recharge or store
water during flood
flows.
Hanford Kings County
Conservation
District (KRCD),
Local GSAs
Very High DWR Grants,
FEMA HMA
HMGP, BRIC
Safety and
Security, and
Food, Water,
Shelter
High Long
Term
New Action in 2023.
H-9 Goal 1, Goal
2, Goal 3,
Goal 4
Flood, Severe
Weather: Heavy
Rain, Thunder,
Hail and
Lightning
Evaluate federal levees
to determine height
and make-up of levees
to protect during 100-
year storm events.
Hanford United States
Army Corps of
Engineers
(USACE), KRCD
Very High USACE Grants Safety and
Security
High Long
Term
New Action in 2023.
H-10 Goal 1, Goal
2, Goal 3,
Goal 4
Flood,
Subsidence,
Severe Weather:
Heavy Rain,
Thunder, Hail
and Lightning
Remove sediment from
Kings River to avoid
future capacity issues.
Hanford KRCD Very High HMPG Funds.
Prop 68
Safety and
Security
High Medium
Term
New Action in 2023.
H-11 Goal 1, Goal
2, Goal 3,
Goal 4
Drought,
Subsidence
Conduct updated land
subsidence study to
understand elevations,
shifts, and vulnerability.
Hanford Kings County
Administration,
Water
Management
Agencies
Moderate DWR, USACE,
Cal OES
Safety and
Security, Food,
water, Shelter,
Transportation
Medium Short
Term
New Action in 2023.
H-12 Goal 3 Cyber-attack Use antivirus solutions,
malware, and firewalls
to block threats
Hanford Kings County,
Avenal, Corcoran,
Hanford,
Lemoore
Moderate General fund Safety and
Security,
Communications
Medium Ongoing New Action in 2023.
May 23, 2024 Pg. 542
Kings County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Mitigation Strategy
2023 Update Page 5-30
ID LINKS TO
GOALS
HAZARD(S)
MITIGATED
DESCRIPTION/
BACKGROUND/
BENEFITS
JURISDICTION LEAD AGENCY
AND PARTNERS
COST
ESTIMATE
POTENTIAL
FUNDING
FEMA LIFELINE PRIORITY TIMELINE IMPLEMENTATION
STATUS
H-13 Goal 3 Public Health
Hazards
Utilize trainings and
exercises,
epidemiology, and
surveillance to control
and combat public
health risks
Hanford County and City
Public Health
Departments
Moderate General Fund Health and
Medical
Medium Ongoing New Action in 2023.
H-14 Goal 1, Goal
3 Earthquake,
Drought
Safety Building &
Community Center –
Create a safety building
for police and fire
administration.
Building will house
EOC and a community
center
Hanford Hanford Police
and Fire
Departments
Moderate General Fund Safety and
Security
Medium Medium
Term
New Action in 2023.
H-15 Goal 1, Goal
3, Goal 4
Extreme
Temperatures:
Heat and Freeze
Extreme Weather
Shelter - Develop plan
for center to assist atrisk populations during
extreme weather
events. Coordinate with
regional plans for
consistency.
Hanford Hanford
Community
Development
Agency, Police
and Fire
Department
Moderate General Fund,
APGP
Food, Hydration,
Shelter
High Medium
Term
New Action in 2023.
H-16 Goal 1, Goal
3, Goal 4
Dam Incidents,
Earthquake,
Flood, Dense
Fog Heavy Rain,
Thunderstorms,
Hail, and
Lightning, High
Wind and
Tornado,
Wildfire
Grangeville Overpass -
Design and build an
overpass for the train
tracks to allow
emergency vehicle
access during a hazard
event.
Hanford Hanford Public
Works,
Community
Development,
and
Administration
Very High General Fund Transportation High Long
Term
New Action in 2023.
H-17 Goal 1, Goal
3, Goal 4
Dam Incidents,
Earthquake,
Flood, Dense
Fog Heavy Rain,
Thunderstorms,
Hail, and
Lightning, High
Wind and
Tornado,
Wildfire
Assess the Capacity
and Viability of
Designate Evacuation
Routes and Develop
Evacuation Plan for All
Hazard Scenarios
Hanford Hanford Public
Works,
Community
Development,
and
Administration
Very High General Fund Transportation High Long
Term
New Action in 2023.
H-18 Goal 1, Goal
3, Goal 4
Dam Incidents;
Extreme
Temperatures –
Heat and
Freeze,
Conduct a Public
Survey on At-Risk
Community
Demographics and
Disability Needs – A
Hanford Kings County
Department of
Public Health,
Kings County
Office of
Low FEMA HMA
HMGP
Safety and
Security, Health
and Medical,
Energy,
Transportation
High ShortTermNew in 2023
May 23, 2024 Pg. 543
Kings County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Mitigation Strategy
2023 Update Page 5-31
ID LINKS TO
GOALS
HAZARD(S)
MITIGATED
DESCRIPTION/
BACKGROUND/
BENEFITS
JURISDICTION LEAD AGENCY
AND PARTNERS
COST
ESTIMATE
POTENTIAL
FUNDING
FEMA LIFELINE PRIORITY TIMELINE IMPLEMENTATION
STATUS
Earthquake,
Severe Weather:
Heavy Rain,
Thunderstorms,
Hail, and
Lightning,
Severe Weather:
Wind and
Tornado
public survey will be
developed around atrisk communities to
understand those in
the County with Access
and Functional Needs
(AFNs) and other
disabilities, household
emergency
preparedness and
evacuation and
support needs, and
medical devices and
equipment needs at
sheltering facilities.
Emergency
Services, Kings
Partnership
L-1 Goal 1, Goal
3 Drought,
Earthquake,
Extreme Heat,
Flood, Fog,
Freeze, Wildfire
Public Education
Program for All
Hazards
Lemoore City of Lemoore,
City Public
Works, Kings
County Health
Department,
Kings County
OES,
Low General Fund,
FEMA HMA
HMGP, EMPG
Safety and
Security;
Communications
High Short
Term
In progress. This
project entails
establishing a
training program to
educate citizens
about hazards and
encourage
households to have
emergency kits,
plans, and drills in
place.
L-2 Goal 1, Goal
2, Goal 3,
Goal 4
Drought Long-Term Water
Supply – Improve
coordination, planning,
and investment in
long-term water
supplies to meet
demands of ongoing
growth and
development
Lemoore City of Lemoore,
Kings County
Water District,
Kings County,
Kings County
COG
Moderate DWR Funds Water Systems High Short
Term
In progress. The City
has installed a new
well head and is
actively pursuing
funding sources to
complete treatment
and connection to
water supply for
development on the
south side of town.
L-3* Goal 1, Goal
3, Goal 4
Earthquake,
Flood, Land
Subsidence
Inter-jurisdictional GIS
Program -– Establish a
centralized, interjurisdictional GIS
program to improve all
phases of emergency
management
Lemoore City of Lemoore
Planning
Department
Low FEMA HMA
HMGP, ESRI,
General Fund
Communications High Ongoing In progress. This
project was
completed as part of
the 2012 MJHMP but
carried forward in
that plan as an
ongoing effort. The
City continues to
participate in the
Municipal GIS
Program with the
May 23, 2024 Pg. 544
Kings County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Mitigation Strategy
2023 Update Page 5-32
ID LINKS TO
GOALS
HAZARD(S)
MITIGATED
DESCRIPTION/
BACKGROUND/
BENEFITS
JURISDICTION LEAD AGENCY
AND PARTNERS
COST
ESTIMATE
POTENTIAL
FUNDING
FEMA LIFELINE PRIORITY TIMELINE IMPLEMENTATION
STATUS
Kings County
Planning
Department.
L-4 Goal 1, Goal
3 Dam Incidents,
Earthquake,
Flood,
Subsidence,
Landslide, Fog,
Severe Storms,
Wildfire
Develop a
transportation routing
app, similar to the
Caltrans app, to divert
traffic due to road
conditions during
hazard events
Lemoore Kings County
Public Works,
Kings County
Administration,
Kings County,
City of Lemoore
Low FEMA HMA
HMGP
Transportation Low Medium
Term
New Action in 2023.
L-5 Goal 1, Goal
2, Goal 3,
Goal 4
Drought Public Education
Program for Water
Supply and
Conservation
Lemoore City of Lemoore
Administration
Department,
Finance
Department
Low FEMA HMA
HMGP, DWR
Grants
Water Systems Medium Short
Term
New Action in 2023.
The City of Lemoore
recently hired a
Water Conservation
Officer to provide
public education on
water supply and
conservation
measures.
L-6 Goal 1, Goal
2, Goal 3,
Goal 4
Flood Well Protection and
Flood Mitigation –
Protect Wells from
Floodwaters during
Future Flooding Events
by Building
Infrastructure and
Protection around the
Well Sites
Lemoore City of Lemoore
Public Works
High FEMA HMA
HMGP, DWR
Funds, USDA
DWSRF
Water Systems Medium Medium
Term
New Action in 2023.
The City of Lemoore
Public Works
Department has
created berms
around City wells
and is researching
additional protective
measure solutions.
L-7 Goal 1, Goal
2 Flood, Wildfire Create a flood channel
debris management
plan to allow the flow
of water, increase
capacity, and remove
fire hazards.
Lemoore City of Lemoore,
Kings County
Public Works,
Water and
Irrigation
Districts, City
Public Works,
Kings County
High FEMA HMA
HMGP
Safety and
Security, Water
Systems
High Medium
Term
New Action in 2023.
L-8* Goal 1, Goal
2, Goal 3,
Goal 4
Drought,
Subsidence
Conduct updated land
subsidence study to
understand elevations,
shifts, and vulnerability.
Lemoore City of Lemoore,
Kings County
Administration,
Water
Management
Agencies
Moderate DWR, USACE,
Cal OES
Safety and
Security, Food,
water, Shelter,
Transportation
Low Short
Term
New Action in 2023.
The City currently
performs subsidence
studies at areas of
concern.
L-9 Goal 3 Cyber Attack Use antivirus solutions,
malware, and firewalls
to block threats
Lemoore Kings County,
Avenal, Corcoran,
Hanford,
Lemoore
Moderate General fund,
HSGP
Safety and
Security,
Communications
Medium Short
Term
New Action in 2023.
City of Lemoore IT
staff will assess cyber
security needs and
seek solutions to
May 23, 2024 Pg. 545
Kings County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Mitigation Strategy
2023 Update Page 5-33
ID LINKS TO
GOALS
HAZARD(S)
MITIGATED
DESCRIPTION/
BACKGROUND/
BENEFITS
JURISDICTION LEAD AGENCY
AND PARTNERS
COST
ESTIMATE
POTENTIAL
FUNDING
FEMA LIFELINE PRIORITY TIMELINE IMPLEMENTATION
STATUS
improve security
measures.
L-10 Goal 3 Public Health
Hazards
Utilize trainings and
exercises,
epidemiology, and
surveillance to control
and combat public
health risks
Lemoore County Public
Health
Department
Moderate General Fund Health and
Medical
Low Short
Term
New Action in 2023.
The City does not
have a Public Health
Department but will
coordinate with the
Kings County Public
Health Department
during public health
emergencies.
L-11 Goal 1, Goal
3 Dam Incidents Develop plan
addressing
communication and
evacuation for
vulnerable populations
in areas potentially
impacted by Pine Flat
Dam failure.
Lemoore Kings County
OES
Low General Fund Communications,
Safety and
Security
Low Short
Term
New Action in 2023.
The City will
coordinate with
Kings County OES to
create a response
plan addressing the
impacts of a dam
failure.
L-12 Goal 1, Goal
3, Goal 4
Dam Incidents;
Extreme
Temperatures –
Heat and
Freeze,
Earthquake,
Severe Weather:
Heavy Rain,
Thunderstorms,
Hail, and
Lightning,
Severe Weather:
Wind and
Tornado; Severe
Weather: Dense
Fog
Conduct a Public
Survey on At-Risk
Community
Demographics and
Disability Needs – A
public survey will be
developed around atrisk communities to
understand those in
the County with Access
and Functional Needs
(AFNs) and other
disabilities, household
emergency
preparedness and
evacuation and
support needs, and
medical devices and
equipment needs at
sheltering facilities.
Lemoore Kings County
Department of
Public Health,
Kings County
Office of
Emergency
Services, Kings
Partnership
Low FEMA HMA
HMGP
; Safety and
Security, Health
and Medical,
Energy,
Transportation
High ShortTermNew Action in 2023
NOTES:
• HMA – Hazard Mitigation Assistant Program
• HMGP – Hazard Mitigation Grant Program
• HSGP – Homeland Security Grant Program
• EMPG – Emergency Management Performance Grant
• Community Power Resiliency Allocation Grant Program – formerly the Public Safety Power Shutoff (PSPS) Program Funds May 23, 2024 Pg. 546
Kings County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Mitigation Strategy
2023 Update Page 5-34
• DWR – Department of Water Resources Grant Funds
• Proposition 68 – water bond funds allocated to recreation, ecosystem protection, habitat conservation, and climate resilience projects • KRCD – Kings River Conservation District Funds (funding from the California Department of Conservation [DOC]) • USACE – U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Funds
• APGP – Adaptation Planning Grant Program
May 23, 2024 Pg. 547
Kings County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Mitigation Strategy
2023 Update Page 5-35
Table 5-5 provides a summary of the individual mitigation actions by jurisdiction specific to the municipalities that participated in the 2022-2023 plan update. Together with the County goals, objectives, and actions the tables provide an overview of all the mitigation actions proposed. More details on jurisdiction-specific mitigation actions can be found in the respective jurisdictional annexes.
Table 5-5 Jurisdictional Mitigation Action Summary
ID HAZARD(S)
MITIGATED
PROJECT TITLE LEAD AGENCY
AND PARTNERS
PRIORITY IMPLENTATION STATUS
City of Avenal
A-1 Earthquake,
Land
Subsidence,
Landslide
Housing Rehabilitation Program -
Continue and enhance housing
rehabilitation program.
City of Avenal
Community
Development
Director
Medium In progress. Homes continue to
be rehabbed with these fundsfirst come first serve. The City has received funding from CDBG,
HOME, and the Cal Home
Program to rehabilitate homes.
Under this program most homes
are torn down and reconstructed
to current codes.
A-2 Flood, Drought,
Earthquake,
Land
Subsidence
Vulnerability of Water Distribution
System – Upgrade the two water
transmission lines that supply
water to the city and Avenal State
Prison (one 18‐inch line and one
12‐inch line) that experience water
leaks and movement due to
earthquakes that lead to slope
failure.
City of Avenal
Public Works
Department
Medium In progress, expected to be
completed December 2023.
A-3 Earthquake,
Subsidence,
Landslide
Loss Reduction Program for
unreinforced masonry (URM)
Buildings - Establish a loss
reduction program for URM
buildings in compliance with the
California URM Law of 1986. In
response to the danger posed by
the great number of potentially
hazardous buildings in California,
in 1986 the state legislature
enacted the URM building law
(Chapter 250, Statutes of 1986:
SF547 [Alquist]; Government Code
Section 8875 et seq.). The law
mitigates hazards posed by URMs
and applies to all jurisdictions in
California's Seismic Hazard Zone
4, the region of highest
earthquake activity in the nation.
City of Avenal
City Manager’s
Office, California
Seismic Safety
Commission, City
of Avenal Public
Works
Department
Medium In progress.
A-4 Earthquake Replace Existing Valves at Tank
Sites with Earthquake Valves to
Protect Water Supply
City of Avenal
Public Works
Medium New in 2023.
A-5 Drought Water Supply Rehabilitation -
Install valve at the City water
source to isolate from joint use
facilities to maintain water supply
during unexpected outages of
Westland Water District facility.
DWR, City of
Avenal,
Westlands Water
District
Low New in 2023.
A-6 Flood; Severe
Weather: Heavy
Rain, Thunder,
Hail, and
Lightning
Improve Flow Design for Arroyo
Esquinado Channel
City of Avenal
Public Works
Department
Medium New in 2023.
May 23, 2024 Pg. 548
Kings County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Mitigation Strategy
2023 Update Page 5-36
ID HAZARD(S)
MITIGATED
PROJECT TITLE LEAD AGENCY
AND PARTNERS
PRIORITY IMPLENTATION STATUS
A-7 Flood Stormwater Drainage Master Plan City of Avenal Public Works
Department
Medium New in 2023.
A-8* Flood Investigate Capacity for
Floodwater Conveyance Facilities
(Drainage Ditches and Culverts)
along Arroyo del Camino
City of Avenal
Public Works
Department
Low New in 2023.
A-9* Land
Subsidence
Conduct updated Land
Subsidence Study to understand
Elevation, Shifts, and Vulnerability.
Kings County
Administration,
Water
Management
Agencies, City of
Avenal Public
Works
Department
Medium New in 2023.
A-10 Wildfire Undergrounding of Utilities along
City’s Main Corridors
Kings County Fire
Department
Medium New in 2023.
A-11 Extreme
Temperatures –
Heat and
Freeze,
Earthquake,
Severe Weather:
Heavy Rain,
Thunderstorms,
Hail, and
Lightning,
Severe Weather:
Wind and
Tornado
Conduct a Public Survey on AtRisk Community Demographics and Disability Needs – A public
survey will be developed around
at-risk communities to
understand those in the County
with Access and Functional Needs
(AFNs) and other disabilities,
household emergency
preparedness and evacuation and
support needs, and medical
devices and equipment needs at
sheltering facilities.
Kings County
Department of
Public Health,
Kings County
Office of
Emergency
Services, Kings
Partnership
High New in 2023.
City of Corcoran
C-1 Extreme
Temperatures:
Freeze and Heat
Equip and maintain the
Recreational Association of
Corcoran (RAC) Gymnasium
Building, and Corcoran Transit
Station with climate control
features and designate each site
as an Emergency Warming and
Cooling Center for Sensitive
Populations
City of Corcoran
Public Works
Department
High In progress - revised in 2023. This
project has been carried over
from the 2007 and 2012
MJHMPs. This action has also
been modified to now include
the RAC Building and the
Corcoran Transit Station. These
facilities are already in use for
this purpose and now need to be
maintained for this use.
C-2 Extreme
Temperatures:
Extreme Heat
Emergency Power System for the
Corcoran Depot Apartment
complex operated by the Kings
County Housing Authority.
City of Corcoran
Public Works,
Kings County
Office of
Emergency
Services
High In progress - revised in 2023. Use
of the Veteran’s Hall is no longer
needed now that the RAC
gymnasium is outfitted and
serves a larger population. The
next critically identified need
area is the Corcoran Depot
apartment complex as it houses
a concentrated area of senior
and special needs individuals.
C-3 Earthquake,
Flood, Land
Subsidence
Assess the Vulnerability of Critical
Facilities – Assess vulnerability of
critical facilities, including
police/fire stations, hospitals,
schools, and others, to identify
and prioritize projects for multi‐
hazard risk reduction.
City of Corcoran
Public Works,
Police
Department
High In progress. This was carried over
from the 2012 MJHMP. The Police
Department building is a newly
constructed building that shifted
all Police Department operations
to the new facility in 2019. Other
City facilities are routinely
reviewed through risk
management authority in order
to maintain current insurance.
May 23, 2024 Pg. 549
Kings County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Mitigation Strategy
2023 Update Page 5-37
ID HAZARD(S)
MITIGATED
PROJECT TITLE LEAD AGENCY
AND PARTNERS
PRIORITY IMPLENTATION STATUS
C-4 Drought Assess Community Lifelines
related to Water Distribution
Systems – Assess vulnerability of
lifeline utilities, including water
distribution systems, to identify
and prioritize projects for multi‐
hazard risk reduction.
City of Corcoran
Public Works
Department
High In progress. This was carried over
from the 2007 MJHMP.
Upgrades and investments are
routinely planned for the City’s
CIP and funding through grants,
loans, and other City funding.
The City’s Water system is
monitored and upgraded to
maintain reliable system services,
which also pro-actively addresses
challenges posed by the drought.
The City’s Wastewater ponds and
connecting system were recently
upgraded using American
Rescue Plan (ARP) funding.
C-5 Cyber Threat Use antivirus solutions, malware,
and firewalls to block threats
City of Corcoran,
Public Works
Department
Medium New Action in 2023. The City has
assessed network vulnerabilities
and is currently Implementing
measures for cybersecurity.
Monitoring and evaluation will
be ongoing to evaluate changes
and risks.
C-6 Dam Incidents,
Earthquake,
Flood, Severe
Weather: Dense
Fog, Severe
Weather: Heavy
Rain,
Thunderstorms,
Lightning, and
Hail
Community Alert and Warning
System
City of Corcoran,
Corcoran Police
Department, and
Kings County
OES
High New Action in 2023. The City has
implemented NIXLE Alert
System, and utilizes City
associated social media for
community announcements.
Extended Countywide alert
notification system is in Progress
through Kings County OES –
Funding has been secured
through a EMPG Grant.
C-7 Drought Public Education Program for
Water Conservation
City of Corcoran,
City Public Works
Department
High New Action in 2023. The City is
currently implementing citywide
water meter installation along
with public use property water
use application, water restriction
notifications, and enhancing
water utility payment
information. Together, these
systems are providing enhanced
water conservation education to
the public and is anticipated to
affect greater conservation
headed into 2024 summer.
C-8* Flooding,
Drought,
Subsidence
Corcoran Flood Protection – MultiAgency Strategic Plan for Upstream Floodwater Diversion to
Reduce Tulare Lake Flooding
City of Corcoran,
Cross Creek
Flood Control
District, other
Water &
Irrigation
Districts
representing the
Tulare Lake
Basin, and DWR
High New Action in 2023.
Acknowledges that the USACE
controls water releases from Pine
Flat, Terminus, Schaefer, and
Isabella Dams, and water and
irrigation districts in Kings,
Tulare, Fresno, and Kern counties.
It is critical to beneficial
groundwater recharge and
management.
C-9* Dam Failure;
Flood; Severe
Weather:
Heavy Rain,
Thunder, Hail,
and Lightning
Enhanced Erosion Control and
Protection of the Flood Control
Levee
City of Corcoran,
Cross Creek
Flood Control
District
Medium New Action in 2023. DWR
response to 2023 flooding
provided erosion control
measures along the Corcoran
Levee for enhanced erosion
control. This established a flood
response measure that can be
May 23, 2024 Pg. 550
Kings County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Mitigation Strategy
2023 Update Page 5-38
ID HAZARD(S)
MITIGATED
PROJECT TITLE LEAD AGENCY
AND PARTNERS
PRIORITY IMPLENTATION STATUS
replicated in future years with
flood disasters.
C-10* Flooding,
Drought,
Subsidence
Increase Reservoir Storage for
Control of Floodwater
Cross Creek
Flood Control
District, City of
Corcoran, USACE,
Kings County,
Other Water
Districts
High New in 2023.
C-11 Public Health
Hazards
Utilize trainings and exercises,
epidemiology, and surveillance to
control and combat public health
risks
Kings County,
City of Corcoran
Medium New Action in 2023. This would
be a Kings County Public Health
Department initiated effort that
the City supports and helps to
facilitate in Corcoran.
C-12* Flooding Update the City’s Storm Drain
Master Plan every Few Years to
included Planned Growth Areas
City of Corcoran Low New Action in 2023. This is
needed infrastructure for the City
to diversify disbursement of
stormwater drainage within the
City.
C-13* Flooding Continue to Participate with the
Cross Creek Flood Control District
to Ensure Levees Protecting
Corcoran from Tulare Lake
Flooding are Adequately
Monitored
City of Corcoran,
Cross Creek
Flood Control
District
High New Action in 2023. This is
ongoing monitoring and
maintenance efforts that are
needed. New Action in 2023; this
was integrated from the Safety
Element (Policy 4.17).
C-14 Extreme
Temperatures –
Heat and
Freeze,
Earthquake,
Severe Weather:
Heavy Rain,
Thunderstorms,
Hail, and
Lightning,
Severe Weather:
Wind and
Tornado
Conduct a Public Survey on AtRisk Community Demographics and Disability Needs – A public
survey will be developed around
at-risk communities to
understand those in the County
with Access and Functional Needs
(AFNs) and other disabilities,
household emergency
preparedness and evacuation and
support needs, and medical
devices and equipment needs at
sheltering facilities.
Kings County
Department of
Public Health,
Kings County
Office of
Emergency
Services, Kings
Partnership
High New in 2023.
City of Hanford
H-1 Drought,
Earthquake,
Extreme
Temperatures,
Flood, Public
Health Hazards,
Wildfire
Public Education Program for All
Hazards
County and City
Public Works,
Kings County
Health Dept.,
Kings County
OES
High In Progress. The Hanford Fire
Department hired a Fire Mashal
to lead Community Risk
Reduction and public education
program for the department.
Outreach now includes
numerous events such as school
programs and other monthly
events.
H-2 Drought Retrofits to Water Storage Tanks –
Two water storage tanks holding
800,000 gallons of water need to
be seismically retrofitted against
seismic and fire hazards following
earthquakes
City of Hanford
Public Works
Department
High In progress. Drilled two new
wells to feed the system and
added two additional 500,000
water tanks being proposed as
part of the City Infrastructure
Plan.
H-3 Earthquake GIS Database of Unreinforced
Masonry (URM) Buildings
City of Hanford
Fire Department,
Kings County
Community
Development,
OES, City GIS, IT
Medium Not started. Funding not secured
yet.
May 23, 2024 Pg. 551
Kings County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Mitigation Strategy
2023 Update Page 5-39
ID HAZARD(S)
MITIGATED
PROJECT TITLE LEAD AGENCY
AND PARTNERS
PRIORITY IMPLENTATION STATUS
H-4 Earthquake Retrofit 58 URM Buildings in
Downtown Hanford
City of Hanford
City Manager’s
Office
Medium In progress. In certain cases, the
City has required developers to
conform to the most recent
H-5 Earthquake,
Dam Incidents,
Flood, Wildfire
Disaster Evacuation Routes -
Ensure the maintenance and
enhancement of established
disaster evacuation routes
City of Hanford
City Manager’s
Office, City of
Hanford Public
Works
Department,
Kings County
OES
Medium Not started.
H-6 Dam Incidents,
Earthquake,
Flood,
Subsidence,
Landslide, Fog,
Severe Storms,
Wildfire
Develop a transportation routing
app, like the Caltrans app, to
divert traffic due to road
conditions during hazard events.
Kings County
Public Works,
Kings County
Administration
Low New in 2023.
H-7 Flooding,
Wildfire
Create a flood channel debris
management plan to allow the
flow of water, increase capacity,
and remove fire hazards.
Kings County
Public Works,
Water and
Irrigation
Districts, City
Public Works
High New in 2023
H-8 Flood; Severe
Weather: Heavy
Rain, Thunder,
Hail and
Lightning;
Drought;
Subsidence
Develop a series of flood control
basins on the Kings River that
either recharge or store water
during flood flows.
Kings County
Conservation
District (KRCD),
Local GSAs
High New in 2023.
H-9 Flood, Severe
Weather: Heavy
Rain, Thunder,
Hail and
Lightning
Evaluate federal levees to
determine height and make-up of
levees to protect during 100-year
storm events.
United States
Army Corps of
Engineers
(USACE), KRCD
High New in 2023.
H-10 Flood,
Subsidence,
Severe Weather:
Heavy Rain,
Thunder, Hail
and Lightning
Remove sediment from Kings
River to avoid future capacity
issues.
KRCD High New in 2023.
H-11 Drought,
Subsidence
Conduct updated land
subsidence study to understand
elevations, shifts, and vulnerability.
Kings County
Administration,
Water
Management
Agencies
Medium New in 2023.
H-12 Cyber-attack Use antivirus solutions, malware,
and firewalls to block threats
Kings County,
Avenal, Corcoran,
Hanford,
Lemoore
Medium New in 2023.
H-13 Public Health
Hazards
Utilize trainings and exercises,
epidemiology, and surveillance to
control and combat public health
risks
County and City
Public Health
Departments
Medium New in 2023.
H-14 Earthquake,
Drought
Safety Building & Community
Center – Create a safety building
for police and fire administration.
Building will house EOC and a
community center
Hanford Police
and Fire
Departments
Medium New in 2023.
May 23, 2024 Pg. 552
Kings County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Mitigation Strategy
2023 Update Page 5-40
ID HAZARD(S)
MITIGATED
PROJECT TITLE LEAD AGENCY
AND PARTNERS
PRIORITY IMPLENTATION STATUS
H-15 Extreme
Temperatures:
Heat and Freeze
Extreme Weather Shelter -
Develop plan for center to assist
at-risk populations during
extreme weather events.
Coordinate with regional plans for
consistency.
Hanford
Community
Development
Agency, Police
and Fire
Department
High New in 2023.
H-16 Dam Incidents,
Earthquake,
Flood, Dense
Fog Heavy Rain,
Thunderstorms,
Hail, and
Lightning, High
Wind and
Tornado,
Wildfire
Grangeville Overpass - Design and
build an overpass for the train
tracks to allow emergency vehicle
access during a hazard event.
Hanford Public
Works,
Community
Development,
and
Administration
High New in 2023.
H-17 Dam Incidents,
Earthquake,
Flood, Dense
Fog Heavy Rain,
Thunderstorms,
Hail, and
Lightning, High
Wind and
Tornado,
Wildfire
Assess the Capacity and Viability
of Designate Evacuation Routes
and Develop Evacuation Plan for
All Hazard Scenarios
Hanford Public
Works,
Community
Development,
and
Administration
High New in 2023.
H-18 Dam Incidents;
Extreme
Temperatures –
Heat and
Freeze,
Earthquake,
Severe Weather:
Heavy Rain,
Thunderstorms,
Hail, and
Lightning,
Severe Weather:
Wind and
Tornado
Conduct a Public Survey on AtRisk Community Demographics and Disability Needs – A public
survey will be developed around
at-risk communities to
understand those in the County
with Access and Functional Needs
(AFNs) and other disabilities,
household emergency
preparedness and evacuation and
support needs, and medical
devices and equipment needs at
sheltering facilities.
Kings County
Department of
Public Health,
Kings County
Office of
Emergency
Services, Kings
Partnership
High New in 2023.
City of Lemoore
L-1 Drought,
Earthquake,
Extreme Heat,
Flood, Fog,
Freeze, Wildfire
Public Education Program for All
Hazards
City of Lemoore,
City Public
Works, Kings
County Health
Department,
Kings County
OES,
High In Progress. This project entails
establishing a training program
to educate citizens about
hazards and encourage
households to have emergency
kits, plans, and drills in place.
L-2 Drought Long-Term Water Supply –
Improve coordination, planning,
and investment in long-term
water supplies to meet demands
of ongoing growth and
development
City of Lemoore,
Kings County
Water District,
Kings County,
Kings County
COG
High In Progress. The City has installed
a new well head and is actively
pursuing funding sources to
complete treatment and
connection to water supply for
development on the south side
of town.
L-3* Earthquake,
Flood, Land
Subsidence
Inter-jurisdictional GIS Program -–
Establish a centralized, interjurisdictional GIS program to improve all phases of emergency
management.
City of Lemoore
Planning
Department
High In progress. This project was
completed as part of the 2012
MJHMP but carried forward in
that plan as an ongoing effort.
The City continues to participate
in the Municipal GIS Program
May 23, 2024 Pg. 553
Kings County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Mitigation Strategy
2023 Update Page 5-41
ID HAZARD(S)
MITIGATED
PROJECT TITLE LEAD AGENCY
AND PARTNERS
PRIORITY IMPLENTATION STATUS
with the Kings County Planning
Department.
L-4 Dam Incidents,
Earthquake,
Flood,
Subsidence,
Landslide, Fog,
Severe Storms,
Wildfire
Develop a transportation routing
app, similar to the Caltrans app, to
divert traffic due to road
conditions during hazard events
Kings County
Public Works,
Kings County
Administration,
Kings County,
City of Lemoore
Low New Action in 2023.
L-5 Drought Public Education Program for
Water Supply and Conservation
City of Lemoore
Administration
Department,
Finance
Department
Medium New Action in 2023. The City of
Lemoore recently hired a Water
Conservation Officer to provide
public education on water
supply and conservation
measures.
L-6 Flood Well Protection and Flood
Mitigation – Protect Wells from
Floodwaters during Future
Flooding Events by Building
Infrastructure and Protection
around the Well Sites
City of Lemoore
Public Works
Medium New Action in 2023. The City of
Lemoore Public Works
Department has created berms
around City wells and is
researching additional protective
measure solutions.
L-7 Flood, Wildfire Create a flood channel debris
management plan to allow the
flow of water, increase capacity,
and remove fire hazards.
City of Lemoore,
Kings County
Public Works,
Water and
Irrigation
Districts, City
Public Works,
Kings County
High New Action in 2023.
L-8* Drought,
Subsidence
Conduct updated land
subsidence study to understand
elevations, shifts, and vulnerability.
City of Lemoore,
Kings County
Administration,
Water
Management
Agencies
Low New Action in 2023. The City
currently performs subsidence
studies at areas of concern.
L-9 Cyber Attack Use antivirus solutions, malware,
and firewalls to block threats
Kings County,
Avenal, Corcoran,
Hanford,
Lemoore
Medium New Action in 2023. City of
Lemoore IT staff will assess cyber
security needs and seek solutions
to improve security measures.
L-10 Public Health
Hazards
Utilize trainings and exercises,
epidemiology, and surveillance to
control and combat public health
risks
County Public
Health
Department
Low New Action in 2023. The City
does not have a Public Health
Department, but will coordinate
with the Kings County Public
Health Department during
public health emergencies.
L-11 Dam Incidents Develop plan addressing
communication and evacuation
for vulnerable populations in areas
potentially impacted by Pine Flat
Dam failure.
Kings County
OES
Low New Action in 2023. The City will
coordinate with Kings County
OES to create a response plan
addressing the impacts of a dam
failure.
L-12 Dam Incidents;
Extreme
Temperatures –
Heat and
Freeze,
Earthquake,
Severe Weather:
Heavy Rain,
Thunderstorms,
Hail, and
Lightning,
Conduct a Public Survey on AtRisk Community Demographics and Disability Needs – A public
survey will be developed around
at-risk communities to
understand those in the County
with Access and Functional Needs
(AFNs) and other disabilities,
household emergency
preparedness and evacuation and
support needs, and medical
Kings County
Department of
Public Health,
Kings County
Office of
Emergency
Services, Kings
Partnership
High New Action in 2023.
May 23, 2024 Pg. 554
Kings County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Mitigation Strategy
2023 Update Page 5-42
ID HAZARD(S)
MITIGATED
PROJECT TITLE LEAD AGENCY
AND PARTNERS
PRIORITY IMPLENTATION STATUS
Severe Weather:
Wind and
Tornado; Severe
Weather: Dense
Fog
devices and equipment needs at
sheltering facilities.
May 23, 2024 Pg. 555
Kings County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Plan Adoption, Implementation, and Main
2023 Update Page 6-1
6 PLAN ADOPTION, IMPLEMENTATION, AND
MAINTENANCE
6.1 ADOPTION
DMA Requirements §201.6(c)(3):
[The local hazard mitigation plan shall include] documentation that the plan has been formally approved by the governing body of the jurisdiction requesting approval of the plan (e.g., City Council, County Commissioner, Tribal Council).
The purpose of formally adopting this plan is to secure buy-in from Kings County and the participating jurisdictions, raise awareness of the plan, and formalize the plan’s implementation. The adoption of this plan completes Planning Step 9 of the 10-step planning process: Adopt the Plan. The governing board for each participating jurisdiction has adopted this MJHMP by passing a resolution.
Implementation and maintenance of the plan are critical to the overall success of hazard mitigation planning. This is Planning Step 10 of the 10-step planning process. This section provides an overview of the overall strategy for plan implementation and maintenance, and outlines the method and schedule for monitoring, updating, and evaluating the plan. The section also discusses incorporating the plan into existing planning mechanisms and how to address continued public involvement.
6.2 IMPLEMENTATION
Once adopted, the plan faces the truest test of its worth: implementation. While this plan contains many worthwhile actions, the participating jurisdictions will need to decide which action(s) to undertake first.
Two factors will help with making that decision: the priority assigned to the actions in the planning process and funding availability. Low or no-cost actions most easily demonstrate progress toward successful plan implementation.
Implementation will be accomplished by adhering to the schedules identified for each action (see Section 5 for County mitigation actions and the annexes for local participating jurisdiction mitigation actions), and through constant, pervasive, and energetic efforts to network and highlight the multiobjective, win-win benefits of each project to the Kings County community and its stakeholders. These efforts include the routine actions of monitoring agendas, attending meetings, and promoting a safe, sustainable community. The three main components of implementation are:
• Implement the action plan recommendations of this plan; • Utilize existing rules, regulations, policies, and procedures already in existence; and • Communicate the hazard information collected and analyzed through this planning process so that the community better understands what can happen where, and what they can do themselves to be better prepared. Also, publicize the success stories that are achieved through the HMPC’s ongoing efforts.
During the implementation of these efforts, it is important to maintain constant monitoring of funding opportunities that can be leveraged to implement some of the more costly recommended actions. This will include creating and maintaining a bank of ideas on how to meet local match or participation requirements, should grants be pursued. When funding becomes available, the participating jurisdictions will be in a position to capitalize on the opportunity. Funding opportunities to be monitored include special pre- and post-disaster funds, special district budgeted funds, state and federal earmarked funds, and other grant programs, including those that can serve or support multi-objective applications.
For this update, the County’s implementation program will emphasize mitigation projects and setting priorities based on loss reduction consistent with DMA requirements.
6.2.1 Role of the HMPC in Implementation and Maintenance With the adoption of this plan, the participating jurisdictions will be tasked with plan implementation and maintenance. The participating jurisdictions, led by the Kings County OES agree to:
May 23, 2024 Pg. 556
Kings County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Plan Adoption, Implementation, and Main
2023 Update Page 6-2
• Act as a forum for hazard mitigation issues;
• Disseminate hazard mitigation ideas and activities to all participants; • Pursue the implementation of high-priority, low/no-cost recommended actions; • Keep the concept of mitigation at the forefront of community decision-making by identifying plan recommendations when other community goals, plans, and activities overlap, influence, or directly affect increased community vulnerability to disasters;
• Maintain a vigilant monitoring of multi-objective cost-share opportunities to help the community implement the plan’s recommended actions for which no current funding exists; • Monitor and assist in the implementation and update of this plan; • Report on plan progress and recommended changes to the Kings County Board of Supervisors and the governing boards of the other participating jurisdictions; and • Inform and solicit input from the public.
The primary duty of the participating jurisdictions is to see the plan successfully carried out, and to report to their community governing boards and the public on the status of plan implementation and mitigation opportunities. Other duties include reviewing and promoting mitigation proposals, considering stakeholder concerns about hazard mitigation, passing concerns on to appropriate entities, and posting relevant information on the county website (and others as appropriate).
6.3 MAINTENANCE AND MONITORING
Requirement §201.6(c)(2)(i):
[The risk assessment shall include a] description of the type, 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.
Plan maintenance implies an ongoing effort to monitor and evaluate plan implementation and to update the plan as required or as progress, roadblocks, or changing circumstances are recognized. This section 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 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.
6.3.1 Maintenance Schedule
In order to track progress and update the mitigation strategies identified in the action plan, the HMPC will revisit this plan at the following times or occurrences:
• Annually, to assess if mitigation actions/projects have been completed; • Following a significant hazard event;
• Following a disaster declaration; or
• Any other time the HMPC sees it is prudent or necessary.
Annual Reviews: The HMPC will meet annually to assess progress on plan implementation. Kings County’s OES Department and the County’s OES Manager will facilitate and lead these reviews and an associated meeting. The OES Manager will also document the annual review meeting (see Appendix E for Annual Progress Meeting Agenda and Report Template). The timing of the annual meeting is recommended for the first or second quarter of each year to identify potential mitigation grants, some of which have a submittal period in the fourth quarter. A template for the annual meeting and a summary report is provided in Appendix E. Another tool developed during the 2022 -2023 update process to facilitate regular review and implementation and make the plan more of a “living document” is the MJHMP website, where the updated 2023 MJHMP and HMPs from previous years are available for public access. Various links to additional disaster and emergency preparation, hazard mitigation, as well as other related local, state, and federal-level information are also included on the MJHMP website. This website is accessible from the Kings County OES homepage. The County can use the MJHMP to post updates on the plan implementation process, such as grants submitted, grants pending review, and grant awards.
Critical Facility Database Maintenance: Moving forward the County and its municipalities will maintain the critical facility database that was prepared during the 2022-2023 update. The County’s OES Manager May 23, 2024 Pg. 557
Kings County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Plan Adoption, Implementation, and Main
2023 Update Page 6-3
will work with the County GIS Manager to lead periodic reviews of the database and assess the need for updates.
Five-Year Update: This plan will be updated, approved, and adopted within a five-year cycle as per Requirement §201.6(c)(4)(i) of the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000. Efforts to begin the update should begin no later than November 2027 in order to provide at least 9 to 12 months to facilitate the planning process, update the plan, and provide adequate time for public review. The County’s OES Manager will lead the update by soliciting an RFP to select a contract to support the MJHMP update by November 2027. The County’s OES Manager will also manage the update planning process, review the risk assessment, and champion the update to the mitigation strategy, including tracking updates on mitigation actions and facilitating the mitigation strategy workshop. The County’s OES Manager will also co-facilitate at least three planning meetings with the selected consultant.
During the time leading up to the formal update, the County’s OES Manager will monitor planning grant opportunities from the Cal OES and FEMA for funds to assist with the update. This may include submitting a BRIC grant application. This grant should be submitted in 2024, as there is a three-year performance period to expend the funds, and there is no guarantee that the grant will be awarded when initially submitted. This allows time to resubmit the grant in subsequent years if needed. Updates to this plan will follow the most current FEMA and Cal OES planning guidance. The next plan update should be completed and reapproved by Cal OES and FEMA Region VIII by October 2028.
6.3.2 Maintenance and Evaluation Process
The HMPC will continually observe the incorporation process, evaluation method, updating method, continued public participation, and completion of the action/projects to assure that the HMPC and the plan itself are performing as anticipated. By monitoring these processes, the HMPC will then be able to evaluate them at the time of the plan update, determining if any changes are needed.
The every five-year MJHMP plan update provides an opportunity to determine whether there have been any significant changes in the County that may, in turn, necessitate changes in the types of mitigation actions proposed. New development in identified hazard areas, increased exposure to hazards, increase or decrease in capability to address hazards, and changes to federal or state legislation are examples of factors that may affect the necessary content of the MJHMP.
The plan review provides County officials with an opportunity to evaluate those actions that have been successful and to explore the possibility of documenting potential losses that were avoided due to the implementation of specific mitigation measures. The process for setting new priorities based on loss reduction is also emphasized in this MJHMP update process. The plan review also provides the opportunity to address mitigation actions that may not have been successfully implemented as assigned.
During the five-year plan update process, the following questions will be considered as criteria for assessing the effectiveness and appropriateness of the MJHMP:
• Do the goals address current and expected conditions? • Are the goals and objectives consistent with changes in state and federal policy? • Complete status update on all mitigation projects. What strategies should be revised? • Has the nature or magnitude of risks changed (current and expected conditions)? • Are the current resources appropriate for implementing the MJHMP? • Are there implementation problems, such as technical, political, legal or coordination issues with other agencies?
• Have the outcomes occurred as expected?
• Did the County and participating agencies and other partners participate in the plan implementation process as assigned?
The County of Kings is committed to involving the public in the continual reshaping and updating of the MJHMP, as discussed in Subsection 6.3.4.
6.3.3 Incorporation into Existing Planning Mechanisms
Another important implementation mechanism that is highly effective and low-cost is the incorporation of the HMP recommendations and their underlying principles into other county and city plans and May 23, 2024 Pg. 558
Kings County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Plan Adoption, Implementation, and Main
2023 Update Page 6-4
mechanisms. Where possible, plan participants will use existing plans and/or programs to implement hazard mitigation actions. This plan should also be cross-referenced when related planning mechanisms are updated. As previously stated above, mitigation is most successful when it is incorporated into the day-to-day functions and priorities of government and development. As described in this plan’s capability assessment and jurisdictional annexes, the County and participating jurisdictions already implement policies and programs to reduce losses to life and property from hazards. This plan builds upon the momentum developed through previous and related planning efforts and mitigation programs and recommends implementing actions, where possible, through these other program mechanisms.
These existing mechanisms include (but are not limited to) the following:
• County and local general plans (General Plan Safety Element) • Community service district area plans and master plans • County and local emergency operations plans
• County and local ordinances
• Flood/stormwater management/master plans
• Community wildfire protection plans
• GSPs
• Stormwater Resource Plans
• Urban Water Management Plans (UWMPs)
• CIPs
• Other plans and policies outlined in the capability assessments in the jurisdictional annexes • Other plans, regulations, and practices with a mitigation focus HMPC members involved in the updates to the planning mechanisms will be responsible for integrating the findings and recommendations of this plan with these other plans, programs, etc., as appropriate. As an action step to ensure integration with other planning mechanisms, the County OES Manager or designee will discuss this topic at the annual meeting of the HMPC described above in Subsection 6.3.1.
The HMPC will discuss where there are opportunities to incorporate the plan into other planning mechanisms and who would be responsible for leveraging those opportunities. HMPC members representing local jurisdictions will work with their jurisdictional LPTs to integrate their identified mitigation actions into their local plans and programs. Efforts to integrate the HMP into local plans, programs, and policies will be reported at the annual HMPC plan review meeting, and a record of successful integration efforts will be kept.
Efforts should continuously be made to monitor the progress of mitigation actions implemented through these other planning mechanisms and, where appropriate, their priority actions should be incorporated into updates of this hazard mitigation plan. Examples of a process for incorporation of the MJHMP into specific existing or upcoming planning mechanisms include:
• Each community (County, Avenal, Corcoran, Hanford, and Lemoore) should adopt (by reference or incorporation) this MJHMP into the Safety Element of their General Plan(s), as encouraged by AB 2140. Evidence of such adoption (by formal, certified resolution) shall be provided to Cal OES and FEMA to become eligible or maintain eligibility for CDDA funding. Also, specific risk and vulnerability information from the Kings County MJHMP can be incorporated into the General Plan; which, can in turn, inform the development of hazard overlay zones, or other policy changes designed to minimize hazard impacts.
6.3.4 Continued Public Involvement
Continued public involvement is imperative to the overall success of the plan’s implementation. Efforts will be made to involve the public in the plan maintenance, evaluation, and review process. This includes maintaining a digital version of the plan on the County OES website for public review. In addition, information on who to contact within the OES will be posted with the plan. The Kings County OES will maintain a file of comments received for reference during the next five-year update. Any revisions to the plan that may occur as a result of a disaster will also be made public and posted on the County website.
The next five-year update process also provides an opportunity to solicit participation from new and existing stakeholders and publicize success stories from the plan implementation and seek additional public comment. A public hearing(s) or survey to receive public comment on the plan will be held during the plan update period. When the HMPC reconvenes for the update, they will coordinate with all May 23, 2024 Pg. 559
Kings County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Plan Adoption, Implementation, and Main
2023 Update Page 6-5
stakeholders participating in the planning process, including those who joined the HMPC after the initial effort, to update and revise the plan. Public notice will be posted, and public participation will be invited, at a minimum, through available website postings and press releases to the local media outlets as well as email and social media announcements.
Public involvement strategies that were used during the 2022 – 2023 planning process are captured in the Outreach Strategy in Appendix F. The appendix can serve as a reference for continued public involvement over the next several years and lays the foundation for outreach associated with the next formal five-year update. The HMPC should incorporate the following engagement concepts from the Outreach Strategy:
• Collaborate with Community Based Organizations and faith-based organizations (i.e. Kings Tulare Homeless Alliance).
• Create stories and mitigation success announcements to use for publishing at media outlets. • Distribute emails and postcards and newsletters to the public about hazard mitigation. • Participate in existing community events to share information about hazard mitigation (e.g., community farmer’s markets, library events, senior centers). • Continue to use the County’s MJHMP Webpage as a distribution point or repository for HMP information.
May 23, 2024 Pg. 560
Kings County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Plan Adoption
2023 Update Page 7-1
7 PLAN ADOPTION
DMA Requirement §201.6(c)(5):
[The plan shall include...] Documentation that the plan has been formally adopted by the governing body of the jurisdiction requesting approval of the plan (e.g., City Council, County commissioner, Tribal Council).
7.1 ELEMENT E.1 FORMAL PLAN ADOPTION DOCUMENTATION
Adoption by the local governing body demonstrates the community’s commitment to implementing the mitigation strategy and authorizes responsible agencies to execute their actions. The final plan is not approved until Kings County and each participating jurisdiction adopt the plan and FEMA receives documentation of formal adoption by the governing body of each jurisdiction requesting approval. This plan is for Kings County, the unincorporated County, and its incorporated cities of Avenal, Corcoran, Hanford, and Lemoore.
Kings County and the four participating cities plan to submit this plan to the Kings County Board of Supervisors (BOS), and their respective city councils upon successful completion of State and federal review and following the issuance of an Approved Pending Adoption (APA) designation from FEMA. This provides an efficient approval process if FEMA determines the MJHMP requires revisions because the County and each participating city can make these revisions prior to initiating the local plan adoption process.
Once FEMA issues APA notification, adoption by each participating jurisdiction must take place within one year for each jurisdiction to become or remain eligible for FEMA HMA program funding. Given this is a multi-jurisdictional planning process, Kings County will coordinate the adoption of all four jurisdictions adoption process as soon as the plan receives APA status. Because each City/Board governing body has different meeting schedules, Kings County will also coordinate with each participating jurisdiction/agency regarding the timing of their adoptions to submit adoption documentation to Cal OES and FEMA at the same time.
Once the County records and submits the adoption documentation to Cal OES and FEMA, FEMA will issue an official approval letter stating which jurisdictions/agencies have adopted and are approved and eligible for FEMA HMA program funding. The approval letter will include an expiration date five years from the date of the letter and attached to the approval letter will be a final FEMA Local Mitigation Plan Review Tool that provides feedback on the strengths of the plan, recommendations for plan improvements during future plan updates, and suggestions for implementing the mitigation strategy.
7.2 GENERAL PLAN SAFETY ELEMENT INTEGRATION
The MJHMP was prepared consistent with the Kings County General Plan Health and Safety Element. The planning mechanisms cover common overlapping natural hazard issues and mutually-reinforcing policies and implementation programs. California Government Code Section 65302.10, (AB 2140) encourages California counties and cities to adopt their current, FEMA-approved LHMPs into the Safety Element of their General Plan. This adoption by reference or incorporation of the MJHMP into the Health and Safety Element of the General Plan follows plan approval and makes Kings County and each participating jurisdiction eligible to be considered for part or all of its local-share costs on eligible public assistance funding to be provided by the State under the CDAA. As such, AB 2140 compliance provides additional funding after a disaster occurs and this is an optional state incentive to help counties and cities become more resilient to natural hazards. Because compliance with AB 2140 expires when the MJHMP expires, the County must re-adopt the plan into the Health and Safety Element during update cycles to ensure continued compliance and funding eligibility. Additionally, each participating jurisdiction must adopt their annex into their own General Plan Safety Element, as the annex jurisdictions are not covered under the County’s General Plan Safety Element adoption.
May 23, 2024 Pg. 561
Kings County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan References
2023 Update Page 8-1
8 REFERENCES
6th Cycle Regional Housing Needs Plan (RHNP). Lemoore, CA: Kings County Association of Governments (KCAG), 2023. https://www.kingscog.org/vertical/Sites/%7BC427AE30-9936-4733-B9D4- 140709AD3BBF%7D/uploads/KCAG_6th_RHNA_Plan_2023-01-25_Adopted.pdf Bedsworth, Louise, Dan Cayan, Guido Franco, Leah Fisher, Sonya Ziaja. Statewide Summary Report.
California’s Fourth Climate Change Assessment. California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, California Energy Commission, California Public Utilities Commission. 2018. Publication number: SUMCCCA4-2018-013.
Bittle, Jake. “The Ghost of Tulare Lake Returns, Flooding California's Central Valley.” Salon. Salon.com, April 18, 2023. https://www.salon.com/2023/04/18/the-ghost-of-tulare-lake-returns-flooding-californiascentral-valley_partner/.
Borchers, J. W., and Carpenter, M. Land Subsidence from Groundwater Use in California. The California Water Foundation. 2014. https://cawaterlibrary.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/1397858208- SUBSIDENCEFULLREPORT_FINAL.pdf
Borgschulte, M., Molitor, D., & Zou, E. (2022). Air pollution and the labor market: Evidence from wildfire smoke (No. w29952). National Bureau of Economic Research. https://doi.org/10.1162/rest_a_01243 Brown, E.G. Exec. Order B-26-14. September 18, 2014. https://www.library.ca.gov/wpcontent/uploads/GovernmentPublications/executive-order-proclamation/39-B-26-14.pdf Brown, E.G. Executive order B-17–14. Signed January 17, 2014. https://www.ca.gov/archive/gov39/2014/01/17/news18368/https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/waterrig hts/water_issues/programs/drought/docs/040115_executive_order.pdf Brown, E.G.Executive order B-29–2015. Signed April 1, 2015 https://www.ca.gov/archive/gov39/2014/01/17/news18368/
CA Department of Conservation “Earthquakes.” 2023. Accessed April 7. https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/earthquakes
CAL FIRE “2017 Incident Archive.”, n.d.. https://www.fire.ca.gov/incidents/2017/.
CAL FIRE “Camp Fire.” Cal FIRE. State of California, November 15, 2019. https://www.fire.ca.gov/incidents/2018/11/8/camp-fire/.
California Department of Finance, “P-2: County Population Projections (2020-2060). Available here:
https://dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/projections/ California Department of Finance, “Projections.” December 2022. https://dof.ca.gov/forecasting/demographics/projections/.
California Department of Food and Agriculture. Agricultural Statistics Review, 2020-2021 (2021).
NASS/CDFA Agricultural Resource Reports. Available at <https://www.cdfa.ca.gov/Statistics>.
California Geological Survey (CGS). “Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones.” CA Department of Conservation, n.d.. https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/alquist-priolo.
California Natural Resource Agency (CNRA). Protecting Californians amidst extreme heat: A state action plan to build Community Resilience. State of California Govenor’s Office (2022). https://resources.ca.gov/-/media/CNRA-Website/Files/Initiatives/Climate-Resilience/2022-FinalExtreme-Heat-Action-Plan.pdf May 23, 2024 Pg. 562
Kings County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan References
2023 Update Page 8-2
California Natural Resource Agency (CNRA). Safeguarding California Plan: California Climate Adaptation Strategy. State of California State Lands Commission. (2018). http://resources.ca.gov/docs/climate/safeguarding/update2018/safeguarding-california-plan-2018- update.pdf
California Environmental Protection Agency Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA).
CalEnviroScreen Version 4.0. 2021. https://oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen/report/calenviroscreen-version-20.
California State Senate. Senate Bill 327: Information Privacy: Connected Devices by Hannah-Beth Jackson and Jacqui Irwin. 2018.
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180SS327 California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP). “California Register of Historical Resources.” Accessed July 2023. https://ohp.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=21238.
California State Water Resources Control Board (WRCB). 2023 TTHM Notification to Public, 3rd QT8/8/23. September 25, 2023. https://lemoore.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/CA1610005_Cityof-Lemoore_July-2023_PN.pdf Cal-IPC. “The Cost of Invasive Plants on California.” Invasive Plant Research. California Invasive Plant Council, n.d. https://www.cal-ipc.org/solutions/research/cost/.
Cassidy, Emily. “Return of Tulare Lake.” NASA. NASA, 2023. https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/151174/return-of-tulare-lake.
CDC “Extreme Heat.” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, June 17, 2022. https://www.cdc.gov/disasters/extremeheat/index.html.
CDC. “Covid-19 Data Review: Update on COVID-19–Related Mortality.” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, January 27, 2023. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/science/data-review/index.html.
CDFW “Species of Special Concern.” State of California, n.d.. https://wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/SSC.
Chuang, Tamara. “Cyber Attack on CDOT Computers Estimated to Cost up to $1.5 Million so Far.” The Denver Post. MediaNews Group Inc., April 6, 2018.
https://www.denverpost.com/2018/04/05/samsam-ransomware-cdot-cost City of Avenal. City of Avenal General Plan 2023. March 22, 2018. https://cityofavenal.com/DocumentCenter/View/1795/General-Plan-2035-Adopted-03-22-18 City of Avenal. City of Avenal USBR Water Management Plan (2014 Criteria). March 2016. https://cityofavenal.com/DocumentCenter/View/1935/Adopted-USBR-Water-ManagementPlan?bidId= City of Corcoran. Accessed August 2023. https://www.cityofcorcoran.com/.
City of Corcoran. 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP). May 2022. https://www.cityofcorcoran.com/Public%20Works%20Department/water/Corcoran_2020UWMP_F inal_083022.pdf
City of Corcoran. City of Corcoran 2005-2025 General Plan. June 26, 2014. https://cms9files.revize.com/corcoranca/Community%20Development/General%20Plan%20Public %20Review%20Document.pdf
City of Hanford. 2035 General Plan. 2014. https://ci.hanford.ca.us/1288/General-Plan City of Hanford. 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP). October 2021. https://www.cityofhanfordca.com/DocumentCenter/View/567/2020-Urban-Water-ManagementPlan-PDF?bidId= May 23, 2024 Pg. 563
Kings County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan References
2023 Update Page 8-3
City of Lemoore. 2015 City of Lemoore Urban Water Management Plan. November, 2017. https://lemoore.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/lemoore_2015_uwmp_final.pdf City of Lemoore. 2030 General Plan. May 2008. https://lemoore.com/communitydevelopment/generalplan/ CISA. “Cyber Risks to Next Generation 9-1-1.” SAFECOM/NCSWIC. Novemever 2019. https://www.cisa.gov/sites/default/files/publications/NG911%20Cybersecurity%20Primer.pdf Cohen, Judah, Laurie Agel, Mathew Barlow, Chaim I. Garfinkel, and Ian White. "Linking Arctic variability and change with extreme winter weather in the United States." Science 373, no. 6559 (2021): 1116- 1121.
Colonial Pipeline Company. “Media Statement Updated May 8, 2021: Colonial Pipeline System Disruption.” Colonial Press Release. Colonial Pipeline Company, May 17, 2021. https://www.colpipe.com/news/press-releases/media-statement-colonial-pipeline-systemdisruption.
CPUC. “Wildfire and Wildfire Safety.” California Public Utilities Commission, 2023. https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/industries-and-topics/wildfires.
Cutler, David M., and Lawrence H. Summers. "The COVID-19 pandemic and the $16 trillion virus." Jama 324, no. 15 (2020): 1495-1496.National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). What are El Nino and La Nina? US Department of Commerce, March 26, 2009. https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/ninonina.html.
Department of Water Resources. California’s Most Significant Droughts: Comparing Hisotical and Recent Conditions. Stae of California, February 2015. https://water.ca.gov/-/media/DWRWebsite/Web-Pages/What-We-Do/Drought-Mitigation/Files/Publications-AndReports/CalSigDroughts19_v9_ay11.pdf Dickinson. AB 1738 Groundwater Management. California Assembly. February 14, 2014. http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/13-14/bill/asm/ab_1701-
1750/ab_1739_bill_20140822_amended_sen_v93.htm
Drought.gov. “Current Conditions.” NDIS, NOAA, USGS. Accessed February 5, 2023. https://www.drought.gov/.
Economic Research Service, 1992. "Special Reprint from November and December 1991: Agricultural Outlook," Staff Reports 278617, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
Emsisoft “The State of Ransomware in the US: Report and Statistics 2021.”. August 24, 2022. https://www.emsisoft.com/en/blog/40813/the-state-of-ransomware-in-the-us-report-and-statistics2021/.
Emsisoft. “Ransomware Cost Us Local Governments $623 Million in 2021, but Fewer Incidents in 2022.” Blog. Emsisoft Malware Lab, August 19, 2022.
https://www.emsisoft.com/en/blog/41518/ransomware-cost-us-local-governments-623-million-in2021-but-fewer-incidents-in-2022/.
FBI, Internet Crime Complaint Center. Internet Crime Report 2021. U.S. Department of Justice. 2022. https://www.ic3.gov/Media/PDF/AnnualReport/2021_IC3Report.pdf FEMA. (2010). Flooding – our nation’s most frequent and costly natural disaster. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security. https://www.fbiic.gov/public/2010/mar/FloodingHistoryandCausesFS.PDF Frankson, R., L.E. Stevens, K.E. Kunkel, S.M. Champion, D.R. Easterling, W. Sweet, and M. Anderson, 2022:
California State Climate Summary 2022. NOAA Technical Report NESDIS 150-CA. NOAA/NESDIS, Silver Spring, MD, 6 pp.
May 23, 2024 Pg. 564
Kings County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan References
2023 Update Page 8-4
Galloway, D., Ingebritsen, F., Ikehara, M., and Carpenter, M.The Role of Science: In Land Subsidence in the United States. U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1182. 1999. http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/cir1182 Garrison, Anna. "The IPCC Climate Change Report Sheds Light On How Wind Patterns Could Change Drastically". Green Matters. 2022. https://www.greenmatters.com/p/climate-change-wind-patterns.
Georgetown University Medical Center (GUMC). “New Study Finds Climate Change Could Spark the next Pandemic.” News Release. Georgetown University Medial Center, March 2, 2023. https://gumc.georgetown.edu/news-release/new-study-finds-climate-change-could-spark-thenext-pandemic/ Gray, Ellyn, S. Gilardoni, Dennis Baldocchi, Brian C. McDonald, Maria Cristina Facchini, and Allen H.
Goldstein. "Impact of air pollution controls on radiation fog frequency in the Central Valley of California." Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres 124, no. 11 (2019): 5889-5905.
Hanford, Ca., Municiple Code Chapter 16 § 14.100. (2001). https://library.qcode.us/codes/hanford/view.php?topic=16-16_40-16_40_110 Hardebeck, Jeanne L., John Boatwright, Douglas Dreger, Rakesh Goel, Vladimir Graizer, Kenneth Hudnut, Chen Ji et al. "Preliminary report on the 22 December 2003, m 6.5 San Simeon, California earthquake." Seismological Research Letters 75, no. 2 (2004): 155-172.
Herb, William R., Ben Janke, Omid Mohseni, and Heinz G. Stefan. "Thermal pollution of streams by runoff from paved surfaces." Hydrological Processes: An International Journal 22, no. 7 (2008): 987-999.
Hertzberg. SB 552: Drought Planning for Small Water Suppliers and Rural Communities. Septmeber 23, 2001. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202120220SB552 Howitt, Richard, Josué Medellín-Azuara, Duncan MacEwan, Jay R. Lund, and Daniel Sumner. Economic analysis of the 2014 drought for California agriculture. University of California, Davis, CA: Center for Watershed Sciences, 2014.
Huang, Danny Yuxing, Maxwell Matthaios Aliapoulios, Vector Guo Li, Luca Invernizzi, Elie Bursztein, Kylie McRoberts, Jonathan Levin, Kirill Levchenko, Alex C. Snoeren, and Damon McCoy. "Tracking ransomware end-to-end." In 2018 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (SP), pp. 618-631. IEEE, 2018.
IBM. “Cost of a Data Breach 2022.” IBM Enterprise Security Solutions. July 27, 2022. https://www.ibm.com/downloads/cas/3R8N1DZJ
Jamal, Haseeb. “Causes of Dam Failure.” Why Dams Fail | Dam Failure Reasons. AboutCivil, January 16, 2017. https://www.aboutcivil.org/damissues.html.
Kaspersky. “The Cost of Cryptomalware: Smbs at Gunpoint.” Kaspersky Daily. AO Kaspersky Lab, September 7, 2016. https://www.kaspersky.com/blog/cryptomalware-report-2016/5971/.
Kings County. 2023 Department of Public Health. Division of Environmental Health Services. Personal Email Communications between Troy Hommerding, Division Manager and Abrham, Emergency Services Manager on September 14, 2023 regarding Small Water Suppliers in Kings County.
Kings County. “Water Frequently Asked Questions.” Division of Water and Natural Resources. n.d.
Accessed February 5, 2023. https://www.countyofkings.com/departments/administration/countycounsel/waterfaq.
Kings County. 2021 Crop Report. Kings County Department of Agriculture. 2022. https://www.countyofkings.com/home/showpublisheddocument/30004/638004946912870000 Kings County. 2023 Kings County General Plan. Kings County Community Development Agency. 2010. https://www.countyofkings.com/departments/community-development-agency/information/2035- general-plan
May 23, 2024 Pg. 565
Kings County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan References
2023 Update Page 8-5
Kings County. Kings County Multi-Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan. Kings County Office of Emergency Services.
https://www.countyofkings.com/home/showpublisheddocument/23875/637298992208470000 KSFN. (2016). Sinkhole opens up on Kings County Road damaging 2 cars. ABC30 Fresno. https://abc30.com/kings-county-road-sinkhole-cars/1402925/ Leslie, Jacques. “As Warming and Drought Increase, a New Case for Ending Big Dams.” Yale Environment 360. Yale School of the Environment. November 4. 2021. https://e360.yale.edu/features/as-warmingand-drought-increase-a-new-case-for-ending-big-dams.
Lohrmann, Dan. “Cyber Attacks against Critical Infrastructure Quietly Increase.” Government Technology. e.Republic LLC, July 31, 2022. https://www.govtech.com/blogs/lohrmann-on-cybersecurity/cyberattacks-against-critical-infrastructure-quietly-increase.
Medellín-Azuara, J., Escriva-Bou, A., Rodríguez-Flores, J.M., Cole, S.A, Abatzoglou, J.T., Viers, J.H., Santos, N., and Sumner, D.A. Economic Impacts of the 2020-2022 Drought on California Agriculture (2022). A report for the California Department of Food and Agriculture. Water Systems Management Lab. University of California, Merced 35p. Available at <http://drought.ucmerced.edu>.
Morales-Rodríguez, Carmen, Sten Anslan, Marie-Anne Auger-Rozenberg, Sylvie Augustin, Yuri Baranchikov, Amani Bellahirech, Daiva Burokienė et al. "Forewarned is forearmed: harmonized approaches for early detection of potentially invasive pests and pathogens in sentinel plantings." (2019). NeoBiota 47: 95–123 (2019) doi: 10.3897/neobiota.47.34276 Moreno, Cecilia. “Native American Resilience: The Tachi Yokut Tribe and the Preservation of Tribal History and Tradition.” eScholarship. University of California, n.d.. https://escholarship.org/.
Mount, J., Escriva-Bou, A., & Sencan, G. (2021). Droughts in California. San Francisco, CA: Public Policy Institute of California.
National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI). 2023. Storm events database. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/stormevents/ National Geographic (NatGeo). “Tornadoes and Climate Change.” Education. National Geographic, May 19, 2022. https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/tornadoes-and-climate-change/ National Inventory of Dams. Washington, DC :US Army Corps of Engineers : Federal Emergency Management Agency., n.d. https://nid.usace.army.mil/
National Parks Service (NPS) “National Register Database and Research.”. U.S. Department of the Interior.
Accessed April 10, 2023. https://www.nps.gov/subjects/nationalregister/database-research.htm.
Newman, Lily Hay. “Atlanta Spent $2.6m to Recover from a $52,000 Ransomware Scare.” Wired. Conde Nast, April 24, 2018. https://www.wired.com/story/atlanta-spent-26m-recover-from-ransomwarescare/.
Newsom, G. State of emergency proclamation. Signed April 21, 2021. https://www.gov.ca.gov/wpcontent/uploads/2021/04/4.21.21-Emergency-Proclamation-1.pdf NOAA “Hail Forecasting.” National Severe Storms Laboratory. Accessed February 4, 2023. https://www.nssl.noaa.gov/education/svrwx101/hail/forecasting.
NOAA's National Weather Service. “The Enhanced Fujita Scale (EF Scale).” The Enhanced Fujita Scale (EF Scale). US Department of Commerce, n.d. https://www.weather.gov/oun/efscale.
NWS. Heat Wave: A Major Summer Killer. U.S. Department of Commerce and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Accessed February 20, 2023. https://www.weather.gov/media/owlie/heatwave.pdf
May 23, 2024 Pg. 566
Kings County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan References
2023 Update Page 8-6
Owens, Chris. “The Northeastern Blackout 2003.” the Blackout report. Riello UPS, January 15, 2020. https://www.theblackoutreport.co.uk/2019/10/10/northeastern-blackout-usa-canada-2003/.
Paulson, Richard W. National water summary 1988-89: hydrologic events and floods and droughts. Vol. 2375. US Government Printing Office, 1991.
Pavely. SB 1168:Groundwater Management. California State Senate. September 16, 2014. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140SB1168 Pavely. SB 1319: Groundwater Management. California State Senate. http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/13- 14/bill/sen/sb_1301-1350/sb_1319_bill_20140221_introduced.html Press Release, Office of Governor Edmund G. Brown Jr., Governor Brown Signs Historic Groundwater Legislation (Sept. 16, 2014), available at http://www.gov.ca.gov/news.php?id=18701.
Lemoore Public Works. 2022 City of Lemoore Water Quality Consumer Confidence Report (CCR). 2023. https://lemoore.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/CA1610005_City-of-Lemoore_2022-CCR.pdf Rheinheimer, D. E., and J. H. Viers. "Combined effects of reservoir operations and climate warming on the flow regime of hydropower bypass reaches of California's Sierra Nevada." River Research and Applications 31, no. 3 (2015): 269-279.
Safe Drinking Water Information System (SDWIS). Water System Details. CA Drinking Water Watch.
Accessed August 2023.
https://sdwis.waterboards.ca.gov/PDWW/JSP/WaterSystemDetail.jsp?tinwsys_is_number= 1814&tinwsys_st_code=CA&wsnumber=CA1610004.
SCEDC. Southern California Earthquake Center. (2013) Caltech. Dataset. doi:10.7909/C3WD3xH1 Schwarzenegger, A. Exec. Order S-06-08. June 4, 2008. https://www.library.ca.gov/wpcontent/uploads/GovernmentPublications/executive-order-proclamation/38-S-06-08.pdf Serna, Joseph. “The Kings River Flooded from Snowmelt That Couldn't Be Measured or Predicted.” Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles Times, June 26, 2017. https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-lnkings-river-flooding-snowpack-20170626-story.html.
Smith, Ryan, Rosemary Knight, and Scott Fendorf. "Overpumping leads to California groundwater arsenic threat." Nature communications 9, no. 1 (2018): 2089.
State of California DSOD. Definition of Downstream Hazard and Condition Assessment. Department of Water Resources: Division of Safety of Dams. 2021. https://water.ca.gov/-/media/DWR-Website/WebPages/Programs/All-Programs/Division-of-Safety-of-Dams/Files/Publications/Division-of-Safety-ofDams-Definitions-for-Downstream-Hazard-and-Condition-Assessment.pdf State of California. California State Hazard Mitigation Plan. Governor’s Office of Emergency Services. 2018. https://www.caloes.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/002-2018-SHMP_FINAL_ENTIRE-PLAN.pdf State of California. Dams Within Jurisdiction of the State of California. September 2022. CA Division of Water Resources. https://water.ca.gov/programs/all-programs/division-of-safety-of-dams The Privacy Rights Clearinghouse. Data Breach Notification in the United States 2022 Report. 2023. https://privacyrights.org/resources/data-breach-notification-2022. Accessed 2023-03-02.
Toohey, Grace. “Volcano? Climate Change? Bad Luck? Why California Was Hit with 31 Atmospheric River Storms.” Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles Times, April 11, 2023. https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2023-04-11/californias-wild-winter-of-atmospheric-rivers.
U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2021 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, https://data.census.gov/
May 23, 2024 Pg. 567
Kings County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan References
2023 Update Page 8-7
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS).2023. Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response (ASPR). HHS emPOWER Map. Medicare At-Risk Populations by Geography. October 2023. Available at: https://empowerprogram.hhs.gov/empowermap United States. 2017 U.S. Census of Agriculture. United States Department of Agriculture. 2019. https://www.nass.usda.gov/Publications/AgCensus/2017/Online_Resources/County_Profiles/Californ ia/cp06031.pdf
UNL “U.S. Drought Monitor.” Current Map | U.S. Drought Monitor. National Drought Mitigation Center (NDMC), the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Accessed January 5, 2023.
https://droughtmonitor.unl.edu/CurrentMap.aspx.
USDA Farm Service Agency (2022). Disaster Declarations USDA. Farm Service Agency, Department of Agriculture. https://data.nal.usda.gov/dataset/disaster-declarations-usda. Accessed 2023-02-02.
USDA RMA. Crop Idemnity Reports. (2022). US Department of Agriculture. https://www.rma.usda.gov/en/Information-Tools/Summary-of-Business/State-County-CropSummary-of-Business USGCRP, 2016: The Impacts of Climate Change on Human Health in the United States: A Scientific Assessment. Crimmins, A., J. Balbus, J.L. Gamble, C.B. Beard, J.E. Bell, D. Dodgen, R.J. Eisen, N. Fann, M.D. Hawkins, S.C. Herring, L. Jantarasami, D.M. Mills, S. Saha, M.C. Sarofim, J. Trtanj, and L. Ziska, Eds. U.S. Global Change Research Program, Washington, DC, 312 pp. http://dx.doi.org/10.7930/J0R49NQX
Western Regional Climate Center, 2023: Cooperative Climatological Data Summaries. Accessed August 2023. Available online at https://wrcc.dri.edu/Climate/west_coop_summaries.php Wills C.J., Perez, F., Gutierrez, C., Susceptibility to deep-seated landslides in California: California Geological Survey Map Sheet 2011. 58
Yang, Sarah.“Central Valley Sees Big Drop in Wintertime Fog Needed by Fruit and Nut Crops.” Berkeley News. July 9. 2015. https://news.berkeley.edu/2014/05/20/central-valley-gets-less-winter-tule-fogfor-crops/.
Yun, Xiaobo, Qiuhong Tang, Jiabo Li, Hui Lu, Lu Zhang, and Deliang Chen. "Can reservoir regulation mitigate future climate change induced hydrological extremes in the Lancang-Mekong River Basin?." Science of The Total Environment 785 (2021): 147322.
Zetter, Kim. “Inside the Cunning, Unprecedented Hack of Ukraine's Power Grid.” Wired. Conde Nast, March 3, 2016. https://www.wired.com/2016/03/inside-cunning-unprecedented-hack-ukrainespower-grid/.
Zhadan, Anna. “County of Kings Alerts about the Potential COVID-19 Data Breach.” Cybernews, March 14, 2022. https://cybernews.com/news/county-of-kings-alerts-about-the-potential-covid-19-databreach/.
May 23, 2024 Pg. 568
May 23, 2024 Pg. 569