Hanford City Council
June 18, 2024

Kings County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
2023 Update Page 3-11
Additional public comments left in the survey included feedback expressing concern about the COVID-19 pandemic, drought, PSPS shutoffs, and difficulties posed by dense fog in the region. These comments were shared with the HMPC and considered when prioritizing and ranking hazards, as well as determining mitigation actions. A summary of the survey data and documentation of the public feedback can be found in Appendix F.

Online Public Workshops
Three public workshops were held during the planning process to inform the public, receive input to integrate into the plan update and keep the public updated on the progress being made in the planning process. Two workshops were held virtually as webinars followed by question-and-answer sessions (Q&A) and one workshop was held in person during the plan development.

The first workshop took place on February 9, 2023, through Microsoft Teams. The workshop introduced the public to the hazard mitigation planning process for the County’s Plan Update and County and WSP staff answered any questions and gather public input to be integrated into the plan update. In addition, it was an opportunity to help staff identify risks, hazards, and vulnerabilities from the public’s perspective.

The second workshop took place on February 16, 2023, at the Multi-Purpose Room in the County Administrative Building. Members of the public were able to submit comments and ask questions verbally or via the chat function. The HMPC also received various questions and comments from the workshop on the public’s priority hazards in their community and possible mitigation ideas to reduce hazard risk. Figure 3-3 is copy of the first and second public workshop press release.

Table Events
Kings County OES did outreach at several local events, as documented in Table 3-5 and Figure 3-3.

Table 3-5 List of Table Events

DATE LOCATION EVENT NAME
9/19/23 Tulare, CA Listos California Disaster Ready Summitt 9/28/23 Avenal, CA Confia Resource Fair
10/03/23 Hanford, CA Hanford’s National Night out
10/10/23 Corcoran, CA Corcoran National Night Out
10/12/23 Lemoore, CA Kings County Public Health Fair
10/19/23 Kettleman City, CA Kings County’s Public Safety Event

Kings County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
2023 Update Page 3-12
Figure 3-3 Screenshots from Instagram Reels Showing Table Events

Vulnerable / At-Risk Population Outreach
The Kings Tulare Homeless Alliance (Alliance) was invited to participate in the HMPC through email blasts and through invitations to comment on the draft plan. The Alliance is a consortium of partners that includes homeless service providers, advocacy groups, government agencies, and homeless individuals who are working together to address the housing in the County and support service needs of the homeless in this region of the San Joaquin Valley. According to the Alliance’s 2023 Point in Time Report, there was a 16% increase of individuals experiencing homelessness in Kings and Tulare Counties between 2022 and 2023 (from 1,235 individuals to 1,470 individuals).1 The Planning Team recognized that this organization possesses extensive connections with the unhoused population, making it a valuable source of crucial insights for shaping the MJHMP update to ensure equitable support for all community members.

The Kings Partnership for Prevention was invited to participate in the HMPC through email blast and invitations to comment on the draft plan. The Kings Partnership, a non-profit organization, collaborates with businesses, service providers, and the community to prioritize prevention and spotlight progress and prosperity for residents. With a focus on health, family, education, and financial stability, the organization

1 https://www.kthomelessalliance.org/pit

Kings County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
2023 Update Page 3-13
aims to build a thriving community. Initiatives spearheaded by the Alliance include substance use response groups, mental health task forces, and financial and stability taskforces. The Planning Team felt that this organization has broad reach across demographic groups and would be able to provide valuable information that would allow this MJHMP access to a broad range of relevant interests.

The Office of Senator Hurtado Senate District 16 (SD 16) covers Kern, Kings, San Bernardino, and Tulare Counties. These areas exhibit rates of adults without high school diplomas and percentages of single- parent households that are nearly double the California state averages. Additionally, their median household and family incomes, as well as per capita incomes, range from three-quarters to half of the state's averages (ACS 2022 5-Year Estimates Data Profiles). The Office of Senator Hurtado was the only organization focusing on supporting vulnerable populations that chose to participate in the drafting of this plan. The Office of Senator Hurtado staff joined the HMPC and provided valuable information during HMPC meetings and workshops.

While the online public survey was distributed in English and Spanish, only English responses were recorded. While links to the survey were distributed across Kings County platforms and email listservs, engagement may have been better if the link was published across strictly Spanish speaking platforms as well. Another effective strategy may involve posting a Spanish press release with a QR code at grocery stores such as El Rey Supermercado, Super Mercado Leon, or Del Valle to gather additional input during the next plan update.

Enhancements can also be made in reaching out to organizations and agencies supporting vulnerable or at-risk populations. This improvement may involve broadening the scope of organizations, both in terms of quantity and diversity; for example, by considering inclusion of those aiding elderly individuals or supporting children in foster care. Furthermore, adopting a more personalized approach, such as one-on- one outreach through personal emails or phone calls or request for focused listening sessions with the organizations, may prove to be a more effective method for encouraging engagement.

Kings County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
2023 Update Page 3-14
Figure 3-4 Press Release for the First and SecondPublic Workshops

Kings County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
2023 Update Page 3-15
Geographic Information System (GIS) Data Collection
During the 2022-2023 plan update, the WSP team prepared a GIS data list to request the GIS data needed for the plan update. The County’s GIS staff was then able to compile and provide the WSP team with access to the County’s GIS data.

During the project kick-off meeting the County and WSP team discussed the MJHMP update process and schedule, plan review, data, and GIS hazard mapping for the Plan update. In attendance were representatives from the County’s Community Development Agency, which is in charge of managing the County’s GIS data, Public Works, and the Assessor’s Office. The County’s GIS Manager reviewed a GIS Data Needs List provided by WSP. The GIS team proceeded to discuss the details of the GIS mapping requirements, such as including inventory and valuation information for public infrastructure for each of the five identified hazards: earthquake, landslide, dam failure, flood, and wildfire. The team also discussed GIS data sources for potential new hazards. Other related comprehensive inventory information that was discussed included: roads, traffic signals, drainage facilities, lighting facilities, bridges, and airports.

Most of the inventory and risk data can be layered to provide aggregation of asset values within specifically identified risk areas. Additional hazard-specific data and layers were acquired and analyzed to quantify the geographic extent as well as the magnitude and severity of hazards for each of the five identified hazards that are assessed quantitatively: earthquake, landslide, dam failure, flood, and wildfire.

Data sources include USACE, Department of Water Resources (DWR), Homeland Infrastructure Foundation-Level Data (HIFLD), National Inventory of Dams (NID), FEMA, California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CALFIRE), Fire and Resource Assessment Program (FRAP), Department of Conservation (DOC), and California Geological Survey (CGS). Additional GIS spatial data was integrated to assess agricultural pests and diseases (important farmland data from DOC) and severe weather data from NWS and NOAA.

During the HIRA process, to assess hazards’ potential impacts on the County’s critical facilities, a critical facilities GIS database was needed and then established. While building the critical facilities GIS database, each participating jurisdiction’s assistance was requested to validate the critical facilities GIS data. There were two primary aspects of this: data completeness/correctness and alignment/classification with FEMA Lifelines framework. The County and four participating jurisdictions each reviewed the critical facility database and were encouraged to edit descriptive attributes and add new point data for critical facilities. This process further engaged participating jurisdictions that saw the value of the MJHMP and long-term use and maintenance of the critical facility data moving forward. The result was an updated comprehensive critical facilities database with 646 facilities.

Risk Assessment and GIS Methodology
The GIS methodology for the risk assessment is summarized below. • Identify Structures—buildings, infrastructure, critical facilities, structures that house elderly or disabled and transportation systems—both for present assets and those planned—categorized by FEMA Lifelines.
• Address Repetitive Loss Properties for flood hazard.
• Estimate Potential Property Losses. The development of the MJHMP includes an inventory of assets from each publicly governed jurisdiction, coordinated by Kings County, and an assessment of all the hazard risks: agricultural pest and disease, cyber threats, dam incidents, drought, earthquakes, extreme temperatures, flood, land subsidence, landslide, public health hazards, severe weather hazards and wildfires.
• The asset inventory provided by the County Assessor’s Office database includes individual parcels, address points, various lands use codes, and various taxing agencies or districts. • County property (building asset) inventory and valuation—for both present assets and those planned (within jurisdictions’ SOI).
• Each property within this County property inventory has its Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN), assessor's use code, government jurisdiction, and valuation data. Property value includes both improved value and estimated content value.
• County property type includes agricultural, commercial, exempt, industrial, multi-family residential, multi-use, and residential.
• From Census data, the number of people that would be affected by each natural hazard is calculated, which is the product of the number of properties that would be affected and the average household size.
• During an update to the risk assessment, local jurisdictions must consider current and expected future vulnerability to all hazards and integrate new hazard data such as flood studies. Local

Kings County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
2023 Update Page 3-16
jurisdictions were asked to incorporate replacement costs for vulnerable buildings and impacts of population growth or loss in vulnerable areas. WSP staff integrated this information, if available from each jurisdiction after the critical facilities assessment was complete. This process helped the jurisdictions understand what facilities were vulnerable to hazards and gather replacement value for these facilities.
• For hazards that are not assessed quantitatively, the vulnerability assessment includes qualitative analysis that addresses the hazard’s impact on property, people, critical facilities and infrastructure, economy, natural and cultural resources, and future development.

Public Review Period
The County OES department circulated the Public Review Draft MJHMP for a 20-day period from October 19, 2023, through November 7, 2023. The Public Review Draft was released for comment and made available for download via the County OES website. The Public Review Draft MJHMP was advertised through social media, mass emailing, and an advertisement through the media mechanisms noted previously. An electronic comment form through Microsoft Forms was provided with the draft plan.

However, no comments were received on the Public Review Draft MJHMP. As such, the majority of the public input was compiled from the public survey and tabling events.

3.4.2 Planning Step 3: Coordinate with Other Departments and Agencies Early in the planning process, state and local agencies and organizations were invited to participate as stakeholders in the process through email. Stakeholders include local and regional agencies involved in hazard mitigation activities or those beyond the County and local government that have the authority to regulate development. Kings County worked with the WSP team to come up with a list of potential HMPC participants and stakeholders. Stakeholders could participate in various ways, either by contributing input at HMPC meetings, being aware of planning activities through an email group, providing information to support the effort, or reviewing and commenting on the draft plan. Based on their involvement in other hazard mitigation planning efforts, and status in the County, representatives from the following agencies and organizations were invited to participate as stakeholders in the process by email; an asterisk indicates they participated in HMPC meetings. More specifics on stakeholder agency representatives can be found in Appendix A and documentation in Appendix B.

Kings County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Planning Process
2023 Update Page 3-17
Table 3-6 All Stakeholders Given An Opportunity To Be Involved In The Planning Process

STAKEHOLDER

GROUP STAKHOLDER AGENCY

OPPORTUNITY

INVITED TO

PARTICIPATE IN
HMPC

INVITED TO

COMMENT ON DRAFT

SHARED MEETING

SUMMARY

MATERIALS

INCLUDED IN SOCIAL

MEDIA BLASTS
Agencies
involved in
hazard mitigation
activities
CAL FIRE ✓ ✓
California DSOD ✓
California DWR* ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
California Natural Resource Agency ✓
California OES* ✓ ✓
County Agricultural Commissioner* ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
FEMA Region IX ✓

Kings County Department of
Agriculture*
✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Kings County OES* ✓ ✓
Kings County Public Works* ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Kings County Public Health
Department*
✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
NOAA/ NWS ✓ ✓
NWS Hanford* ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Kings County Office of Education ✓ ✓ ✓
Kings County Water District* ✓ ✓ ✓
Mid-Kings River Groundwater
Sustainability Agency*
✓ ✓ ✓

California Department of Parks and
Recreation
✓

Agencies that
have the
authority to
regulate
development:

City of Hanford Fire Department* ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Kings County Board of Supervisors* ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Kings County Community
Development Agency*
✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Kings County Fire Department* ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Lemoore Police Department* ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

Kings County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
2023 Update Page 3-18

STAKEHOLDER

GROUP STAKHOLDER AGENCY

OPPORTUNITY

INVITED TO

PARTICIPATE IN
HMPC

INVITED TO

COMMENT ON DRAFT

SHARED MEETING

SUMMARY

MATERIALS

INCLUDED IN SOCIAL

MEDIA BLASTS
USACE ✓
Neighboring
Communities
Tulare County Emergency
Management ✓ ✓ ✓
Fresno County Emergency
Management ✓ ✓ ✓
Monterey County Emergency
Management ✓ ✓ ✓
Kern County Emergency
Management ✓ ✓ ✓
Representatives
of business
academia, and
other private
organizations:

Southern California Edison ✓
Cross Creek Flood Control District* ✓ ✓ ✓
Kings County Farm Bureau* ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Kings River Conservation District* ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Sequoia Riverlands Trust ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
PG&E ✓
Westland Water District* ✓
Representatives
that provide
support to
underserved
communities
Office of Senator Hurtado SD 16* ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Kings Partnership ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Kings Tulare Homeless Alliance ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

Kings County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Planning Process
2023 Update Page 3-19

Federal, State, and Local Agencies
• California Department of Fire Protection and Forestry • California Department of Parks and Recreation
• California DSOD
• California DWR*
• California Natural Resource Agency
• California OES*
• City of Hanford Fire Department*
• County Agricultural Commissioner*
• FEMA Region IX
• Kings County Board of Supervisors*
• Kings County Community Development Agency*
• Kings County Department of Agriculture*
• Kings County Fire Department*
• Kings County OES*
• Kings County Public Health Department*
• Kings County Public Works*
• Lemoore Police Department*
• National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)/National Weather Service • NWS
• NWS Hanford*
• USACE
Businesses, Academia, Utility Providers, Dam Owners and Operators and Non-Profits • Cross Creek Flood Control District*
• Kings County Farm Bureau*
• Kings County Office of Education
• Kings County Water District*
• Kings River Conservation District*
• Mid-Kings River Groundwater Sustainability Agency*
• PG&E
• Sequoia Riverlands Trust
• Southern California Edison
• Westland Water District*
Incorporation or Existing Plans and Other Information
The coordination and synchronization with other community planning mechanisms and efforts are vital to the success of this plan. To have a thorough evaluation of hazard mitigation practices already in place, appropriate planning procedures should also involve identifying and reviewing existing plans, policies, regulations, codes, tools, and other actions designed to reduce a community’s risk and vulnerability from natural hazards. Kings County uses a variety of mechanisms to guide growth and development.

Integrating existing planning efforts, mitigation policies, and action strategies into this plan establishes a credible, comprehensive document that weaves the common threads of a community’s values together.

The development and update of this plan involved a comprehensive review of existing plans, studies, reports, and initiatives from Kings County and each participating municipality that relate to hazards or hazard mitigation. A high-level summary of the key plans, studies and reports is summarized in Table 3-7 below. Information on how they informed the update is noted and incorporated where applicable.

Table 3-7 Summary of Review of Key Plans, Studies and Reports

PLAN, STUDY, REPORT NAME HOW PLAN INFORMED LHMP
Kings County General Plan The Kings County General Plan was adopted by the Board of Supervisors on January 26, 2010. The County proactively addresses hazards through the General Plan Health and Safety Element and references the MJHMP that was prepared in 2012. One representative from the HMPC is also working on initiating the County’s General Plan update, which would help ensure that

Kings County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
2023 Update Page 3-20

PLAN, STUDY, REPORT NAME HOW PLAN INFORMED LHMP
both plans are integrated and contain mutually -reinforcing policies (please note this formal update process will not start before the finalization of the MJHMP). The General Plan and the 202 3 MJHMP Update contain complementary actions to achieve the goal of hazard risk reduction. Future updates of the General Plan, including incorporation by reference of the 202 3 MJHMP into the Health and Safety Element will continue to ensure consistency between both plans.

The General Plan also includes the Housing Element chapter. The 2016-2024 Housing Element is incorporated into the 2023 MJHMP Update to identify development trends.

Kings County Emergency
Operations Plan
The purpose of the County of Kings Emergency Operations Plan (EOP) and its Functional Annexes is to provide the basis for a coordinated response before, during and after a disaster incident. This plan is the principal guide for the County’s response to, and management of real or potential emergencies and disasters occurring within its designated geographic boundaries.

The 2015 Kings County Emergency Operations Plan (EOP) incorporates the FEMA Comprehensive Preparedness Guide (CPG) 101 v. 2.0 and the State of California Emergency Plan best practices . The plan is designed to be read, understood and exercised prior to an emergency and establishes the framework for implementation of the California Standardized Emergency Management System (SEMS) and the NIMS for the County. The County of Kings EOP is intended to facilitate multi‐agency and multi‐jurisdictional coordination, particularly between the County of Kings and its jurisdictions, as well as special districts, utilities, major businesses, the American Red Cross (ARC), community groups, state agencies, an d the federal government. The County is in the process of initiating a formal update to the EOP in late 2023.

Kings County Code, Chapter 5 –
Buildings and Structures
The Kings County Code, Chapter 5, provides minimum standards to safeguard life, health, property, and public welfare by regulating and controlling the design, construction, quality of materials, use and occupancy, location, and maintenance of all buildings and structures within the uninco rporated areas of the County.

This chapter of the County code includes building code, relocation permits, electrical code, and plumbing code.

Kings County Code, Chapter

16.50, Floodplain Management
The purpose of this Chapter is to promote public health, safety, and general welfare, and to minimize public and private losses due to flood conditions in specific areas through specific provisions.

This ordinance was used as a reference to assess County’s mitigation capabilities and design mitigation actions and projects.

Kings County Code, Chapter

16.55, Fire Code
This chapter is enacted for the public need in the extinguishment of fires, and the preventing, eliminating, or minimizing fire hazard s for the safety of life and property in the county.

Kings County 2012 MJHMP The plan was reviewed to provide a basis for the current update.

Assessor for parcel data
including Use Codes; assessed
categories; and values; address
points
Used for quantitative vulnerability assessment for hazards. Parcel information was integrated into each hazard’s “Property” section in the vulnerability assessment.

Public Works for current
infrastructure list (Bridges,
Drainage, Street Lights, and
Traffic Lights) and their
geographic placement
Used to establish critical facilities GIS database.

GIS for numerous base map
shapefiles such as cities, counties,
parcels, rivers, and roads
Used as base maps and for establishing critical facilities GIS database.

Kings County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
2023 Update Page 3-21

PLAN, STUDY, REPORT NAME HOW PLAN INFORMED LHMP
FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map 1% and 0.2% annual chance floodplain data was acquired to profile flood hazard and carry out the related vulnerability assessment.

USACE Comprehensive Study;
DWR Awareness Floodplain
Mapping project
USACE 100-year flood event layer and DWR best available maps in 200-year flood event layer were acquired to profile flood hazard and carry out the related vulnerability assessment.

FEMA Technical Bulletin 11-01
Crawlspace Construction for
Buildings located in Special
Flood Hazard Areas NFIP Interim
Guidance
Provides guidance on crawlspace construction; used as a reference to design mitigation actions and projects.

NFIP This program aims to reduce the impact of flooding on private and public structures by providing affordable insurance to property owners and by encouraging communities to adopt and enforce floodplain management regulations. These efforts help mitigate the effects of flooding on new and improved structures.

NFIP data was incorporated into the vulnerability assessment for flood hazard.

NIMS This system directs the creation of a comprehensive, national approach to incident management by federal, state, territorial, Tribal, and local responders and across all functional disciplines.

Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission (FERC)
FERC is an independent agency that regulates interstate transmission of electricity, natural gas, and oil. FERC also reviews proposals to build liquefied national gas (LNG) terminals and interstate natural gas pipelines as well as licensing hydropower proj ects and providing regulations for dams.

California Geological Survey,
USGS
Data was acquired to profile and carry out vulnerability assessment for earthquake, land subsidence, and landslide hazards.

California Code of Regulations,
Title 24, Part 9 (California
Building Standards Code) (Fire
Code)
CCR Title 24 governs the design and construction of all building occupancies and associated facilities and equipment throughout California and is also known as building standards. It contains requirements for the structural, mechanical, electrical, and plu mbing systems, and requires measures for energy conservation, green design, construction and maintenance, fire and life safety, and accessibility.

The code is used as a reference to design mitigation actions and projects.

Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault
Zoning Act
The Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act’s main purpose is to prevent the construction of buildings used for human occupancy on the surface trace of active faults.

Relevant data was acquired to profile earthquake hazard.

California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA)
CEQA is a California statute passed in 1970 (shortly after the United States Federal Government passed the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)), to institute statewide policy of environmental protection. The County will complete supporting CEQA documentation prior to board approval and adoption.

California Public Resources Code
(PRC) Section 4291 – Structures in
Fire Hazard Areas
This code provides direction for persons owning, leasing, controlling, operating, or maintaining any building or structure in, upon, or adjoining any mountainous area of forest-covered lands, brush-covered lands, or grass - covered lands, or any lands which are covered with flammable material.

The code is used as a reference to design mitigation actions and projects.

Municipal General Plans
(including Safety Elements, Land
Use Elements, and Housing
Elements)
Informed the municipal annexes and in some cases the community service district annexes on past hazard events, mitigation policies, combining designations and existing and projected development.

Kings County Flood Insurance
Study
Reviewed for information on past floods and flood problems to inform risk assessment and consequence analysis (Section 4).

Utilized digital flood insurance rate maps effective

Kings County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
2023 Update Page 3-22

PLAN, STUDY, REPORT NAME HOW PLAN INFORMED LHMP
2018 State of California Multi-
Hazard Mitigation Plan
Reviewed information on climate change and hazard assessment data to ensure consistency with this plan update.

Reviewed list of hazards to inform risk assessment and consequence analysis (Section 4).

Reviewed goals for consistency
CALFIRE and FRAP Data was acquired to profile and carry out vulnerability assessment for wildfire hazard.

NOAA National Centers for
Environmental Information -State
Climate Summaries
Reviewed information on climate change to inform risk assessment and consequence analysis.

Data was acquired to profile and carry out vulnerability assessment for severe weather hazard.

California DOF/U.S. Census
Bureau, ACS, 2015-2019
Informed the background of the community including demographic trends and the calculation of population at risk.

USDA Risk Management Agency
Crop Indemnity Reports, 2007 -
2020
Informed the adverse weather section vulnerability assessment on how crops have been impacted by weather events in the past. Also informed the Drought, Severe Weather and Agricultural Pests and Disease sections of the HIRA.

California Climate Adaptation
Strategy, 2018 and California OES
Contingency Plan for Excessive
Heat Emergencies (2014)
Informed the Extreme Heat profile and climate change considerations in the risk assessment and consequence analysis.

All relevant plans, codes, and
ordinances currently in place
such as building codes, zoning
ordinances, subdivision
ordinances, special purpose
ordinances, site plan review
requirements, growth
management ordinances,
economic development plans,
and emergency response plans
were reviewed
Reviewed and used to profile and carry out vulnerability assessment for hazards.

Used as references to design mitigation actions and projects.

In the process of preparing this 2023 MJHMP Update, many other existing plans, studies, reports, and technical information were evaluated or used as guidance. The HMPC for the development of the MJHMP Update included representatives who are charged with developing the Kings County General Plan and the Kings County EOP. The Planning Committee members work to ensure that local plans are integrated with the MJHMP and provide expertise for the integration of other local, state, and federal plans, codes, and regulations.

Other technical data, reports and studies were reviewed and considered, as appropriate, during the collection of data to support Planning Steps 4 and 5, which include hazard identification, vulnerability assessment, and capability assessment. Information from the following agencies and groups was reviewed in the development and update of this plan. Specific references relied on in the development of this plan are also sourced throughout the document as appropriate. • CAL FIRE
• California Department of Parks and Recreation Office of Historic Preservation • California Department of Transportation
• California Department of Public Health
• California Natural Resources Agency
• California DSOD
• California DWR
• California Geological Survey
• Kings County Agricultural Department
• Kings OES
• California Water Foundation
• FEMA
• NOAA National Climatic Data Center

Kings County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
2023 Update Page 3-23
• National Register of Historic Places
• Natural Resource Conservation Service
• NWS
• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
• U.S. Geological Survey
• Western Regional Climate Center
• Center for Western Weather and Water Extremes
Integration of 2012 Plan into Other Plans and Planning Mechanisms The 2012 MJHMP was referenced in the County’s 2015 EOP. However, the 2012 MJHMP was not specifically incorporated or referenced in any other County or municipal plans and planning mechanisms with the exception of the City of Hanford 2035 General Plan Safety Element Policy Document (Goal H1-H2 and Policies H1-H6). A process to do so with the 2023 MJHMP is outlined in Subsection 6.3.3. For example, the County’s 2010 General Plan Health and Safety Element extensively referenced the County’s 2007 MJHMP, but the current element does not reference the 2012 MJHMP. The 2023 MJHMP update can be incorporated into the Health and Safety Element when the County updates the element. There is a process noted in both Subsection 6.3.3 and corresponding mitigation actions in Subsection 5.3 that outline how the County and municipalities can sustain compliance under AB 2140, which recommends adoption by reference or incorporation of the MJHMP into the Safety Element of the General Plan. The County can also use the Health and Safety Element update process to address compliance with AB 747 and Senate Bill 99 related to evacuation route capacity and the identification of residential neighborhoods that do not have at least two ingress/egress routes.

3.4.3 Phase 2: Assess Risks
Planning Step 4: Identify the Hazards
WSP led the HMPC to review the list of hazards identified in the 2012 plan and document all the hazards that have, or could, impact the Kings County planning area, including documenting recent drought, flood, land subsidence, wildfire and severe storm events that were not included in the 2012 MJHMP. The Plan Update Guide worksheets were used to aid in determining hazards and vulnerabilities and where risk varies across the planning area. The profile of each of these hazards was then updated during the 2022-2023 process with information from the HMPC and additional sources. Web resources, existing reports and plans, and existing GIS layers were used to compile information about past hazard events and determine the location, previous occurrences, probability of future occurrences, and magnitude/severity of each hazard. GIS was used to display, analyze, and quantify hazards and vulnerabilities where data was permitted. The potential for climate change to affect the frequency and intensity of the hazards was summarized based on the latest available science, where applicable. A more detailed description of the HIRA process and the results are included in Section 4: Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment.

Planning Step 5: Assess the Risks
After updating the profiles of the hazards that could affect the County, the HMPC collected information to describe the likely impacts of future hazard events on the participating jurisdictions. This step included two parts: a vulnerability assessment and a capability assessment.

Vulnerability Assessment – Participating jurisdictions updated their assets at risk to natural hazards— overall and in identified hazard areas. These assets included the total number and value of structures; critical facilities and infrastructure; natural, historic, and cultural assets; and economic assets. The HMPC also analyzed development trends in hazard areas. The latest DFIRM was used to refine the estimated flood losses during the update, where available, for the NFIP participating communities.

Population at risk, specifically socially vulnerable populations and underserved communities were also assessed and calculated for dam incidents, earthquake, flood, landslide, and wildfire hazards. These populations include housing-burdened, low-income households, who may not have the resources to prepare for hazards, those with limited water access, who may be more vulnerable to interruptions in access due to hazard events, and those who rely upon electricity-dependent medical equipment.

Capability Assessment – The HMPC conducted a capability assessment update to review and document the planning area’s current capabilities to mitigate risk and vulnerability from hazards. By collecting information about existing government programs, policies, regulations, ordinances, and emergency

Kings County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
2023 Update Page 3-24
plans, the HMPC can assess those activities and measures already in place that contribute to mitigating some of the risks and vulnerabilities identified. This information for the County is included in Section 6 and the respective jurisdictional annexes. This addressed FEMA planning task 4: Review community capabilities - 44 CFR 201.6 (b)(2) & (3).

Results of the risk assessment were presented, and comments were discussed at the second HMPC meeting in March 2023. A more detailed description of the risk assessment process and the results are included in Section 4: Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment.

3.4.4 Phase 3: Develop the Mitigation Plan
Planning Step 6: Set Goals
WSP facilitated a discussion session with the HMPC to review the 2012 MJHMP’s goals and objectives. The HMPC discussed definitions and examples of goals, objectives, and actions and considered the goals of the 2023 Draft California SHMP and other relevant local plans when reviewing and revising the goals and objectives. The resulting updated goals and objectives are presented in Section 5: Mitigation Strategy. For the 2023 MJHMP, several goals were modified; no objectives specific were added.

Planning Step 7: Review Possible Activities
WSP facilitated a discussion at an HMPC meeting to review the alternatives for mitigating hazards. This included a group activity with the HMPC to identify a comprehensive range of mitigation actions for each identified hazard, and a group activity to select and rank mitigation actions using selection criteria. More specifics on the process and the results of this collaborative process are captured in Section 5: Mitigation Strategy.

As part of the review of mitigation options long-term climate change adaptation strategies were also discussed. 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 the California Adaptation Planning Guide (APG).

Planning Step 8: Draft an Action Plan
Based on input from the HMPC regarding the draft risk assessment and the goals and activities identified in Planning Steps 6 and 7, WSP produced a complete first draft of the plan. This complete Administrative Draft MJHMP was shared electronically with the HMPC for review and comment. Other agencies were invited to comment on this draft, specifically surrounding counties. HMPC and agency comments were integrated into the second draft, which was advertised and distributed to collect public input and comments. Neighboring county emergency managers and interested stakeholders identified under Step 3 were also solicited to provide comments on the draft plan during the public review period; no comments were received. WSP integrated comments and issues from the public, as appropriate, along with additional internal review comments and produced a final draft for the California OES and FEMA Region IX to review and approve, contingent upon final adoption by the governing boards of each participating jurisdiction.

3.4.5 Phase 4: Implement the Plan and Monitor Progress
Planning Step 9: Adopt the Plan
In order to secure buy-in and officially implement the plan, the plan was adopted by the governing boards of each participating jurisdiction on the dates included in the adoption resolutions in Appendix C.

The final plan will be incorporated by reference in the Safety Element of the County General Plan and result in the County’s eligibility for Assembly Bill (AB) 2140. This adoption makes the jurisdiction eligible for consideration for part or all its local costs on eligible public assistance to be provided by State share funding through the CDDA.

Planning Step 10: Implement, Evaluate, and Revise the Plan The true worth of any mitigation plan is in the effectiveness of its implementation. Up to this point in the plan update process, all the HMPC’s efforts have been directed at researching data, coordinating input from participating entities, and updating and developing appropriate mitigation actions. Each recommended action includes key descriptors, such as hazard(s) addressed, lead manager and priority, to

Kings County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
2023 Update Page 3-25
help initiate implementation. An overall implementation strategy is described in Section 6: Plan Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance.

Finally, there are numerous organizations within the Kings County planning area whose goals and interests’ interface with hazard mitigation. Coordination with these other planning efforts, as addressed in Planning Step 3, is paramount to the ongoing success of this plan and mitigation in Kings County and is addressed further in Section 6. A plan update and maintenance schedule and a strategy for continued public involvement are also included in Section 6.

Implementation and Maintenance Process: 2012 MJHMP
The 2012 MJHMP included a process for implementation and maintenance which was generally followed, with some variation. Implementation of the plan including the status of mitigation actions is captured in Section 5 and the jurisdictional annexes. In general, the County and participating jurisdictions have made progress in the implementation of the plan. Successes of note are detailed in the mitigation strategy in Section 5. An updated implementation and maintenance section can be referenced in Section 6.

Kings County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment

2023 Update Page 4-1
4 HAZARD IDENTIFICATION AND RISK ASSESSMENT
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.

Requirement §201.6(c)(2)(ii):
[The risk assessment shall include a] description of the jurisdiction’s vulnerability to the hazards described in paragraph (c)(2)(i) of this section. This description shall include an overall summary of each hazard and its impact on the community. All plans approved after October 1, 2008, must also address NFIP insured structures that have been repetitively damaged by floods. The plan should describe vulnerability in terms of:
• §201.6(c)(2)(ii)(A): The types and numbers of existing and future buildings, infrastructure, and critical facilities located in the identified hazard areas;
• §201.6(c)(2)(ii)(B): An estimate of the potential dollar losses to vulnerable structures identified in ... this section and a description of the methodology used to prepare the estimate.
• §201.6(c)(2)(ii)(C): Providing a general description of land uses and development trends within the community so that mitigation options can be considered in future land use decisions.

Risk to natural hazards is a combination of hazard, vulnerability, and capability. This section of the Multi- Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP) will look at both hazards and vulnerability. The risk assessment process identifies and profiles relevant hazards and assesses the exposure to lives, property, and infrastructure to these hazards. The goal of the risk assessment table is to estimate the potential losses in Kings County (County) from a hazard event. This process also allows communities in the County to better understand their potential risk to natural hazards and provides a foundation for developing and prioritizing mitigation actions to reduce the risks from future hazard events in Kings County. These mitigation actions can then be designed to reduce damage from natural disasters through increased preparedness and focus resources towards assets that have the greatest vulnerability.

In the early meetings, the County and the Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee (HMPC) reviewed data from the following sources on hazards affecting the County, those sources were: the federal and state disaster declaration history, the State of California Hazard Mitigation Plan (SHMP) (2018) and the Draft SHMP Update (2023), the previous Kings County MJHMP (2012), the Health Safety Element of the Kings County 2035 General Plan (2010), and interviews of staff that live and work in the County.

During the 1st HMPC Meeting (October 31, 2022), the HMPC reviewed the broad set of hazards evaluated in the relevant local and regional hazard planning documents, including the SHMP. Based on this crosswalk process with the other relevant planning documents, the HMPC agreed on the significant natural, human-caused, and human-health hazards in the County that should be evaluated in the risk assessment. The HMPC agreed to address technological or human‐caused hazards but not transportation accidents and hazardous material incidents, which are addressed in emergency operations plans for the county and participating jurisdictions. This crosswalk process provided the basis for prioritizing the hazards profiled and evaluated in the risk assessment. The hazards contained in this planning effort are in alphabetical order and listed below. Hazards noted in italics (and with an asterisk) are hazards not previously profiled in the 2012 Kings Count MJHMP; five additional hazards were addressed in the MJHMP update, including two natural hazards, two human-caused hazards, and one public health hazard. • Agricultural Pests and Disease*
• Cyber-Attack*
• Dam Incidents
• Drought
• Earthquake
• Extreme Temperatures: Freeze and Extreme Heat
• Flood
• Land Subsidence*
• Landslide
• Public Health Hazards: Pandemics/Epidemics*
• Severe Weather: General

Kings County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment

2023 Update Page 4-2 • Severe Weather: Dense Fog
• Severe Weather: Heavy Rain, Thunderstorms, Hail, and Lightning* • Severe Weather: High Wind/Tornado
• Wildfire

4.1 NON‐PROFILED HAZARDS
The HMPC reviewed data and discussed several other hazards, which were eliminated from further discussion because they rarely occur and/or their impacts are not significant. The list below details these hazards and provides a brief explanation for their omission from further profiling. • Avalanche ‐ Snowfall is extremely rare to nonexistent across the County planning area. • Coastal Erosion/Storm ‐ Coastal hazards do not occur due to distance from coasts and ocean. • Hurricane ‐ Hazard does not occur due to distance from ocean. • Terrorism/Civil Unrest/Human-Caused Threats – While terrorism and civil unrest are threats to the County, this risk is best addressed in other plans.
• Tsunami ‐ Hazard does not occur due to distance from ocean. • Severe Winter Storm ‐ Very little to no snowfall recorded throughout the County; temperatures fall below 32 degrees Fahrenheit only a few days of the year. • Volcano ‐ The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) does not include the County in their map of areas identified as subject to hazards from potential volcano eruptions in California. Also, the volcanoes in California near the Mono-Inyo Craters Volcano Chain and the Lassen Volcanic Center are not close to the County and have a limited chance of eruption. There have also not been declared disasters in the County associated with volcanic activity.

The remainder of this section begins with an overview of the history of declared disasters in the County followed by the profiles of identified hazards.

4.2 DISASTER DECLARATION HISTORY
One method to identify hazards is to look at the events that have triggered federal and/or state disaster declarations that included the County. The County received 20 federal and state disaster declarations since 1950, the majority of which consisted of flood and severe storm events. Table 4-1 lists the disaster declarations where the County was designated federal and/or state disaster declarations from 1950 to the present. There have been 21 State declarations and 15 federal declarations.

Table 4-1 Kings County Disaster Declaration History 1950‐present

HAZARD TYPE DISASTER NAME DISASTER
NUMBER
STATE

DECLARATION

FEDERAL

DECLARATION
Flood 1969 Storms OEP DR‐253 01/29/69 01/26/69
Flood Heavy Snow Runoff OEP DR‐2270 01/28/69 08/15/69
Severe Storm,
Freeze Freeze / Severe Weather OEP DR-3086 04/17/72 Not declared Drought 1976 Drought EM-3023-CA 02/13/76 01/20/77
Severe Storms Winter ’78 Storms DR‐547 02/27/78 02/15/78 Flood Winter Storms DR‐682 03/03/83 02/09/83
Severe Storm Severe Winter Storms DR‐1044 01/17/95 01/13/95 Severe Storm,
Flood Late Winter Storms DR‐1046 01/05/95 01/10/95
Flood January 1997 Floods W-145-97 01/31/97 Not declared Flood El Nino W-169-98 02/13/98 Not declared
Freeze Freeze DR‐1267 02/09/99 02/09/99
Freeze Severe Freeze DR‐1689 3/13/2007 3/13/07
Severe Storm 08 January Storms OES 2008‐01 1/2008 Not declared Drought Central Valley Drought OES 2008‐03 06/12/08 Not declared

Kings County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment

2023 Update Page 4-3

HAZARD TYPE DISASTER NAME DISASTER
NUMBER
STATE

DECLARATION

FEDERAL

DECLARATION
Flood December 2010 Statewide
Storms
DR‐1952
OES 2010‐17 12/21/10 01/26/11
Flood Severe Winter Storms DR-4308-CA 04/01/2017 04/01/17 Biological Statewide Covid-19 EM-3428-CA 03/13/2020 03/13/2020 Biological Covid-19 Pandemic DR-4482-CA 03/20/2020 03/22/20 Biological Statewide Monkeypox NR22-119 09/04/2022 Not declared Flood Severe Winter Storms EM-3591-CA
DR-4683-CA 01/24/2023 01/09/23
Flood Severe Winter Storms EM-3592-CA,
DR-4683-CA 03/10/23 03/09/23
Source: Kings OEM, Cal EMA and FEMA
The majority of declarations and all but two federal disaster declarations were declared for severe storms and flooding. These occurred twice in 1969, once each in 1978 and 1983, and twice in 1995 and again in 2010‐2011. A federal disaster declaration for freeze in February was declared in 1999 and in 2007. The remaining declarations were for a state declaration for drought in 1976 and another in 2008.

The federal government may also issue a disaster declaration through the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and/or the Small Business Administration (SBA), as well as through the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). The quantity and types of damage are the determining factors. A USDA declaration makes all qualified farm operators in the designated areas eligible for low‐interest emergency loans from the USDA's Farm Service Agency. As part of an agreement with the USDA, the SBA offers low interest loans for eligible businesses that suffered economic losses in declared and contiguous counties.

The USDA declarations are listed in Table 4-2 since the last plan update in 2012.

Table 4-2 USDA Agricultural Declarations Since 2012 Plan Update

USDA DECLARATION APPROVAL DATE DESIGNATION NUMBER
Drought 2/27/2013 S3491
Drought 3/13/2013 S3497
Drought 4/10/2013 S3504
Drought 1/15/2014 S3626
Drought 9/17/2014 S3743
Drought 2/17/2016 S3952
Rain and wind 7/27/2016 S4003
Excessive rainfall and high
winds
3/31/2017 S4164
Excessive rain, high winds, cold
temperatures, and hail
4/28/2017 S4170
Drought 2/23/2017 S4144
Freeze 7/18/2018 S4350
Drought 3/22/2019 S4467
Excessive rain 3/11/2020 S4656
Excessive rain and hail 3/11/2020 S4657
Drought 3/5/2021 S4916
Drought 5/10/2021 S4969
Source: USDA Disaster Designations, 2012 – 2021
Hazard events that occur outside the County planning area can also directly and indirectly impact the County. These hazard events are commonly associated with dam incidents that result in inundation flooding within the larger watershed and wildfires that affect air quality and downstream post-wildfire erosion. Power outages can also occur due to high wind events and wildfires and because of outages that occur outside the County.

Kings County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment

2023 Update Page 4-4

4.3 METHODOLOGY
The HMPC prioritized hazards based on a process that combines criteria on the hazard problem, where the hazard occurs in the planning area, past occurrences, the Likelihood of Future Occurrence, and the magnitude of the hazard if it were to cause damage. Each hazard profile includes the following subsections:

HAZARD DESCRIPTION – This section gives a description of the hazard problem and associated issues followed by details on the hazard specific to the County planning area.

GEOGRAPHIC AREA – This section provides a spatial description of the potential location or areas of the County where the hazard is expected to impact.
• Limited: Less than 10% of planning area
• Significant: 10-50% of planning area
• Extensive: 50-100% of planning area
PAST OCCURRENCES – This section contains information on historical incidents, including impacts where known events occurred. Historical incident worksheets were used to capture information from participating jurisdictions on past occurrences.

LIKELIHOOD OF FUTURE OCCURRENCE – The frequency of past events is used in this section to gauge the likelihood of future occurrences. Where possible, frequency was calculated based on existing data. It is determined by dividing the number of events observed by the number of years on record and multiplying by 100. This gives the percent chance (probability) of an event happening in any given year (e.g., three droughts over a 30-year period equates to a 10 percent chance of a drought in any given year). The likelihood of future occurrences is categorized into one of the following classifications:
• Highly Likely: Near 100 percent chance of occurrence in next year or happens every year. • Likely: Between 10 and 100 percent chance of occurrence in next year or has a recurrence interval of 10 years or less.
• Occasional: Between 1 and 10 percent chance of occurrence in the next year or has a recurrence interval of 11 to 100 years.
• Unlikely: Less than 1 percent chance of occurrence in next 100 years or has a recurrence interval of greater than every 100 years.

CLIMATE CHANGE CONSIDERATIONS – This describes the potential for climate change to affect the frequency and intensity of the hazard in the future. The HIRA describes two GHG emissions scenarios that reflect different projections for how global emissions and atmospheric GHG concentrations may change over time but selects a high emissions scenario (Representative Concentration Pathway [RCP] 8.5) for each natural hazard affected by climate change. The Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) recommends that agencies use RCP 8.5 for analyses considering impacts through 2050 because there are minimal differences between emissions scenarios during the first half of the century.

The HIRA also uses Cal-Adapt’s default settings that provides outputs for subsets of 10 and 4 global climate models (GCMs) and integrates projections for mid-century (2040-2060) and through the end-of- century (2070-2090); however mapped climate projects using GIS data were only included for the mid- century.

MAGNITUDE AND SEVERITY – This section describes the potential strength or magnitude of the hazard as it pertains to the County. It describes how much damage could occur as a result of a hazard event.
• Catastrophic: More than 50 percent of property severely damaged; shutdown of facilities for more than 30 days; and/or multiple deaths
• Critical: 25-50 percent of property severely damaged; shutdown of facilities for at least two weeks; and/or injuries and/or illnesses result in permanent disability • Limited: 10-25 percent of property severely damaged; shutdown of facilities for more than a week; and/or injuries/illnesses treatable do not result in permanent disability

Kings County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment

2023 Update Page 4-5 • Negligible: Less than 10 percent of property severely damaged, shutdown of facilities and services for less than 24 hours; and/or injuries/illnesses treatable with first aid VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT – Following the hazard profiles is a vulnerability assessment for each identified hazard. The assessment was conducted through the study of potential impacts on the following specific sectors:
• People
• Property
• Critical Facilities and Lifelines
• Economy
• Cultural, Historic and Natural Resources
• Development Trends
The vulnerabilities are summarized for all natural hazards, including the human-caused and human- health hazards. For example, the vulnerability assessment addresses who or what is vulnerable to natural hazards or climate stressors that influence the hazard, where someone or a critical facility is susceptible to related health impacts or direct damage, and when and why these assets may be vulnerable. The vulnerability assessment is used to inform strategic decision-making by identifying the assets or portions of the planning areas most vulnerable to natural hazards.

RISK SUMMARY – Overall hazard significance is based on a combination of geographic area, probability of future occurrence and magnitude/severity. Each risk summary includes key issues and problems based on threat, vulnerability and impacts to the County planning area and jurisdictions from the specific hazard. Significance rankings are defined by the following:
• Low: minimal potential impact
• Medium: moderate potential impact
• High: widespread potential impact
•
Data used to support this assessment included the following information sources:
• County GIS data (hazards, base layers, and assessor’s data); • Statewide and nationwide GIS datasets to support mitigation planning; • California 2018 SHMP and 2013 Draft SHMP;
• Kings County 2012 MJHMP;
• Neighboring Jurisdictional HMPs;
• California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) datasets; • California’s Fourth Climate Change Assessment;
• Written descriptions of inventory and risks provided by the jurisdictions; • Online data sources (cited where applicable);
• Data and information from existing plans and studies; and • Input from the HMPC members and staff from the County and local, state, and federal agencies • FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs)

4.3.1 Hazard Ranking Summary by Jurisdiction
Overall hazard significance is based on a combination of information on how much of the hazard covers the planning areas, historical data, disaster potential and relevance to each jurisdiction, magnitude and severity, and the probability of future occurrences. Each metric was used to identify and prioritize the list of hazards most relevant to Kings County and the individual rankings are based on or interpolated from the analysis of the hazards in the risk assessment. This process helps the County and jurisdictions compare and rank hazards that pose the greatest risk.

Kings County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment

2023 Update Page 4-6 Participating agencies were also asked to complete Plan Update Guide worksheets to initiate the process of screening and ranking hazards within the County. The Plan Update Guides require ranking of the hazards based on geographic extent, magnitude/severity of the hazard, past occurrences, the frequency/probability of future occurrences, and overall significance, as shown in Table 4-3. The results of the Plan Update Guides were collected to determine the rankings, and these rankings were reviewed again with the HMPC for further input. Public input was also integrated based on feedback from the bi- lingual survey and two public workshops.

Table 4-3 Kings County Hazard Significance Summary
Hazard Geographic Extent Magnitude/Severity
(Extent)
Probability of
Future Occurrence Overall Significance
Agricultural Pests
and Disease
Extensive Critical Likely Medium
Cyber-Attack Significant Critical Occasional Medium Dam Incidents Significant Critical Unlikely Medium
Drought Extensive Critical Likely High
Earthquake Limited Catastrophic Occasional Medium
Extreme
Temperatures
Extensive Limited Highly Likely High
Flood Extensive Limited Highly Likely Medium
Land Subsidence Extensive Limited Likely Medium
Landslide Significant Negligible Occasional Low
Public Health
Hazards
Extensive Critical Highly Likely Medium
Dense Fog Extensive Critical Highly Likely Medium
Severe Storms Extensive Critical Highly Likely Medium High Wind and
Tornado
Extensive Critical Highly Likely Medium
Wildfire Significant Negligible Likely Medium
Spatial Extent
Extensive: 50-100% of planning area
Significant: 10-50% of planning area
Limited: Less than 10% of planning area

Potential Severity
Catastrophic: Multiple deaths, shutdown of facilities for 30 days or more, >50% of property is severely damaged
Critical: Multiple severe injuries, shutdown of facilities for at least 2 weeks, >25% of property is severely damaged
Moderate: Some injuries, shutdown of critical facilities for more than one week, >10% of property is severely damaged
Negligible: Minor injuries, minimal quality -of-life impact, interruption of facilities and services for 24 hours or less, less than 10% of property is severely damaged.

Probability of Future Occurrence
Highly Likely: Near 100% probability each year.

Likely: Between 10 and 100% probability per year or at
least one chance in ten years.

Occasional: Between 1 and 10% probability per year or
at least one chance in next 100 years.

Unlikely: Less than 1% probability in next 100 years.

Significance
High: widespread potential impact
Medium: moderate potential impact
Low: minimal potential impact
Table 4-4 summarizes how these hazard rankings vary across jurisdiction, which allows the jurisdictions to compare multiple hazards and priorities, and with a focus on the natural hazards.

Kings County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment

2023 Update Page 4-7 Table 4-4 Hazard Ranking Summary in Kings County by Jurisdiction

HAZARD KINGS

COUNTY AVENAL CORCORAN HANFORD LEMOORE
Agricultural
Pest & Disease Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium
Cyber-Attack Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium
Dam Incidents Medium Low Low Medium Medium
Drought High High High High High
Earthquake Medium High Medium Medium Medium
Extreme
Temperatures Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium
Flood High High High High High
Land
Subsidence Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium
Landslide High Medium High Medium Medium
Public Health Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium
Fog Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium
Severe Storm Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium
Wind &Tornado Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium
Wildfire Medium Medium Low Low Low
Source: Kings County HMPC

4.4 ASSET SUMMARY

4.4.1 Assets Exposure
As a starting point for analyzing the planning area’s vulnerability to identified hazards, the HMPC used a variety of data to define a baseline against which all disaster impacts could be compared. If a catastrophic disaster was to occur in the planning area, this section describes significant assets exposed or at risk in the planning area. Data used in this baseline assessment included:
• Total assets at risk;
• Critical facility inventory;
• Cultural, historical, and natural resources; and
• Population growth and land use and development trends.

4.4.1.1 Total Assets at Risk
Building value assessments in this plan are based on data from the County’s Assessor’s Office. This data provided the baseline for an inventory of the total exposure of developed properties within the County and helps to ensure that the updated MJHMP reflects changes in development. It is important to note that depending on the nature and type of hazard events or disasters, it is generally the value of the

Kings County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment

2023 Update Page 4-8 infrastructure or improvements to the parcels that are of concern or at risk. Generally, the land itself is not a total loss, but may see a reduction in value. Thus, the parcel analysis excludes land value.

4.4.1.2 Parcel & Structure Exposure and Preparations for Analysis The most up-to-date County Assessor data (2023) and address point data (2022) were used to inventory the total number and types of parcels with improvements, defined as parcels with an improvement value greater than zero in the County, as well as the total number and types of structures on these parcels.

Building content values were estimated based on the following formulas derived from FEMA/Hazus methods: a) Residential and Multi-Family Residential properties received content values worth 50% of the improved values; b) Agricultural, Commercial, Exempt, and Multi-Use related properties received content values worth 100% of the improved values; and c) Industrial properties received content values worth 150% of the improved values. Adding up these content and original improved values yields the Total Value of Improved Parcels, which is an estimation of the total property exposure within the County.

Table 4-5 summarizes the property inventory for the County and each participating jurisdiction with detail by property type. Table 4-6 shows the total property inventory from the Assessor’s Office.

Table 4-5 Total Exposure Summary by Jurisdiction

JURISDICTION IMPROVED
PARCEL
COUNT

BUILDING
COUNT

IMPROVED
VALUE

CONTENT
VALUE

TOTAL VALUE
Avenal 1,897 2,514 $212,728,605 $118,884,090 $331,612,695 Corcoran 3,330 3,706 $411,183,649 $250,888,988 $662,072,637 Hanford 17,122 20,749 $3,636,911,685 $2,294,089,679 $5,931,001,364 Lemoore 7,109 10,012 $1,541,853,696 $955,326,836 $2,497,180,532 Unincorporated 10,227 13,561 $1,913,346,387 $1,681,807,156 $3,595,153,543 Total 39,685 50,542 $7,716,024,022 $5,300,996,749 $13,017,020,771 Source: Kings County Assessor’s Office, WSP Analysis
Table 4-6 Total Exposure by Jurisdiction and Property Type

JURISDICTION PROPERTY
TYPE

IMPROVED
PARCEL
COUNT

BUILDING
COUNT

IMPROVED
VALUE

ESTIMATED

CONTENT
VALUE
TOTAL
VALUE
Avenal Agricultural 6 6 $964,105 $964,105 $1,928,210 Commercial 112 134 $18,337,766 $18,337,766 $36,675,532 Exempt 27 33 $3,072,688 $3,072,688 $6,145,376
Industrial 9 10 $849,591 $1,274,387 $2,123,978 Multi-Family
Residential
51 564 $42,930,514 $21,465,257 $64,395,771
Multi-Use 9 12 $965,833 $965,833 $1,931,666
Residential 1,683 1,755 $145,608,108 $72,804,054 $218,412,162 Total 1,897 2,514 $212,728,605 $118,884,090 $331,612,695 Corcoran Agricultural 6 6 $104,009 $104,009 $208,018 Commercial 155 273 $39,701,556 $39,701,556 $79,403,112 Exempt 35 41 $1,388,873 $1,388,873 $2,777,746
Industrial 31 37 $24,083,922 $36,125,883 $60,209,805 Multi-Family
Residential
92 266 $46,250,891 $23,125,446 $69,376,337
Multi-Use 10 16 $1,232,045 $1,232,045 $2,464,090 Residential 3,001 3,067 $298,422,353 $149,211,177 $447,633,530 Total 3,330 3,706 $411,183,649 $250,888,988 $662,072,637 Hanford Agricultural 28 34 $2,925,519 $2,925,519 $5,851,038 Commercial 794 1,534 $714,496,080 $714,496,080 $1,428,992,160 Exempt 96 155 $26,175,037 $26,175,037 $52,350,074 Industrial 97 130 $100,067,929 $150,101,894 $250,169,823 Multi-Family
Residential
489 3,008 $239,982,926 $119,991,463 $359,974,389

Kings County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment

2023 Update Page 4-9

JURISDICTION PROPERTY
TYPE

IMPROVED
PARCEL
COUNT

BUILDING
COUNT

IMPROVED
VALUE

ESTIMATED

CONTENT
VALUE
TOTAL
VALUE
Multi-Use 49 61 $7,535,179 $7,535,179 $15,070,358 Residential 15,569 15,827
$2,545,729,015
$1,272,864,508 $3,818,593,523
Total 17,122 20,749 $3,636,911,685 $2,294,089,679 $5,931,001,364 Lemoore Agricultural 6 6 $360,817 $360,817 $721,634 Commercial 228 704 $132,810,700 $132,810,700 $265,621,400 Exempt 26 30 $6,332,106 $6,332,106 $12,664,212 Industrial 24 32 $109,777,286 $164,665,929 $274,443,215 Multi-Family
Residential
166 2,445 $152,673,286 $76,336,643 $229,009,929 Multi-Use 21 30 $9,741,781 $9,741,781 $19,483,562 Residential 6,638 6,765 $1,130,157,720 $565,078,860 $1,695,236,580 Total 7,109 10,012 $1,541,853,696 $955,326,836 $2,497,180,532 Unincorporated Agricultural 768 803 $69,307,835 $69,307,835 $138,615,670 Commercial 261 646 $80,078,804 $80,078,804 $160,157,608 Exempt 3,874 6,233 $957,516,751 $957,516,751 $1,915,033,502 Industrial 53 67 $117,039,604 $175,559,406 $292,599,010 Multi-Family
Residential
35 125 $6,238,179 $3,119,090 $9,357,269
Multi-Use 489 653 $109,285,327 $109,285,327 $218,570,654 Residential 4,747 5,034 $573,879,887 $286,939,944 $860,819,831 Total 10,227 13,561 $1,913,346,387 $1,681,807,156 $3,595,153,543 Grand Total 39,685 50,542
$7,716,024,022
$5,300,996,749
$13,017,020,771
Source: Kings County Assessor’s Office, WSP Analysis

4.4.1.3 Critical Facility/Lifeline Inventory
A significant aspect of the 2023 Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment (HIRA) update was the update of critical facilities and an alignment/classification with the FEMA Community Lifelines framework. The critical facilities/lifelines GIS database was based on a combination of County-provided data, Homeland Infrastructure Foundation-Level Data (HIFLD), and local and jurisdiction-specific input. Jurisdictions were able to review critical facility data, edit descriptive attributes and address information, and add new critical facilities. The results are summarized here and provided the basis for GIS-based vulnerability analyses, where data permitted.

For the purposes of this plan, a critical facility is defined as one that is essential in providing utility or direction either during the response to an emergency or during the recovery operation. FEMA sorts critical facilities into seven lifeline categories as shown in Figure 4-1.

Kings County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment

2023 Update Page 4-10 Figure 4-1 Lifeline Categories

Source: FEMA 2020.

These lifeline categories standardize the classification of critical facilities and infrastructure that provide indispensable service, operation, or function to a community. A lifeline is defined as providing indispensable service that enables the continuous operation of critical business and government functions, and is critical to human health and safety, or economic security. These categorizations are particularly useful as they:
• Enable effort consolidations between government and other organizations (e.g., infrastructure owners and operators).
• Enable integration of preparedness efforts among plans, easier identification of unmet critical facility needs.
• Refine sources and products to enhance awareness, capability gaps, and progress towards stabilization.
• Enhance communication amongst critical entities, while enabling complex interdependencies between government assets.
• Highlight lifeline related priority areas regarding general operations as well as response efforts.

Table 4-7 shows a summary of the 646 critical facilities inventory grouped by lifeline. Figure 4-2 illustrates the location of critical facilities in the County. The critical facility database includes water infrastructure facilities, such as levees.

Kings County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment

2023 Update Page 4-11 Table 4-7 Summary of Critical Facilities by Jurisdiction and Lifeline

JURISDICTION

COMMUNICATIONS
ENERGY

FOOD, WATER,

SHELTER

HAZARDOUS

MATERIAL

HEALTH AND

MEDICAL

SAFETY AND

SECURITY

TRANSPORTATION
TOTAL
Avenal 16 5 2 1 17 2 43
Corcoran 12 5 3 2 17 3 42
Hanford 32 7 6 10 14 54 9 132
Lemoore 11 6 6 1 23 10 57
Unincorporated 94 57 15 5 41 160 372
Grand Total 165 80 6 36 23 152 184 646
Sources: HIFLD, National Inventory of Dams (NID), National Bridge Inventory, Kings County

Kings County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment

2023 Update Page 4-12
Figure 4-2 Kings County Critical Facilities

Kings County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment

2023 Update Page 4-13
Moreover, during the 2022-2023 planning process, the HMPC mentioned the Corcoran Levee as a critical facility, which is maintained by the Cross Creek Flood Control District and is a protective barrier for the City of Corcoran. The Corcoran Levee is a protective levee system in the southeast portion of the County that protects two State Prisons. The GIS info for Corcoran Levee is added to the critical facilities inventory.

The levee is further discussed in Section 4.5.7 Flood.

One other critical facility unique to the County is the California Aqueduct. However, this facility is better addressed in the EOPs for the County and federal emergency plans. The California Aqueduct, part of the California State Water Project, runs through the western part of the County. The State Water Project is a water storage and delivery system of reservoirs, aqueducts, power plants, and pumping plants. Its main purpose is to store water and distribute it to 29 urban and agricultural water suppliers in Northern California, the San Francisco Bay Area, the San Joaquin Valley, the Central Coast, and Southern California.

Seventy percent of the contracted water supply goes to urban users and thirty percent goes to agricultural users. The State Water Project makes deliveries to two-thirds of California's population.

Earthquakes, landslides, flooding, or other hazard events that disrupt the aqueduct’s ability to deliver water could have serious impacts to agriculture in the County and water users in many areas of California.

4.4.1.4 Cultural, Historical and Natural Resources
Assessing the County’s vulnerability to disaster also involves inventorying the natural, historical, and cultural assets of the area. This step is important for the following reasons:
• The community may decide that these types of resources warrant a greater degree of protection due to their unique and irreplaceable nature and contribution to the overall economy. • In the event of a disaster, an accurate inventory of natural, historical, and cultural resources allows for more prudent care in the disaster’s immediate aftermath when the potential for additional impacts is higher.
• The rules for reconstruction, restoration, rehabilitation, and/or replacement are often different for these types of designated resources.
• Natural resources can have beneficial functions that reduce the impacts of natural hazards, for example, wetlands and riparian habitat which help absorb and attenuate floodwaters and thus support overall mitigation objectives.

Historic and Cultural Resources
Historical resources are buildings, structures, objects, places, and areas that are eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), the California Register of Historic Resources (CRHR), or the County’s List of Historic Resources; or that have an association with important persons, events in history, or cultural heritage; or that have distinctive design or construction method.

For purpose of federal actions, a qualified historic resource is defined as a property listed in or formally determined eligible for listing in the NRHP before a disaster occurs. The NRHP is part of a national program to coordinate and support public and private efforts to identify, evaluate, and protect historic and archeological resources. Properties listed include districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that are significant in American history, architecture, archeology, engineering, and culture. The National Register is administered by the U.S. Department of the Interior National Park Service. Local and state agencies may consider a broader definition of qualified historic properties in the review, evaluation, and treatment of properties damaged during a disaster.

The State of California Office of Historic Preservation can provide technical rehabilitation and preservation services for historic properties affected by a natural disaster. Depending on the hazard, protection could range from emergency preparedness, developing a fire safe zone around sites susceptible to wildfires, or seismically strengthening or structurally reinforcing structures.

State and local registers of historic resources provide designated Historical Landmarks, Points of Historical Interest, and Historic Buildings. These resources include, but are not limited to:
• The California Register of Historical Resources
• The California Historical Landmarks
• The California Inventory of Historical Resources
• The California Points of Historical Interest
Historical Resources designated on a federal, state, or local level are listed in Table 4-8.

Kings County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
2023 Update Page 4-14 Table 4-8 Kings County Historical Resources

PROPERTY NAME REGISTER JURISDICTION DATE
LISTED
El Adobe De Los Robles Rancho (206) California State Historical Landmark
Lemoore 6/20/1935
Hanford Carnegie Library (N977) National Register Hanford 12/17/1981 Kings County Courthouse (N674) National Register Hanford 9/21/1978 Kingston (270) California State Historical
Landmark
Laton 9/3/1937
Location Of The Famous Mussel Slough
Tragedy (245)
California State Historical
Landmark
Hardwick 9/28/1936
Taoist Temple (N173) National Register Hanford 6/13/1972 Witt Site (N77) National Register Kettleman
City
5/6/1971
Source: California Office of Historic Preservation
Other historic sites of local importance also exist. These include the Kings County Museum, the Bastille building in Civic Park, and the Tulare Lake Basin which holds cultural and historical significance for the Yokut Tachi Tribe.

Lists of designated historical resources change periodically, and they may not include those currently in the nomination process and not yet listed. Additionally, as defined by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), any property over 50 years of age is considered a historic resource and is potentially eligible for the National Register. Thus, in the event that the property is to be altered, or has been altered, as the result of a major federal action, the property must be evaluated under the guidelines set forth by NEPA.

Structural mitigation projects are considered alterations for the purpose of this regulation.

Cultural resources defined in California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Section 15064.5 include prehistoric and historic archeological resources; historic-period resources (buildings, structures, area, place, or objects). Archeological resources reflect past human activity extending from Native American prehistoric cultures throughout the early 20th century. The artifacts left by previous occupants may be encountered in small to large residential sites, or special use areas.

Many cultural and historical resources in the County are vulnerable to several hazards due to location and the nature of their construction. Some of these risks include earthquakes, wildfires, or adverse weather.

Natural Resources
Natural resources are important to include in benefit/cost analyses for future projects and may be used to leverage additional funding for mitigation projects that also contribute to community goals for protecting sensitive natural resources. Inventory and awareness of natural resource assets is vital to meeting conservation objectives. For example, protecting wetland areas provides sensitive habitat protection as well as floodwater conveyance and storage, which further enhances public safety.

To further understand natural resources that may be particularly vulnerable to a hazard event, as well as those that need consideration when implementing mitigation activities, it is important to identify at-risk species (endangered and threatened species) in the planning area. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFW) maintains a list of federally listed threatened and endangered species for the country, which can be queried at the state or even county levels through the Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC) database. The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) also maintains species lists and accounts for threatened and endangered species. State and federal laws protect the habitat of these species through the environmental review process. Species of special concern may additionally include species that meet the State definition of threatened or endangered but that have not been formally listed, species that are experiencing serious population or habitat decline, or a species which has a naturally small population that is exhibiting high susceptibility to population decline (CDFW n.d.).

Kings County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
2023 Update Page 4-15 Table 4-9 summarizes Kings County’s special status animal species as indicated in the IPaC database, within the Environmental Conservation Online System.

Table 4-9 Threatened and Endangered Species in Kings County

GROUP COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME STATUS
Amphibians California Red-legged
Frog
Rana draytonii Threatened
California Tiger
Salamander
Ambystoma californiense Threatened
Birds California Clapper Rail Rallus longirostris obsoletus Endangered California Condor Gymnogyps californianus Endangered
Western Snowy Plover Charadrius nivosus nivosus Threatened Crustaceans Conservancy Fairy Shrimp Branchinecta conservatio Endangered Vernal Pool Fairy Shrimp Branchinecta lynchi Threatened Vernal Pool Tadpole
Shrimp
Lepidurus packardi Endangered
Flowering Plants California Jewelflower Caulanthus californicus Endangered San Joaquin Wooly-
threads
Monolopia (=Lembertia)
congdonii
Endangered
Insects Monarch Butterfly Danaus plexippus Candidate
Mammals Buena Vista Lake Ornate
Shrew
Sorex ornatus relictus Endangered
Fresno Kangaroo Rat Dipodomys nitratoides exilis Endangered Giant Kangaroo Rat Dipodomys ingens Endangered
San Joaquin Kit Fox Vulpes macrotis mutica Endangered
Tipton Kangaroo Rat Dipodomys nitratoides
nitratoides
Endangered
Reptiles Blunt-nosed Leopard
Lizard
Gambelia silus Endangered
Green Sea Turtle Chelonia mydas Threatened
Source: US Fish and Wildlife Service – Environmental Conservation Online System

4.4.1.5 Growth and Development Trends
Population and Projected Growth
According to the Department of Finance (DOF) the 2023 population of the County was 157,316. The DOF projects the total population will increase by 7.6% to 169,215 by 2030. While total households in the County are also projected to increase from 44,561 in 2020 to 50,068 in 2030, people per household is projected to slightly decrease from 3.16 in 2020 to 3.06 persons per household in 2030. The cities of Avenal and Corcoran both experienced an increase in population between 2021 and 2022 (3.4% for Avenal and 6% for Corcoran), however, the rest of the cities experienced a slight decrease in population between 2021 and 2022.

Social Vulnerability
Social vulnerability is broadly defined as the susceptibility of social groups to the adverse impacts of natural hazards, including disproportionate death, injury, loss, or disruption of livelihood. Social vulnerability considers the social, economic, demographic, and housing characteristics of a community that influence its ability to prepare for, respond to, cope with, recover from, and adapt to environmental hazards. Social vulnerability considerations were included in the update of this 2023 MJHMP update to identify communities across the County that might be more vulnerable to hazard impacts based on many factors. In California, socially vulnerable populations, also referred to as disadvantaged communities (DACs) are mapped through Federal-developed and State mapping tools, including but not limited to the FEMA’s National Risk Index (NRI) for Natural Hazards, the California Office of Environmental

Kings County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
2023 Update Page 4-16 Health Hazard Assessment’s (OEHHA) CalEnviroScreen, Department of Water Resources (DWR) Mapping Tools (DAC and Economically Distressed Areas [EDAs]), and the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR)’s Social Vulnerability Index (SVI). FEMA’s NRI and OEHHA’s CalEnviroScreen are used to identify and assess socially vulnerable populations in the County’s MJHMP update.

The OEHHA CalEnviroScreen tool applies a formula to generate a combined ranking score that considers 21 indicators for each census tract that cover pollution indicators, such as diesel emissions and concentrations of toxic clean-up sites and population indicators, such as poverty and unemployment rates. Census tracts with CalEnviroScreen rankings between 75 and 100 percent (i.e., a combined score in the top 25 percent of all census tracts in the State) are considered to be DACs.

One of the population indicators for the CalEnviroScreen is the Housing Burden Indicator, which identifies housing-burdened communities. Housing-burdened low-income households are households that are both low-income and highly burdened by housing costs. The housing burden indicator measures the percentage of households in a census tract that are both low-income (making less than 80% of its County’s median family income) and severely burdened by housing costs (paying greater than 50% of their income to housing costs). California has very high housing costs relative to the rest of the country, which can make it hard for households to afford housing (OEHHA 2022). Households with lower incomes may spend a larger proportion of their income on housing and may suffer from housing-induced poverty (OEHHA 2022). Housing affordability is an important determinant of health and well-being. Low-income households with high housing costs may suffer adverse health impacts. These households are also more likely to be adversely affected during a hazard event and less likely to recover as quickly as other population groups.

Figure 4-3 below shows the overall housing burden indicator for Kings County from the census tract level.

As shown in Figure 4-3, there are a few communities within the County with a higher housing burden; these communities are concentrated in the cities of Hanford, Lemoore, Corcoran, and Avenal, as well as the unincorporated area surrounding the City of Avenal. Twenty-three percent of the people in the dark purple census tract near the City of Hanford are housing-burdened low-income households. This percent housing burdened is higher than 75% of the rest of California. In addition, 28% of the people in the dark purple census tract near the City of Corcoran are housing-burdened low-income households. This percent housing burdened is higher than 87% of the rest of California.

Kings County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
2023 Update Page 4-17 Figure 4-3 CalEnviroScreen Housing Burden Indicator – Kings County

Source: OEHHA 2023
Social vulnerability is also one of the main three components of calculating FEMA’s NRI level. As documented in the March 2023 NRI Technical Documentation, among various social vulnerability indices, the CDC/ATSDR’s Social Vulnerability Index (SVI) was selected to be used in the NRI calculation. SVI is a location-specific assessment of social vulnerability that utilizes 16 socioeconomic variables deemed to contribute to a community’s reduced ability to prepare for, respond to, and recover from hazards.

Examples of these variables include racial & ethnic minority status, no high school diploma, and no health insurance.

Figure 4-4 below shows the overall social vulnerability of the County according to FEMA NRI and CDC/ATSDR’s SVI. The darker the color, the higher social vulnerability of the census tract. Many census tracts within the County have very high social vulnerability, such as the areas around Corcoran, Avenal, and the area west of the Lemoore Naval Air Station. The entire southwestern and central portions of the County have very high social vulnerability. Quite a few census tracts near and within the City of Hanford also have very high social vulnerability.

Kings County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
2023 Update Page 4-18 Figure 4-4 FEMA NRI Social Vulnerability – Kings County

Source: FEMA 2023
The County can use the above information about these DACs to understand whether certain socially vulnerable communities have a greater exposure to hazards like dam incidents, earthquakes, droughts, flooding, and wildfire. The County can also use the information to conduct targeted outreach and engage community members to consider what other hazards and mitigation strategies or programs should be considered to meet community needs. The County can also engage these communities to proactively prioritize hazard mitigation projects that benefit them. Additional information on specific DACs is summarized in the specific jurisdictional Annexes.

Development Trends
The areas located in the Sphere of Influence (SOI) for each incorporated jurisdiction are areas each city plans to grow into and are areas potentially slated for development. Understanding the potential hazard exposure in each area can help to mitigate the impacts of events before development occurs in those areas. Development trends since the previous 2012 MJHMP update are also addressed. These growth and development trends are assessed in the Development Trends subsection of the vulnerability assessment, each annex, and broadly summarized below. In general, most residential development has occurred or is proposed within the city limits of each jurisdiction or within and around the unincorporated communities.

The County is expected to grow in population over the next five years and growth forecasts project growth will be approximately 2% from 2023 to 2027 (152,340 people to 155,589 people) according to the California Department of Finance County Population Projections from 2020 to 2060 (DOF 2023). To accommodate the growth new residential, commercial, and industrial development will occur, with the most growth occurring for residential land uses and around the communities of Avenal, Corcoran, Hanford, and Lemoore. The U.S. Census Bureau Building Permit Survey provides information and local

Kings County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
2023 Update Page 4-19 statistics on new privately-owned residential construction. Figure 4-5 displays the new privately owned housing unit authorizations by year in Kings County. The data indicates that there was a sharp increase in housing units from 2000 to 2005, and then a sharp decrease from 2006 through 2014. The number of new units has steadily remained around 300 to 400 units per year in the County from 2015 through 2022, An increase in the number of housing unit authorizations in the County could indicate an increase in the total number of buildings exposed to hazard events.

Figure 4-5 New Privately Owned Housing Unit Authorizations

Source: US Census Bureau, https://www.census.gov/construction/bps/data_visualizations/index.html During this plan update process, an improved parcel & address point analysis was also conducted using the SOI areas for each incorporated jurisdiction and overlaid with available hazard risk layers to determine where development trends may exacerbate the risk of natural hazard events. The results of the spatial analysis have been integrated into the applicable hazard sections: flood, landslide, and wildfire.

Table 4-10 is the summary of the SOI total exposure by jurisdiction.

Table 4-10 Total Exposure Summary by Jurisdiction Sphere of Influence Areas

JURISDICTION IMPROVED
PARCEL
COUNT
Building
COUNT

IMPROVED
VALUE

ESTIMATED

CONTENT
VALUE

TOTAL VALUE
Avenal 2 2 $340,269 $340,269 $680,538
Corcoran 192 203 $82,400,798 $88,858,817 $171,259,615 Hanford 768 970 $144,542,108 $143,772,786 $288,314,894 Lemoore 191 291 $30,525,548 $19,548,785 $50,074,333 Grand Total 1,153 1,466 $257,808,723 $252,520,657 $510,329,380 Source: WSP Analysis 2023
City of Avenal
According to the City’s 2035 General Plan Land Use Element that was adopted in 2018, the City aims to preserve and enhance its unique and small-town character. The City aims to minimize urban sprawl and 0 200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
Total Number of Buildings and Units
Year
Total buildings Total units

Kings County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
2023 Update Page 4-20 leap-frog development. The development of vacant, underdeveloped, and/or re-developable land within the boundaries of the existing developed area and where urban services are or can be made available should be prioritized. The City will preserve and protect agricultural use on lands for open space purposes and for the managed production of resources. Open space in the Avenal area should be created and preserved to meet the needs of the community. Additionally, according to the 2016 – 2024 Kings County Housing Element, the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) for the City of Avenal is 639 housing units in total, including 73 for extremely low income, 72 for very low income, 108 for low income, 115 for moderate income, and 271 for above moderate income. This means the City will need to provide approximately this many housing units to accommodate new growth in the next five years. Most of this growth is projected to occur within the City’s SOI and outside flood zones located to the west of the City.

All other growth in the City’s SOI is expected to have similar risk and exposure to drought, earthquake, extreme heat, fog, and freeze. All census tracts in the City are designated DACs, or underserved communities, therefore the risk to these communities is expected to be greater for earthquake hazards, drought conditions, and extreme heat hazards. While there are existing hazard mitigation capabilities in place to reduce the impacts from these hazards, additional efforts will be required to address additional population growth and increased exposure to these hazards due to climate change.

City of Corcoran
According to the City’s 2008 General Plan Land Use Element, the City aims to preserve and enhance its unique character and achieve an optimal balance of residential, commercial, industrial, and open space land uses. Meanwhile, the City aims to further develop existing gateways and at some future time develop scenic entryways (gateways) and roadway corridors into the City through special setback and landscape standards, entry signage, open space and park development, and/or land use designations.

Future gateways include development along State Route (SR) 43, SR 137 and Whitley Avenue/7th avenue.

Regarding the City’s growth management, the City will minimize urban sprawl and leap-frog development and provide for an orderly and efficient transition from rural to urban land uses. The City will also designate growth areas that can be served by logical infrastructure extensions. On the other hand, according to the 2016 – 2024 Kings County Housing Element, the RHNA for the City of Corcoran is 946 housing units in total, including 108 for extremely low income, 107 for very low income, 161 for low income, 169 for moderate income, and 401 for above moderate income.

As noted by the HMPC during the plan update process, the City experienced minor population growth over the past decade. One major factor contributing to the City not experiencing any significant population growth is the lack of available housing. The City is poised for additional residential and commercial growth. Currently, a 50-unit residential subdivision is in development with three additional subdivisions representing about 200 housing units potentially being approved over the next two years.

Commercial infill development is currently taking place within the City’s downtown and industrial areas.

All this new potential growth is within the already established General Plan development area that historically maintains a compact urban area that avoids the most prominent hazard – flood hazard. New growth within the City’s existing urban area will have similar risk and exposure to drought, earthquake, extreme heat, fog, and freeze based on risk exposure summarized in the previous plan. Since the designated FEMA 1% annual chance flood zones are located west and southwest of the City, the added growth of the City avoids this hazard. Therefore, there is no significant change in development in the City that increases the risk or severity of the hazards identified above, nor does the growth pattern compromise the needs of any underserved community.

City of Hanford
According to the City’s 2035 General Plan Land Use Element, the City’s growth management goals include a well-planned community that grows in an organized fashion, development preference of vacant and underutilized properties and limitation of urban sprawl-style development patterns in new growth areas. The land use element also mentions supporting the continuance of the Home Garden Community Services District (CSD) as an independent special district serving the existing Home Garden Community. The City will also keep supporting, encouraging, and incentivizing, to the extent possible, infill development projects that can effectively utilize existing transportation and utility infrastructure. On the other hand, according to the 2016 – 2024 Kings County Housing Element, the RHNA for the City of Hanford is 4,832 housing units in total, including 549 for extremely low income, 548 for very low income, 821 for low income, 865 for moderate income, and 2,049 for above moderate income. In addition, as noted by the HMPC during the Plan Update, the 2023-2032 Regional Housing Needs Assessment projects the City will add approximately 5,547 residential units over the next decade. Although there are not any specific hazard-related concerns associated with this growth, the City will have to expand services as

Kings County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
2023 Update Page 4-21 growth continues. While growth in the City’s SOI is expected to have similar risk and exposure to drought, earthquake, extreme heat, and severe weather hazards, the portions of the City with DACs and other underserved communities may be at a greater risk due to their ability to prepare for, cope with, and recovery from hazard events. There are existing hazard mitigation capabilities in place to reduce the impacts from these hazards due to recent planning efforts related to the City’s Climate Action Plan, but further efforts will be required to address gradual population growth and increased exposure to these hazards due to climate change.

City of Lemoore
According to the City’s 2030 General Plan Land Use Element, the City aims to preserve its small-town character. Actions are taken to revitalize downtown, prevent sprawl, keep neighborhoods within walking distance of amenities and schools, and provide open space and parks to maintain Lemoore’s quality of life. The City intends to maintain a well-defined compact urban form, with a defined urban growth boundary, and development intensities on land designated for urban uses. The Element is explicit in noting that development west of the 21st Avenue alignment should be prevented to protect the Navy from encroachment. Contiguous development within SOI is also required. On the other hand, according to the 2016 – 2024 Kings County Housing Element, the RHNA for the City of Lemoore is 2,985 housing units in total, including 339 for extremely low income, 338 for very low income, 507 for low income, 534 for moderate income, and 1,267 for above moderate income. Given this high number of needed housing in the City, growth in the City would result in increased risk and exposure to drought, earthquake, extreme heat, and severe weather hazards. In addition, as noted by the HMPC during the plan update, growth in the City of Lemoore is continuing to the West side of Lemoore as well as the North side in the coming years. This growth has no impact on hazard-related concerns in the area. However, while the majority of the City is not a designated underserved community, the western edge of the City falls within a census tract designated as a DAC. Therefore, these communities may have greater risk to exposure to drought, earthquake, extreme heat, and severe weather hazards. This risk may also be intensified by the effects of climate change.

Kings County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
2023 Update Page 4-22

4.5 HAZARD ANALYSIS AND RISK SUMMARY
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.]

4.5.1 AGRICULTURAL PESTS AND DISEASE

4.5.1.1 Hazard Description
Agriculture is the dominant land use in the County, accounting for 90.2% of total land use (2023 General Plan 2010). The County was the 8th top-producing agricultural county in California by gross value in 2020, grossing more than $2.1 billion in 2020 (CFDA 2021). Top commodities in 2021 included milk, pistachios, almonds, and cotton (see Table 4-11 below).

Table 4-11 Top 10 Commodities in Kings County in 2021

RANK CROP DOLLAR VALUE
1 Milk, Total $722,744,000
2 Pistachios $267,900,000
3 Almonds, Total $190,674,000
4 Cotton, Total $190,079,000
5 Cattle & Calves $172,131,000
6 Tomatoes, Processed $128,712,000
7 Corn, Silage $79,294,000
8 Walnuts $61,883,000
9 Livestock, Poultry $61,423,000
10 Alfalfa, Hay $45,995,000
Source: Kings County Department of Agriculture 2021 Crop Report Agricultural pests and pathogens (insects, fungi, bacteria, viruses, and invasive plants) can cause injury or severe destruction to crops or livestock. From exotic fruit flies to noxious weeds, California’s agriculture can be impacted by a wide variety of invasive pests and pathogens. These pests pose significant threats to the state’s agricultural crops, farm workers, economy, food supply and native habitat. They can also result in increases in food prices for consumers. The number of invasive pests and pathogens newly detected in California and the rest of the United States has increased at alarming rates in recent years, and that trend is projected to continue into the future (Morales-RodrÍguez et al., 2019).

Insect pests and diseases, such as bark beetles and sudden oak death disease (SOD), can destroy forests and oak woodland habitat located along the north-east and southwest tips of Kings County, which can in turn increase the fuel load and lead to greater fire risk. Agricultural disasters could also occur due to severe weather events, such as extreme heat, freeze cycles, and heavy rainfall, hazards that are covered under Sections 4.5.6 through 4.5.15. Drought events are covered under Section 4.5.4.

Agricultural pest and disease management programs are administered at the state level in California, which provides important existing capacity related to minimizing and managing agricultural pests and diseases. The California Food and Agricultural Code mandates pest prevention programs to prevent the introduction and spread of pests in the state, fund such programs, and direct administration of the programs to the local municipalities. These include the Pest Exclusion Program, Pest Detection Program, Pierce’s Disease Control Program, and Federal Phytosanitary Certificate Program. Target pests addressed by each program are listed in Table 4-12, and also include dairy, livestock, and poultry pests and diseases, such as Mycobacterium bovis and pathogenic avian influenzas.

Table 4-12 Target Pests Kings County

PEST TYPE OF TRAP NUMBER OF TRAPS NUMBER OF SERVICINGS
All Purpose Fruit Fly Champ 116 1,030

Kings County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
2023 Update Page 4-23

PEST TYPE OF TRAP NUMBER OF TRAPS NUMBER OF SERVICINGS
Asian Citrus Psyllid Yellow Panel 272 4,007
European Corn Borer Pherocon II 13 130
European Grape Vine
Moth
Delta 501 4,374
European Pine Shoot
Moth
Pherocon II 5 12
Glassy-Winged
Sharpshooter
Yellow Panel 173 863
Spongy Moth Delta 76 561
Japanese Beetle Japanese Beetle 76 561
Light Brown Apple Moth Jackson 152 810
Mediterranean Fruit Fly Jackson 152 20,93
Melon Fly Jackson 152 656
Mexican Fruit Fly McPhail 98 2,351
Oriental Fruit Fly Jackson 152 1,983
Total 1,952 24,250
Source: Kings County Department of Agriculture 2021 Crop Report

4.5.1.2 Geographic Area
Extensive – According to the 2017 Census of Agriculture, the County contains 615,958 acres of land in farms. There are approximately 963 farms (as of 2017) in the County. Most of these important farmlands are located within the County’s unincorporated area and are currently zoned for agricultural use. Figure 4-6 illustrates the geographic extent of the important farmlands across the County.

Kings County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
2023 Update Page 4-24 Figure 4-6 Kings County Important Farmland

4.5.1.3 Past Occurrences
The USDA Risk Management Agency (RMA) tracks insurance payments, or indemnities, made to farmers as a safety net against natural hazards, such as drought and agricultural disease. Between the years of 2007 and 2021, 8,444 acres of USDA insured crops were lost in Kings County due to agricultural pest and disease, resulting in over $3 million in indemnity payments. Of these payments, $1.1 million and 3,478 acres were due to insect damage, $1.9 million and 3,734 acres were due to plant disease, and $1,231 and 1,232 acres were due to wildlife damage. Table 4-13 summarizes these agricultural losses.

Kings County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
2023 Update Page 4-25 Table 4-13 Crop Losses due to Agricultural Pests and Disease, 2007-2021

COMMODITY
YEAR

COMMODITY
NAME
DAMAGE
CAUSE

DESCRIPTION

DETERMINED
ACRES

INDEMNITY
AMOUNT
2007 Wheat Wildlife 1,231.9 $47,681
2007 Tomatoes Insects 30.4 $1,997
2007 Plums Insects 13.0 $5,718
2008 Cotton Insects 99.8 $29,179
2010 Cotton Insects 73.1 $29,845
2010 Cotton Plant Disease 21.0 $3,522
2013 Tomatoes Insects 867.3 $332,940
2013 Tomatoes Plant Disease 1,221.7 $488,223
2013 Tomatoes Plant Disease 1,534.2 $568,903
2014 Corn Insects 240.0 $83,952
2015 Tomatoes Insects 526.2 $77,887
2015 Tomatoes Plant Disease 77.2 $178,326
2015 Tomatoes Plant Disease 227.8 $182,791
2015 Alfalfa Seeds Insects 160.0 $50,652
2017 Cotton Insects 1,075.9 $357,251
2018 Tomatoes Plant Disease 146.9 $36,124
2019 Wheat Plant Disease 126.4 $8,342
2020 Onions Plant Disease 229.3 $386,723
2020 Tomatoes Plant Disease 149.3 $91,078
2021 Cotton Insects 302.5 $113,301
2021 Cotton Insects 90.2 $7,200
Total 8,443.9 $3,081,635
Source: USDA RMA Crop Indemnity Reports, 2007 -2021

4.5.1.4 Likelihood of Future Occurrence
Likely – Based on past occurrences of economic impacts and implementation of control measures, and the likely increase in pest activity outlined in the Climate Change Considerations section below, pests, disease, and invasive species will continue to present a constant threat to the County and its jurisdictions.

These events are anticipated to be influenced by a changing climate and therefore expected to occur on an annual basis or have a 100% chance of occurring each year.

4.5.1.5 Climate Change Considerations
California’s Fourth Climate Change Assessment (2018) notes that “climate change impacts terrestrial ecosystems and wildlife in multiple ways, including invasion by exotic species, prevalence of wildlife disease, and loss of native habitats.” Changing climate conditions can impact viable living areas of species and cause migration, shifting the spread of pests and disease northward by changing habitat temperatures and making previously undesirable habitats welcoming for new species, while also lengthening habitable seasons (Bedsworth et al, 2018). Longer growing seasons may also allow agricultural pests to persist longer, which can increase the severity of infestations on agricultural operations.

4.5.1.6 Magnitude and Severity
Critical – Pests can impact a multitude of crops in different ways. While there is no scale to define the extent of an infestation, a pest could have a major economic impact on the value of infested crops.

Kings County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
2023 Update Page 4-26 Another large factor that may influence crop yield is the spread of invasive plants, which may compete with crops for resources and, in some cases, also introduce pests. According to the California Invasive Plant Council (Cal-IPC), invasive plants cost California $82 million every year in control, monitoring, and outreach (Cal-IPC, n.d.). Based on the USDA’s RMA Crop Indemnity Reports, in the County between 2007 and 2021, there were 8,443 acres lost due to agricultural pests and disease and $3.1 million in indemnity payments made. This results in an annualized loss of 603 acres and $220,116 due to agricultural pests and disease.

4.5.1.7 Vulnerability Assessment
Agricultural losses occur on an annual basis and are usually associated with severe weather events, including heavy rains, floods, hail, freeze, and drought. The California SHMP attributes most of the agricultural disasters statewide to drought, freeze, and insect infestations (Cal OES 2018). Other agricultural hazards include fires, crop and livestock disease, noxious weeds, and contamination of animal food and water supplies.

People
A widespread infestation of livestock and crops could result in severe consequences to the economic base of the County and its communities employed by the agriculture industry. According to the USDA 2017 Census of Agriculture, the County has 963 farms, which is a -9% change from the previous census in 2012 (USDA 2017). While agricultural production in the County can enhance the economy, improve human health, and ensure stable food prices in California and the U.S., certain habitats established for irrigation and agricultural output can also threaten human health by increasing the risk of vector-borne diseases (e.g. mosquitos, etc.). Agricultural pests and disease, or significant crop losses, can also impact communities if they result in limited food supplies and rises in food prices. Widespread crop losses due to contamination issues (foreign agents, biological disease) could also decrease the public’s confidence in food safety. Rural communities residing closest to these agricultural operations may be most vulnerable to these diseases.

Agricultural jobs could be negatively impacted during an agriculture emergency, including jobs tangentially tied to the agriculture industry. According to The Impacts of Climate Change on Human Health in the United States: A Scientific Assessment, rising temperatures and drought conditions could lead to increases in the occurrence and transport of pathogens in agricultural environments, which will increase the risk of food contamination and direct human exposure to pathogens and toxins (USGCRP 2016). In turn, this will increase health risks and require greater vigilance in food safety practices and regulation.

Property
An infestation of agriculture pests or disease can lead to a range of negative consequences on property, including decreased crop yields and the potential destruction of entire fields along with farmland property. However, the impact of damaged crops and plants goes beyond these direct effects and may exacerbate the impacts of other hazards, such as severe weather. For instance, dead branches resulting from pest or disease damage can easily be broken by high winds during a storm, posing a risk of property damage and harm to people.

Critical Facilities and Lifelines
Critical facilities assessed in this plan would not be directly impacted by agricultural pests or diseases; however, the food and agriculture industry are considered critical infrastructure in the County and California. Impacts to this infrastructure, such as farms, dairy operations, and processing facilities would have debilitating effects on food security, the economy, and public health and safety. The County farms and dairies, and the associated food processing facilities, would be directly impacted economically by long-term disruptions in the food supply associated with crop losses due to agricultural pests and disease.

Economy
Economic impacts include both prevention, response, and recovery costs. Given the contribution of agriculture to the local economy, pest impacts could be significant. The value of agricultural commodities noted at the beginning of this hazard profile is $2,424,497,000 ($2 billion). Based on a hypothetical loss of 5% due to agricultural pest or disease, Kings County could equate to approximately $121 million in total economic losses to agricultural pests and disease.

Kings County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
2023 Update Page 4-27 Cultural, Historic and Natural Resources
Invasive species typically harm native species through predation, habitat degradation and competition for shared resources. They can outcompete native species and are a leading cause of population decline and extinction in animals. Tree mortality raises the wildfire threat in healthy forests, increasing the vulnerability, strength, speed, and destruction of fires in the area. Significant crop failures can also result in impacts on the environment if they result in contamination or the need for groundwater or surface water monitoring.

Development Trends
While the USDA RMA has made several indemnity payments for damaged crops in the County, there have been no USDA disaster declarations due to agricultural pests or disease. Good development practices and the ongoing implementation of policies included in the County’s Resource Conservation Element and Open Space Element have had a positive impact on the County’s vulnerability to agricultural pests, plant diseases, and tree mortality.

4.5.1.8 Risk Summary
• Kings County’s farming and agricultural industry is ranked as one of the top agriculture-producing counties in California and the country.
• Agriculture is the dominant land use in Kings County, accounting for 90.2% of all land. • Invasive plants cost California $82 million every year in control, monitoring, and outreach. • Over 14 years, there were 8,443 acres lost due to agricultural pests and disease and $3.1 million in indemnity payments made in Kings County.
• Changes in weather patterns can have dramatic impacts on the ecosystem, including agriculture systems, and more severe impacts associated with agricultural pests and disease can be expected in the future.
• Changing climate conditions can shift the spread of pests and disease northward by changing habitat temperatures and making previously undesirable habitats welcome new species through longer growing seasons. This may increase the severity of pest infestations on agricultural operations. • Related hazards – Drought, Severe Weather

JURISDICTION GEOGRAPHIC
AREA

PROBABILITY

OF FUTURE

OCCURRENCE

MAGNITUDE/

SEVERITY

OVERALL

SIGNIFICANCE

PRIORITY
HAZARD?
Kings County Extensive Likely Critical Medium No
City of Avenal Extensive Likely Critical Medium No
City of Corcoran Extensive Likely Critical Medium No
City of Hanford Extensive Likely Critical Medium No
City of Lemoore Extensive Likely Critical Medium No

4.5.2 CYBER-ATTACK

4.5.2.1 Hazard Description
The 2018 California SHMP defines cyber-attacks as “attempts by cyber criminals to attack a government, organization, or private party by damaging or disrupting a computer or computer network, or by or stealing data from a computer or computer network for malicious use.” Cyber-attacks use malicious code to alter computer operations or data. The vulnerability of computer systems to attack is a growing concern as people and institutions become more dependent upon networked technologies. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) reports that “cyber intrusions are becoming more commonplace, more dangerous, and more sophisticated,” with implications for private- and public-sector networks. Cyber threats can take many forms, including:

Kings County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
2023 Update Page 4-28 • Phishing attacks: Phishing attacks are fraudulent communications that appear to come from legitimate sources. They typically come through email but may come through text messages as well.

Phishing may also be considered a type of social engineering meant to exploit individuals into paying fake invoices, providing passwords, or sending sensitive information. • Malware attacks: Malware is malicious code that may infect a computer system. It typically gains a foothold when a user visits an unsafe site, downloads untrusted software, or may be downloaded in conjunction with a phishing attack. Malware can remain undetected for years and spread across an entire network.
• Ransomware: Ransomware typically blocks access to a jurisdiction’s/agency’s/business’ data by encrypting it. Perpetrators will ask for a ransom to provide the security key and decrypt the data, although many ransomware victims never get their data back even after paying the ransom. • Distributed Denial of Service (DDoS) attack: Perhaps the most common type of cyber-attack, a DDoS attack seeks to overwhelm a network and causes it to either be inaccessible or shut down. A DDoS typically uses other infected systems and internet-connected devices to “request” information from a specific network or server that is not configured or powerful enough to handle the traffic. • Data breach: Hackers gaining access to large amounts of personal, sensitive, or confidential information has become increasingly common in recent years. In addition to networked systems, data breaches can occur due to the mishandling of external drives. • Critical Infrastructure/SCADA System attack: There have been recent critical infrastructure Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) system attacks aimed at taking down lifelines such as power plants and wastewater facilities. These attacks typically combine a form of phishing, malware, or other social engineering mechanisms to gain access to the system.

Cyber-attacks are rapidly increasing in the United States. The FBI Internet Crime Complaint Center (IC3) was developed to provide the public with a direct way to report cyber-crimes to the FBI. In 2021, the FBI IC3 reported a record number of cyber-attacks, with a 7% increase from 2020 (FBI, 2022). The events reported to the FBI are used to track the trends and threats from cyber criminals to combat cyber threats and protect U.S. citizens, businesses, and government from future attacks.

In a recent attempt to combat this threat, the State adopted Senate Bill (SB) 327 in September 2018. This bill seeks to improve information privacy, specifically pertaining to connected devices. Existing laws in California require businesses to take all reasonable steps to dispose of customer records within their custody containing personal information and require businesses that own, license, or maintain personal information about a California resident to implement and maintain reasonable security procedures.

Moreover, beginning on January 1, 2020, SB 327 further requires the manufacturer of connected devices to equip the device with a reasonable security feature to protect user information.

4.5.2.2 Geographic Area
Significant – Cyber-attacks can and have occurred in every location regardless of geography, demographics, and security posture. Anyone with information online is vulnerable to a cyber-attack.

Incidents may involve a single location or multiple geographic areas. A disruption can have far-reaching effects beyond the location of the targeted system; disruptions that occur far outside the state can still impact people, businesses, and institutions within the County. All servers in the County are potentially vulnerable to cyber-attacks. Businesses, industries, and even individuals are susceptible to cyber-attacks.

Therefore, the geographic extent of cyber-attack is significant.

4.5.2.3 Past Occurrences
According to the FBI’s 2021 Internet Crime Report, the FBI received 2.76 million complaints with $18.7 billion in losses over the last five years due to cyber-attacks (FBI 2022). The Crime Report also noted a trend of increasing cybercrime complaints and losses each year. Nationwide losses in 2021 alone exceeded $6.9 billion, a 393% increase since 2017. According to the 2021 Report, California ranked the top among all US territories in both the total number of victims (67,095 victims) and total victim losses ($1,227,989,139) in total losses (FBI 2022).

Data on past cyber-attacks impacting California was gathered from The Privacy Rights Clearinghouse.

The Privacy Rights Clearinghouse, a non-profit organization based in San Diego, maintains a timeline of 9,741 data breaches resulting from computer hacking incidents in the United States from 2005-2021. The database lists 1,338 data breaches against systems located in California totaling almost 10.4 billion impacted records; it is difficult to know how many of those affected residents in the County. According to

Kings County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
2023 Update Page 4-29 Privacy Rights Clearinghouse, there is one specific incident that happened to the Yanez Dental Corporation located in the City of Hanford on September 19, 2011: an office burglary resulted in the loss of three computers with patient information such as patient names, social security numbers, dates of birth, addresses, telephone numbers, and other personal information being exposed.

Moreover, attacks happening outside of the County and California can also impact local businesses, personal identifiable information, and credit card information. Figure 4-7 shows several of the most significant cyber-attacks in California in recent years. All top five cyber-attack events are businesses hacked by an outside party or infected by malware. The data aims to provide a general understanding of the impacts of cyber-attacks by compiling an up-to-date list of incidents but is limited by the availability of data: “This is an incomplete look at the true scope of the problem due in part to varying state laws”, as noted by The Privacy Rights Clearinghouse. Table 4-14 shows major cyber-attacks impacting California from 2005 through 2021.

Table 4-14 Major Cyber Attacks Impacting California (10,000,000,000+ Records), 2005-2021 DATE

REPORTED
TARGET CITY ORG.TYPE TOTAL

RECORDS

TYPE OF ATTACK
12/14/2016 Yahoo Sunnyvale Business 3 billion Hacked by an Outside Party or Infected by Malware
9/22/2016 Yahoo Sunnyvale Business 500 million Hacked by an Outside Party or Infected by Malware
11/16/2016 FriendFinder Sunnyvale Business 412 million Hacked by an Outside Party or Infected by Malware
5/31/2016 MySpace Santa
Monica
Business 360 million Hacked by an Outside Party
or Infected by Malware
6/6/2012 LinkedIn Mountain
View
Business 167 million Hacked by an Outside Party
or Infected by Malware
Source: The Privacy Rights Clearinghouse
In addition to the incident with the City of Hanford, a data breach incident happened with Kings County’s Public Health Department regarding COVID-19 data and individuals’ information. The County determined via investigation that the breach was due to an error made by an external contractor. The error existed on the County’s public web server from February 15, 2021, until it was fully corrected on December 2021. The Department did not exclude the possibility that some individuals’ data also ended up online as a result of the breach. That data could include names, dates of birth, addresses, and COVID-19 related information (Zhadan, 2022).

Moreover, recent years have seen an increase in ransomware attacks, particularly against local government systems. The City of Atlanta was hit by a major ransomware attack in 2018, recovery from which ended up costing a reported $2.6 million, significantly more than the $52,000 ransom demand. A similar attack against the City of Baltimore in 2019 affected the city government’s email, voicemail, property tax portal, water bill, and parking ticket payment systems, and delayed more than 1,000 pending home sales. In March 2019, Orange County, North Carolina was attacked with a ransomware virus, causing slowdowns and service problems at key public offices such as the Register of Deeds, the Sheriff’s Office, and County libraries. The attack impacted a variety of county services, including disrupting the County’s capability to process real estate closings, issue marriage licenses, process fees or permits, process housing vouchers, and verify tax bills. These past events are examples of the range of risks posed to county and municipal governments by various cyber-attacks.

4.5.2.4 Likelihood of Future Occurrence
Occasional – Small-scale cyber-attacks such as DDoS attacks occur daily, but most have negligible impacts at the local or regional level. Data breaches are also extremely common, but again most have only minor impacts on government services. Additionally, the FBI Internet Crime Report 2021 found that there is a trend of increasing cyber-attacks over the past 5 years. These trends are shown in Figure 4-7

Kings County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
2023 Update Page 4-30 Figure 4-7 Trends of the Frequency of Cyber-attacks, 2017-2021

Source: The FBI Internet Crime Report 2021
Perhaps of greatest concern to the County are ransomware attacks, which are becoming increasingly common. It is difficult to calculate the odds of the County or one of its jurisdictions being hit with a successful ransomware attack in any given year, but it is likely to be attacked in the coming years. The possibility of a larger disruption affecting systems within the County and even California is a constant threat, but it is difficult to quantify the exact probability due to such highly variable factors as the type of attack and intent of the attacker. Major attacks specifically targeting systems or infrastructure in Kings County cannot be ruled out. Therefore, the probability of future cyber-attack is Occasional.

4.5.2.5 Climate Change Considerations
There are no known effects of climate-induced impacts on cyber-attacks.

4.5.2.6 Magnitude and Severity
Critical – There is no universally accepted scale to explain the severity of cyber-attacks. The strength of a DDoS attack is often explained in terms of a data transmission rate. One of the largest DDoS disruptions ever, known as the Dyn Attack which occurred on October 21, 2016, peaked at 1.2 terabytes per second and impacted some of the internet’s most popular sites, including Amazon, Netflix, PayPal, Twitter, and several news organizations.

Data breaches are often described in terms of the number of records or identities exposed. The largest data breach ever reported occurred in August 2013, when hackers gained access to all three billion Yahoo accounts. The hacking incidents associated with California in the Privacy Rights Clearinghouse database mentioned above are also showing big-scale incidents, where billions of records have been stolen.

Ransomware attacks are typically described in terms of the amount of ransom requested, or the amount of time and money spent to recover from the attack. One report from cybersecurity firm Emsisoft estimates the average successful ransomware attack costs $8.1 million and can take 287 days to recover from (Emsisoft, 2022). Therefore, the Magnitude and Severity of cyber-attack is Critical.

Kings County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
2023 Update Page 4-31

4.5.2.7 Vulnerability Assessment
People
Injuries or fatalities from cyber-attacks would generally only be possible from a major cyber-terrorist attack against critical infrastructure. More likely impacts on the public are financial losses and an inability to access systems such as public websites and permitting sites. Indirect impacts could include interruptions to traffic control systems or other infrastructure.

The FBI IC3 reports on the victims of cyber-attack by age group. While the number of cyber-attack complaints is comparable across age groups, the losses increase significantly as age group increases, with individuals 60 years and older experiencing the greatest losses. This is likely due to seniors being less aware of cyber threats, lacking the tools to identify cyber threats, and ”Grandparent Scams”, which is a cyberattacks where criminals impersonate a loved one in need, such as a grandchild, and ask for money.

In the County, 15.4% of the population was reported to be 60+ in 2021 according to the U.S. Census. Figure 4-8 displays the breakdown of victims by age group in 2021.

Figure 4-8 Victims by Age Group in 2021

Source: The FBI Internet Crime Report 2021
Property
Most cyber-attacks affect only data and computer systems and have minimal impact on general property. However, sophisticated attacks have occurred against the SCADA systems of critical

Kings County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
2023 Update Page 4-32 infrastructure, which could potentially result in system failures on a scale equal to natural disasters.

Facilities and infrastructure such as the electrical grid could become unusable. A ransomware attack on the Colonial Pipeline in 2021 caused temporary gas shortages on the East Coast (Colonial Pipeline Company 2021). A cyber-attack took down the power grid in Ukraine in 2015, leaving over 230,000 people without power (Zetter 2016). The 2003 Northeast Blackout, while not the result of a cyber-attack, caused 11 deaths and an estimated $6 billion in economic loss (Owens 2020).

Critical Facilities and Lifelines
A Government Technology article posted on July 31, 2022, highlights the increasing global cyber battles, despite the lack of major cyber-attacks against U.S. critical infrastructure in 2022 (Lohrmann 2022). This is a growing concern as cyber actions worldwide become less covert. IBM’s 2022 Cost of a Data Breach reveals that almost 80 percent of critical infrastructure organizations studied do not adopt zero-trust strategies, resulting in an average breach cost of $5.4 million, a $1.17 million increase compared to those that do. Additionally, 28 percent of breaches amongst these organizations were ransomware or destructive attacks (IBM 2022).

The impact of cyber-attacks on critical infrastructure can be devastating. For example, emergency response communications, access to mobile data terminals, and access to critical pre-plans and response documents can be disrupted. According to the Cyber & Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), cyber risks to 911 systems can have severe impacts, including loss of life or property, job disruption for affected network users, and financial costs for the misuse of data and subsequent resolution. CISA has compiled a recent list of attacks on 911 systems, including a DDoS attack in Arizona, unauthorized access with stolen credentials in Canada, a network outage in New York, and a ransomware attack in Baltimore (CISA 2019).

Governments rely heavily on the electronic delivery of services, which can be significantly impacted by cyber-attacks. Most agencies rely on server backups, electronic backups, and remote options for Continuity of Operations and the Continuity of Government. Access to documents on the network, OneDrive access, and other operations that require collaboration across the County could be significantly impacted.

Furthermore, if systems such as permitting, Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV), voting, or public websites are down for a prolonged amount of time, public confidence in the government will likely suffer.

An attack could raise questions regarding the security of using electronic systems for government services. Therefore, it is crucial to prioritize cyber security measures and adopt a zero-trust strategy to ensure the protection of critical infrastructure and electronic government services.

Economy
Data breaches and subsequent identity thefts can have huge impacts on the public. The FBI Internet Crime Report 2021 reported losses in California due to cyber-attacks totaled over $1.2 billion in 2021 alone (FBI 2021).

Economic impacts from a cyber-attack can be debilitating. The cyber-attack in 2018 that took down the City of Atlanta cost at least $2.5 million in contractor costs and an estimated $9.5 million in additional funds to bring everything back online. The attack in Atlanta took more than a third of the 424 software programs offline and recovery lasted more than 6 months (Newman 2018). The 2018 cyber-attack on the Colorado Department of Transportation cost an estimated $1.5 million (Chuang 2018). None of these statistics consider the economic losses to businesses and ongoing IT configuration to mitigate a future cyber-attack.

Additionally, a 2016 study by Kaspersky Lab found that roughly one in five ransomware victims who pay their attackers never recover their data. A 2017 study found ransomware payments over a two-year period totaled more than $16 million (Huang et al. 2017). Even if a victim is perfectly prepared with full offline data backups, recovery from a sophisticated ransomware attack typically costs far more than the demanded ransom.

Cultural, Historic and Natural Resources
Most cyber incidents have little to no impact on historic, cultural, or natural resources. A major cyber terrorism attack could potentially impact the environment by triggering a release of hazardous materials, or by causing an accident involving hazardous materials by disrupting traffic control devices.

Kings County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
2023 Update Page 4-33 Most cyber-attacks would have a limited impact on natural resources. There are cases, such as a cyber- attack on a hydroelectric dam, that could result in catastrophic consequences to natural and human- built environments in the case of a flood. If a cyber-attack occurred on several upstream dams and released significant amounts of water downstream, the additional pressure put on downstream dams could fail, resulting in massive flood events. This would not only jeopardize the energy system that relies on these dams but also cause significant damage to the natural environment.

Development Trends
Changes in development have no impact on the threat, vulnerability, and consequences of a cyber- attack. Cyber-attacks can and have targeted small and large jurisdictions, multi-billion-dollar companies, small mom-and-pop shops, and individual citizens. The decentralized nature of the internet and data centers means that the cyber threat is shared by all, regardless of new construction and changes in development.

4.5.2.8 Risk Summary
• The overall significance of cyber-attacks in Kings County is Medium. These incidents occur frequently, with California being the State with by far the most reported incidents. The possibility of an attack of any scale impacting the County is almost certain.
• There have been 9,741 data breaches statewide over a 17-year period, averaging approximately 573 incidents per year, or up to 48 incidents each month.
• Nationwide the increase in cyber-attacks has been dramatic year over year. As this trend continues it is safe to assume there is a threat to Kings County.
• People ages 60+ are the most likely age group to experience the greatest monetary losses, although anyone of any age can be a victim of a cyber-attack.
• The vast majority of attacks do not affect properties or cause casualties. • Economic impacts from a cyberattack can be debilitating, sometimes costing local governments millions of dollars.
• The vast majority of attacks target only computer systems, however sophisticated attacks against utilities and infrastructure, such as electrical grids, have occurred. • Related hazards: None

JURISDICTION GEOGRAPHIC
AREA

PROBABILITY

OF FUTURE

OCCURRENCE

MAGNITUDE/

SEVERITY

OVERALL

SIGNIFICANCE

PRIORITY
HAZARD?
Kings County Significant Occasional Critical Medium Yes City of Avenal Significant Occasional Critical Medium Yes City of Corcoran Significant Occasional Critical Medium Yes City of Hanford Significant Occasional Critical Medium Yes City of Lemoore Significant Occasional Critical Medium Yes

4.5.3 DAM INCIDENTS

4.5.3.1 Hazard Description
Dam failure is the breakdown, collapse or other failure of a dam structure characterized by the uncontrolled release of impounded water that results in downstream flooding. In the event of a dam failure, the energy of the water stored behind even a small dam is capable of causing loss of life and severe property damage to development downstream. An uncontrolled breach is the unintentional discharge from the impounded water body and is considered a failure. Dam failure can result from natural events or human-induced events. Dams have received more attention recently in the emergency management community as a potential target for terrorist acts.

Kings County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
2023 Update Page 4-34 Dams are built for a variety of uses, including flood protection, power generation, agriculture, water supply, and recreation. When dams are constructed for flood protection, they usually are engineered to withstand a flood with a computed risk of occurrence. For example, a dam may be designed to contain a flood at a location on a stream that has a certain probability of occurring in any one year. If prolonged periods of rainfall and flooding occur that exceed the design requirements, that structure may be overtopped and fail. Overtopping is the primary cause of earthen dam failure in the United States (Jamal 2017). Dam failures can also result from any one or a combination of the following causes:
• Earthquake
• Inadequate spillway capacity resulting in excess overtopping flows • Internal erosion caused by embankment or foundation leakage or piping or rodent activity • Improper design
• Improper maintenance
• Negligent operation
• Failure of upstream dams on the same waterway
Water released by a failed dam generates tremendous energy and can cause a flood that is catastrophic to life and property. A catastrophic dam failure could challenge local response capabilities and require evacuations to save lives. Impacts on life safety will depend on the warning time and the resources available to notify and evacuate the public. Major loss of life could result as well as potentially catastrophic effects on roads, bridges, and homes. Associated water quality and health concerns could also be issues. Factors that influence the potential severity of a full or partial dam failure are the amount of water impounded; the density, type, and value of development and infrastructure located downstream; and the speed of failure. The best way to mitigate dam failure is through the proper construction, inspection, maintenance, and operation of the dam.

Spillways are designed to relieve pressure on dams and prevent dam failures. Flooding downstream often results when spillways flow, though the potential for flooding as a result of discharge from dam outlet structures can also result from excessive rain events. However, controlled releases of water from dams is a measure that can prevent or minimize spillway flooding or structure failure, by regulating capacity in a managed way. Even controlled releases can lead to unwanted or unpredicted flooding, depending on environmental and weather conditions, or even human error.

In general, there are three types of dams: concrete arch or hydraulic fill, earth-rockfill, and concrete gravity. Each type of dam has different failure characteristics. A concrete arch or hydraulic fill dam can fail almost instantaneously: the flood wave builds up rapidly to a peak and then gradually declines. An earth- rockfill dam fails gradually due to erosion of the breach: the downstream flood wave will build gradually to a peak and then decline until the reservoir is empty. And a concrete gravity dam can fail instantaneously or gradually with a corresponding buildup and decline of the flood wave.

4.5.3.2 Geographic Area
Significant – According to the California Department of Water Resources’ (DWR) Jurisdictional Dams and the National Inventory of Dams (NID) databases, as well as the 2035 Kings County General Plan Safety Element and input received from the HMPC, there are 10 dams of concern to the County; seven of which

Kings County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
2023 Update Page 4-35 are in the County and three are upstream of the County.

As shown in Figure 4-9, Pine Flat, Terminus and Schafer dams are high hazard dams; however, these three dams are not located within Kings County. The rest of the dams are low hazard dams. Figure 4-9 shows the location of these dams, except Terminus, Schafer, Pine Flat dams due to data confidentiality and the fact that they are located within Tulare and Fresno County. The potential inundation areas for all dams are not available, as the data is either not available in GIS or not allowed for release in a public document.

Figure 4-10 is extracted from the 2035 Kings County General Plan Safety Element given information on Pine Flat Dam in no longer publicly available. As mentioned in the Safety Element, if Pine Flat Dam failed while at full capacity, its floodwaters would arrive in the County within approximately five hours. If Terminus Dam failed while at full capacity, its floodwaters would arrive in Kings County within approximately twelve hours. However, the chances of any of these dams failing while at full capacity are considered remote. As shown in Figure 4-8 Pine Flat Dam could inundate the majority of the County’s northeastern portion, including the cities of Hanford and Lemoore, as well as urban communities including Hardwick, Grangeville, Armona, Home Garden and Stratford. Terminus Dam’s inundation area is relatively smaller – a small portion to the northeast of the County would be inundated. In addition, according to the HMPC’s input during the 2022 Plan Update, the City of Corcoran mentioned that the Schafer dam on Lake Success in Tulare County has the potential to cause dam inundation flooding in the City of Corcoran. However, the dam inundation data is not available for Schafer dam to be shown on a map or used for vulnerability assessment.

Table 4-15 lists other dams of concern within or upstream of Kings County.

Kings County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
2023 Update Page 4-36 Figure 4-9 Dams within Kings County

Kings County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
2023 Update Page 4-37 Figure 4-10 Pine Flat Dam and Terminus Dam Inundation Areas within Kings County

Source: Kings County 2010

Kings County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment

2023 Update Page 4-38
Table 4-15 Dams of Concern Within and Upstream of Kings County

COUNTY DAM NAME DAM

OWNER/OPERATOR

RIVER DOWNSTREAM CITY NORMAL

STORAGE

CAPACITY
(ACRE-
FEET)

EMERGENCY
ACTION
PLAN (EAP)?
NID
HAZARD
RATING

CA DSOD
HAZARD
RATING
Kings Crescent Weir Crescent Canal
Company
- - 50 Not Required Low Low
Empire Weir
No.1
Empire Westside
Irrigation District
- - 50 Not Required Low Low
Empire Weir
No.2
Tulare Lake Basin
Water Storage
District
- - 480 Not Required Low Low
Island Weir Laguna Irrigation
District
- - 230 Not Required Low Low
Last Chance
Weir
Last Chance Water
Ditch Company
- - 50 Not Required Low Low
Lemoore
Diversion Weir
Lemoore Canal and
Irrigation Company
- - 50 Not Required Low Low
Peoples Weir Peoples Ditch
Company
- - 120 Not Required Low Low
Tulare Terminus (in
GP)
USACE –
Sacramento District
- - 235,205 Yes High N/A
Schafer
(Success Dam)
USACE –
Sacramento District
Tule
River
Porterville 65,473 Yes High N/A
Fresno Pine Flat (in GP) USACE –
Sacramento District
Kings
River
Hanford and
Lemoore
1,000,000 Yes High N/A
Sources: California DSOD and the NID

Kings County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment

2023 Update Page 4-39
As mentioned above, due to data limitations, analysis using inundation data and mapping associated with all dams was not possible for the plan, per communication with the Kings County Office of Emergency Services (OES) and the dam owners. As a result, the dam risk assessment does not quantify the entire risk to the County and the four participating jurisdictions in the event of a dam incident.

However, these deficiencies have been noted and a qualitative summary of risk is provided instead.

4.5.3.3 Past Occurrences
There is no history of dam failure affecting the County. However, according to the HMPC’s input during the 2023 MJHMP update, the City of Corcoran stated that Kings County has been a party of interest in Schafer dam and this dam has undergone retrofit and reinforcement for public safety. The March 2023 atmospheric river (AR) flash flooding demonstrated that flooding from Schafer dam can and did directly impact the City of Corcoran along the southeast portion of the City, including the directly adjacent two State Prison facilities that were protected by a portion of the Corcoran Levee along 4th Avenue between Quebec and Santa Fe Avenues.

4.5.3.4 Likelihood of Future Occurrence
Unlikely – The County remains at risk of dam failures from numerous dams under a variety of ownership and control and of varying ages and conditions. However, based on historical experience, dam failure is unlikely in the area based on the frequency of past dam incidents. Dams are regulated and inspected by either the State of California’s DSOD or the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) or both with follow-up written inspection reports. All the dams within the County have received satisfactory condition assessments. There have been no findings that would raise concern for a potential dam failure.

Nevertheless, given the number of dams of concern in the County, the potential exists for future dam failures in the County, but the likelihood of this is low. Uncontrolled or controlled release flooding as well as spillway flooding below dams due to excessive rain or runoff are more likely to occur than failures. For example, the March 2023 atmospheric river (AR) flash flooding resulted in flooding from Schafer dam over the southeast portion of the City of Corcoran.

In addition, the potential for climate change to affect the likelihood of dam failure is not fully understood.

However, climate change will impact the traditional operation measures and flow regimes used for dams because river conditions and water levels will be fluctuating due to climate change.

4.5.3.5 Climate Change Considerations
As noted in an academic journal Combined Effects of Reservoir Operations and Climate Warming on the Flow Regime of Hydropower Bypass Reaches of California's Sierra Nevada, which was published on March 24, 2014, climate warming will measurably alter some aspects of the flow regime (Rheinheimer and Viers, 2015). An article published at the Yale School of the Environment also notes that more evidence shows that climate change undermines the case for hydroelectric dams. Drought has caused reservoirs on five continents to drop below the levels needed to maintain hydroelectric production. Moreover, the article points out that climate change has caused vast uncertainty in flow assumptions, which resonates with the conclusions drawn by the 2014 journal article (Leslie 2021). Climate change may worsen drought conditions, which lessen the water available while climate change can also produce intense sudden storms that cause water levels to suddenly increase. Therefore, reservoir operators may need to change operations to mitigate climate change’s impact on rivers and overall water levels.

However, the universal consensus is that the potential for climate change to affect the likelihood of dam failure is not fully understood. With a potential for more extreme precipitation events as a result of climate change, this could lead to large inflows into reservoirs. However, this could be offset by generally lowering reservoir levels if storage water resources become more limited or stretched in the future due to climate change, drought and/or population growth.

4.5.3.6 Magnitude and Severity
Critical – Standard practice among federal and state dam safety offices is to classify a dam according to the potential impact a dam failure (breach) or mis-operation (unscheduled release) would have on downstream areas. The hazard potential classification system categorizes dams based on the probable loss of human life and the impacts on economic, environmental and lifeline facilities. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers uses three categories to classify a dam’s potential hazard to life and property:
• High hazard indicates that a failure would most probably result in the loss of life. • Significant hazard indicates that a failure could result in appreciable property damage.

Kings County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
2023 Update Page 4-40 • Low hazard indicates that failure would result in only minimal property damage and loss of life is unlikely.
• Undetermined hazard dams have not been rated or their hazard rating is not known.

In addition to these, high, significant, and low hazard classifications the California Division of Safety of Dams (DSOD) adds the fourth category of “Extremely High”. The DSOD defines this fourth category as “expected to cause considerable loss of human life or would result in an inundation area with a population of 1,000 or more” (DSOD 2020). As shown in Table 4-15 none of the dams are classified as “Extremely High”. However, it is important to note that there is no DSOD rating available for Terminus and Pine Flat dams.

Although most of the dams are rated low significance and can only result in minimal property damage and loss of life, Pine Flat dam can inundate a significant portion of the County. The extent of the impact depends on the nature of the failure. The largest populations potentially at risk would be in the cities of Hanford and Lemoore, as well as urban communities including Hardwick, Grangeville, Armore, Home Garden and Stratford.

A severe storm, earthquake or erosion of the embankment and foundation leakage may cause the collapse and structural failure of dams in the County or other nearby counties. Seismic activity may also cause inundation by the action of a seismically induced wave that overtops the dam without causing failure of the dam, but significant flooding downstream. Landslides flowing into lakes and reservoirs may also cause dams to fail or overtop.

4.5.3.7 Vulnerability Assessment
A dam incident can range from a small, uncontrolled release to a catastrophic failure. Vulnerability to dam failures is confined to the areas and populations subject to inundation downstream of the facility.

Secondary losses would include the loss of the multi-use functions of the dam itself and the associated revenues that accompany those functions.

Property
In the unlikely event of a complete dam failure, the majority of the populated areas within the northeastern portion of Kings County would be impacted. Inundation due to dam failure within the San Joaquin Valley is a low probability but high-risk hazard. The potential risk for the inundation of property is present in nearly all of the developed areas in the County’s northeastern portion. However, this potential risk is limited to only Pine Flat dam. The other low-significance dams may cause localized flooding events if they were to breach.

In general, communities located below a high or significant hazard dam and along a waterway are potentially exposed to the impacts of a dam failure. Inundation maps that identify anticipated flooded areas (which may not coincide with known floodplains) are typically produced for all high significant dams and included in the Emergency Action Plan (EAP) required for each dam. The FERC also requires annual training and exercises for each individual EAP. This would apply to both Terminus and Pine Flat dams.

Given that a GIS layer containing inundation maps for the dams of concern to Kings County is not available, a quantitative dam inundation exposure analysis was not performed. However, based on properties located within the cities of Hanford and Lemoore, urban communities including Hardwick, Grangeville, Armore, Home Garden and Stratford, as well as the overall northeastern portion of the unincorporated County would be inundated if Pine Flat dam were to breach.

People
Persons located underneath or downstream of a dam are at risk of a dam failure, though the level of risk can be tempered by topography (specifically where populations are located within the inundation path of a dam), amount of water in the reservoir and time of day of the breach. Injuries and fatalities can occur from debris, bodily injury, and drowning. Once a dam has breached, standing water presents all the same hazards to people as floodwater from other sources. People in the inundation area may need to be evacuated, cared for, and possibly permanently relocated. Impacts could include thousands of evacuations and likely hundreds of casualties, depending on the dam involved.

The populations most vulnerable are those that have the least time to evacuate and need assistance.

Populations that may need assistance to evacuate include the elderly, disabled and young. The vulnerable population also includes those who may not have adequate warning about evacuation from

Kings County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
2023 Update Page 4-41 emergency notification systems. The loss of life is impacted by the amount of early warning time first responders and the public have prior to the incident.

Given that Pine Flat dam could inundate the cities of Hanford and Lemoore, urban communities including Hardwick, Grangeville, Armona, Home Garden and Stratford, as well as the overall northeastern portion of the unincorporated County, people that live in these areas are then at risk of potential breaching events. Many of these communities were also identified as socially vulnerable due to income levels and higher housing burdens. Additionally, the southeast portion of the City of Hanford, western portion of the City of Lemoore, and the urban communities of Armona and Stratford are designated DACs.

The central and southern portions of the County have the highest level of social vulnerability, while the central and southeastern portions of the County are located within Pine Flat and Terminus dams’ inundation areas (FEMA 2023). There are also socially vulnerable census tracts located within the cities of Hanford and Lemoore, which are located within Pine Flat dam’s inundation area. Given these communities may require more assistance to respond to, cope with, and recovery from dam-related incidents, these socially vulnerable populations who live in these areas are exposed to a higher risk of dam inundation incidents.

Critical Facilities and Infrastructure
A total dam failure can cause catastrophic impacts to areas downstream of the water body, including critical infrastructure. Any critical asset located under the dam in an inundation area would be susceptible to the impacts of a dam failure. Of particular risk would be roads and bridges that could be vulnerable to washouts, further complicating response and recovery by cutting off impacted areas.

Impacts on cities would affect key infrastructure including hospitals, fire stations, clinics, and businesses.

Given that Pine Flat dam could inundate the cities of Hanford and Lemoore, urban communities including Hardwick, Grangeville, Armore, Home Garden and Stratford, as well as the overall northeastern portion of the unincorporated County, critical facilities, such as water and wastewater infrastructure and electrical utilities located within these areas are then exposed to potential dam inundation events. In addition, as discussed above and mentioned by the HMPC, the two State Prison facilities located in the City of Corcoran and were protected by a portion of the Corcoran Levee along 4th Avenue between Quebec and Santa Fe Avenues, could be impacted if Schafer dam were to breach. The HMPC also expressed concern over the City of Corcoran’s water treatment and wastewater treatment facilities that are not protected along the east from potential flooding events, which can result from Schafer Dam’s potential overflow.

Economy
Extensive and long-lasting economic impacts could result from a major dam failure including the long- term loss of water in a reservoir after a failure event. As mentioned in the previous Agricultural Pests and Disease section, agriculture is the dominant land use in Kings County, accounting for 90.2% of total land use in the County. A major dam incident and loss of water from the associated reservoir could include direct business impacts on the agricultural industry, resulting in damages and indirect disruption of the local economy. Economic impacts related to agriculture in the unincorporated areas of the County would be the most severe. According to the Kings County Agriculture Report (2021), the value of agricultural commodities produced in Kings County was over $2.3 billion (Kings County 2021).

Cultural, Historic and Natural Resources
Dam failure effects on the environment would be similar to those caused by flooding from other causes.

Water could erode stream channels and topsoil and cover the environment with debris. For the most part, the environment is resilient and would be able to rebound from whatever damages occurred, though this process could take years. However, historic and cultural resources could be affected just as housing or critical infrastructures would, were a dam to fail and cause downstream inundation that could further erode surfaces or cause scouring of structural foundations.

Development Trends
The areas located in the SOI for each incorporated jurisdiction are areas each city plans to grow into and are potentially slated for Development Trends. These areas should take into consideration potential impacts from dam failure risk upstream and should attempt to overlay the existing dam inundation maps with proposed Development Trends.

Kings County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
2023 Update Page 4-42 In the case of a dam failure, inundation would likely follow some existing FEMA-mapped floodplains, which contain development restrictions for areas in the 1% annual chance floodplain, but it could exceed those floodplains and affect areas that are not regulated for flood hazards. Also, of note is that development below a low or undetermined hazard dam could increase its hazard rating, while there are quite a few low hazard dams in the County. Finally, added development could compromise dams and reservoir resources if populations depend on them for critical needs such as potable water during or after a dam failure event.

The County Board of Supervisors has maintained support for the preservation of agricultural resources through the adoption of the Open Space Element and Resource Conservation Element of the County’s General Plan (2010). The County has implemented a “Right to Farm Ordinance” to recognize the right of farming operations to conduct necessary farming practices and activities throughout the County (Hanford Municipal Code 2001). The County General Plan also continues to maintain a priority for directing urban growth to the existing cities and community districts where urban-type development is better suited and can receive municipal services. This directive helps to promote coordinated orderly urban growth within the County and reduces the potential for premature conversion of agricultural land to other uses.

There has been no significant change in development in the unincorporated areas impacted by dam failure within the County since the last MJHMP update. According to the existing SOI data, the Development Trends areas of the cities of Lemoore and Hanford, as well as urban communities including Stratford, Armona and Home Garden are exposed to potential inundation events if Pine Flat and Terminus Dams were to breach. The Development Trends areas of the City of Corcoran are also exposed to potential inundation events if Schafer dam were to breach.

4.5.3.8 Risk Summary
• There are 10 dams of concern for the County. Seven are within the County (all are low significant) and three dams are upstream of the County (all are high hazard). • Pine Flat, Terminus and Schafer Dams, which are located in Fresno and Tulare Counties, are rated high hazard potential and can inundate Kings County if they were to breach. • Pine Flat Dam would inundate the cities of Hanford and Lemoore, urban communities including Hardwick, Grangeville, Armore, Home Garden and Stratford, as well as the overall northeastern portion of the unincorporated County if it were to breach. Properties and critical facilities that are located within these areas, as well as populations that reside in these areas, are exposed to the potential breaching event. Schafer dam could potentially inundate the eastern portion of the City of Corcoran. The majority of these cities and communities contain designated DACs, or underserved and socially vulnerable populations that are at a greater risk of exposure and vulnerability to dam incidents due to a lack of resources.
• Related Hazards – Drought, Flood, Earthquake, Landslide, and Severe Weather.

JURISDICTION GEOGRAPHIC
AREA

PROBABILITY

OF FUTURE

OCCURRENCE

MAGNITUDE/

SEVERITY

OVERALL

SIGNIFICANCE

PRIORITY
HAZARD?
Kings County Significant Unlikely Critical Medium Yes
City of Avenal Limited Unlikely Negligible Low No
City of Corcoran Extensive Unlikely Critical Medium Yes City of Hanford Extensive Unlikely Critical Medium Yes
City of Lemoore Extensive Unlikely Critical Medium Yes

Kings County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
2023 Update Page 4-43

4.5.4 DROUGHT

4.5.4.1 Hazard Description
A drought is a prolonged period of abnormally low rainfall or precipitation that causes a shortage of water, leading to a deficiency in water supply for plants, animals, and human activities in a particular region. It can also be defined as a condition of water scarcity that results from a lack of precipitation, high evaporation rates, and increased water usage, leading to a depletion of water resources in an area.

Droughts can vary in severity and duration, and can have significant impacts on agriculture, ecosystems, and human communities.

According to the California DWR, a single year of dry weather typically does not qualify as a drought in California due to the state's comprehensive water supply infrastructure, which includes reservoirs, groundwater basins, and inter-regional conveyance facilities (DWR 2015). These systems help alleviate the effects of short-term dry periods for most users of water.

Identifying the onset of a drought is determined by how it impacts water users. Most natural disasters, such as floods or forest fires, occur relatively rapidly and afford little time for preparing for disaster response. Droughts occur slowly, many times over a multi-year period, and it is often not obvious or easy to quantify when a drought begins and ends. What qualifies as a drought for some water users in a particular area may not be considered a drought for others in different regions or with alternative water sources. Water suppliers may determine their water supply conditions using criteria such as rainfall and runoff, the amount of water in storage, or anticipated supply from a water wholesaler.

Drought can often be defined regionally based on its causes or effects:
• Meteorological drought is defined as a period of substantially diminished precipitation duration and/or intensity. The commonly used definition of meteorological drought is an interval of time, generally on the order of months or years, during which the actual moisture supply at a given place consistently falls below the climatically appropriate moisture supply. • Agricultural drought occurs when there is inadequate soil moisture to meet the needs of a particular crop at a particular time. Agricultural drought usually occurs after or during meteorological drought, but before hydrological drought and can affect livestock and other dry-land agricultural operations. • Hydrological drought refers to deficiencies in surface and subsurface water supplies. It is measured as stream flow, snowpack, and lake, reservoir, and groundwater levels. There is usually a delay between a lack of rain or snow and noticeable water shortages in streams, lakes, and reservoirs.

Therefore, hydrological measurements tend to lag other drought indicators. • Socioeconomic drought occurs when physical water shortages start to affect the health, well-being, and quality of life of people, or when the drought starts to affect the supply and demand of an economic product.

Drought can have secondary impacts. For example, drought is a major determinant of wildfire hazard, in that it creates a greater propensity for fire starts and larger, more prolonged conflagrations fueled by excessively dry vegetation, along with reduced water supply for firefighting purposes. Drought is also an economic hazard. Significant economic impacts on California’s agriculture industry can occur as a result of short‐ and long‐term drought conditions; these include hardships to farmers, farm workers, packers, and shippers of agricultural products. The loss of hydroelectrical power generation may also occur during drought events due to the loss of hydroelectrical supply associated with lower reservoir levels and fewer water releases. In some cases, droughts can also cause significant increases in food prices for consumers due to shortages.

Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) of 2014
In January 2014, Governor Brown declared an emergency proclamation due to multiple years of drought.

The proclamation called on citizens to reduce water use by 20 percent, with a subsequent Executive Order in April 2015 that directed urban water agencies to reduce water use by 25 percent. In September 2014, the Governor signed a three-bill package (California SBs 1168 and 1319, and Assembly Bill [AB] 1739), known as the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act of 2014 (SGMA). SGMA provides for the establishment of local Groundwater Sustainability Agencies (GSAs) to manage groundwater sustainably within the groundwater subbasins defined by the California DWR. Within the County, there are portions of four groundwater subbasins, Tulare Lake, Kaweah, Kings, and Westside Subbasins, that are required

Kings County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
2023 Update Page 4-44 under SGMA to conduct sustainable groundwater management. Each of the four subbasins is required to develop and implement a Groundwater Sustainable Plan (GSP) by 2020 or 2022. Table 4-16 lists the GSAs in the County as well as their associated subbasins.

Table 4-16 Groundwater Sustainability Agencies in Kings County

SUBBASIN GROUNDWATER SUSTAINABILITY AGENCY
Tulare Lake Subbasin Southwest Kings GSA
Tri-County Water Authority GSA
El Rico GSA
South Fork Kings GSA
Mid-Kings River GSA
Kaweah Subbasin Greater Kaweah GSA
Kings Subbasin North Fork Kings GSA
Westside Subbasin Westlands Water District GSA
Source: County of Kings Division of Water and Natural Resources Drought Planning for Small Water Suppliers and Rural Communities In September 2021, Governor Gavin Newsom signed Senate Bill 552, Drought Planning for Small Water Suppliers and Rural Communities (SB 552), into law. Under the bill, the State, its counties, and small water suppliers must meet requirements to ensure shared responsibility in preparing and acting in case of a drought event. The requirements of the law are as follows:
• Small water providers (those with fewer than 3,000 connections and serving fewer than 3,000-acre feet) are required to:
o Have an abridged water shortage contingency plan by July 1, 2023, o Submit an annual report detailing their water supply conditions and usage by month, and o Upgrade their infrastructure to drought-resilient standards if necessary. • DWR and the State Water Board have developed templates for abridged contingency plans for small suppliers on DWR’s website: Drought Planning for Small Water Suppliers and Rural Communities (SB 552) (ca.gov)
• Counties are required to have a standing Drought Task Force that facilitates drought and water shortage preparedness for domestic wells, privately supplied homes within the county’s jurisdiction(s), and small state water systems.2 Additionally, the county is required to develop a plan that demonstrates potential drought and water shortage risks along with proposed short- and long- term solutions for small state and domestic wells within the county. Both of these requirements may be implemented as part of other existing committees and/or planning processes. • The State is required to maintain and update the Water Shortage Vulnerability Tool to assist small water providers and counties in accessing information about drought, water shortage vulnerabilities, and risks. Additionally, DWR will coordinate with other state agencies to establish a standing drought and water shortage task force for California.

Urban Water Suppliers
Water suppliers who provide potable water for municipal purposes to more than 3,000 customers, or who supply more than 3,000 acre-feet of water annually, are defined as “urban water suppliers.” Urban water suppliers in Kings County, summarized in Table 4-17, are subject to the Urban Water Management Planning Act and other requirements but are not subject to SB 552.

2 Section 116275 (n) of the Health and Safety Code (Water Code §10609.51 subd. (m)): A state small water system is a system for the provision of piped water to the public for human consumption that serves at least five, but not more than 14, service connect ions and does not regularly serve drinking water to more than an average of 25 individ uals daily for more than 60 days out of the year. Kings County does not currently have any state small water systems.

Kings County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
2023 Update Page 4-45 Table 4-17 Urban Water Suppliers in Kings County
WATER SUPPLIER SOURCE # OF

CONNECTONS

ACRE-FEET

ANNUALLY

POPULATION
SERVED
City of Hanford Groundwater 18,438 11,714 62,127
City of Lemoore Groundwater 7,305 7,413 27,038
City of Corcoran Groundwater 3,548 5,708 21,835
City of Avenal Surface water from
the California aqueduct
2,080 3,500 13,819
Lemoore Naval Air Station Surface water from
the CA aqueduct
and groundwater
1,396 3,055* 14,000
Sources: https://sdwis.waterboards.ca.gov/, City of Hanford 2020 UWMP, City of Lemoore 2020 UWMP, City of Corcoran 2020 UWMP, City of Avenal 2016 USBR Water Management Plan * 2004 data, from https://energy.wsu.edu/Documents/LemooreREMCaseStudy.pdf Small Water Suppliers
SB 552 defines a small water supplier as a community water system3 that serves 15 to 2,999 service connections and provides less than 3,000 acre-feet of water per year. It considers several categories of small water suppliers: Suppliers with 15 to 999 Connections, Suppliers with 1,000 to 2,999 Connections and NTNC Systems That Are Schools. SB 552 does not explicitly apply to transient, noncommunity water systems or NTNC water systems that are not schools.

Under SB 552, all small water suppliers are required to have:
• Drought resiliency measures,
• Annual reporting of water supply condition information to the State Water Board, and • Annual water demand reporting to the State Water Board.

Suppliers with 15 to 999 Connections
Health and Safety Code §116460 requires all community water systems to have an Emergency Notification Plan (ENP) or Emergency Response Plan (ERP) approved by the State Water Board that describes process and methods for meeting the public notification requirements when any primary drinking water standard is not complied with, when a monitoring requirement is not performed, or when the conditions of any variance or exemption are not complied with.

Under SB 552, suppliers with 15 to 999 connections must incorporate drought planning elements (including, but not limited to, drought-planning contacts and standard water shortage levels) into their ENP or ERP. The ENP or ERP is to be submitted to the State Water Board and updated every five years or when significant changes occur. Subject to funding availability, the State Water Board will offer technical assistance to support water suppliers with less than 1,000 connections in implementing this requirement.

Table 4-18 lists the small water suppliers in Kings County with 15 to 999 connections.

Table 4-18 Small Water Suppliers in Kings County with 15 to 999 Connections

NAME SOURCE CONNECTIONS ACRE-FEET

SUPPLIED

POPULATION
SERVED

DROUGHT

ELEMENT
ADDED

TO ENP OR
ERP
Home Garden
CSD
Groundwater 467 389 1,750 Yes

3 Section 116275 of the Health and Safety Code (Water Code §10609.51 subd. (a)) defines a community water system as a public wa ter system that serves at least 15 service connections used by yearlong residents or regularly serves at least 25 yearlong residents of the area served by the system.

Kings County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
2023 Update Page 4-46

NAME SOURCE CONNECTIONS ACRE-FEET

SUPPLIED

POPULATION
SERVED

DROUGHT

ELEMENT
ADDED

TO ENP OR
ERP
Stratford PUD Groundwater 364 301* 1,277 Yes
Kettleman City
CSD
Groundwater 348 263 1,136 Yes
Sunset Vista
Estates MHP
Groundwater 109 Unknown 400 Unknown,
likely yes
Hardwick Water
Company
Groundwater 40 Unknown 69 Unknown,
likely yes
Azcal
Management
Co
Surface water
from CA
aqueduct
21 Unknown 73 Unknown,
likely yes
Sources: https://sdwis.waterboards.ca.gov/,
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/conservation/docs/2016_small_supplier_dataset.xlsx, Data from 2015 to 2016 self - reporting,
* Data from 2013 self-reporting
Suppliers with 1,000 to 2,999 Connections and NTNC Systems That Are Schools Small water sources in Kings County include non-transient non-community water systems (NTNCWS).

NTNCWS are public water systems that regularly supply water to at least 25 of the same people at least six months per year. Some examples are schools, factories, office buildings, and hospitals which have their own water systems. NTNCWS that are not schools are not explicitly subject to SB 552.

All small water suppliers and non-transient non-community (NTNC) water systems that are schools must implement the following drought resilience measures, subject to funding availability:
• No later than January 1, 2023, implement monitoring systems sufficient to detect production well groundwater levels.
• Beginning no later than January 1, 2023, maintain membership in the California Water/Wastewater Agency Response Network (CalWARN) or similar mutual aid organization. • No later than January 1, 2024, to ensure continuous operations during power failures, provide adequate backup electrical supply.
• No later than January 1, 2027, have at least one backup source of water supply, or a water system intertie, that meets current water quality requirements and is sufficient to meet average daily demand.
• No later than January 1, 2032, meter each service connection and monitor for water loss due to leakages.
• No later than January 1, 2032, have source system capacity, treatment system capacity if necessary, and distribution system capacity to meet fire flow requirements.

Abridged Water Shortage Contingency Plans
Suppliers in this category, listed in Table 4-19, must develop, adopt, and maintain on-site an abridged water shortage contingency plan (WSCP) that covers a subset of drought-planning elements included in the plans that urban water suppliers submit as part of their Urban Water Management Plan. The first plan must be developed by July 1, 2023, and posted on the supplier’s website, if any, or made available upon request. This abridged WSCP must be updated at least every 5 years. The required elements must include:
• Drought-planning contacts, including all the following:
o At least one contact at the Water System for water shortage planning and response and the development of the plan.
o Contacts for local public safety partners and potential vendors that can provide repairs or alternative water sources, including but not limited to, local CBOs that work with the

Kings County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
2023 Update Page 4-47 population in and around areas served by the water system, contractors for drilling wells, vended water suppliers, and emergency shower vendors.
o State and local agency contacts who should be informed when a drought or water shortage emergency is emerging or has occurred.
o Regional water planning groups or mutual aid networks, to the extent they exist. • Triggering mechanisms and levels for action, including both of the following o Standard water shortage levels corresponding to progressive ranges based on the water supply conditions. Water shortage levels shall also apply to catastrophic interruption of water supplies, including, but not limited to, a regional power outage, an earthquake, a fire, and other potential emergency events.
o Water shortage mitigation, response, customer communications, enforcement, and relief actions that align with the water shortage levels.

As part of the technical assistance, DWR and the State Water Board have created a template for this abridged WSCP for small water suppliers serving 1,000 to 2,999 service connections and NTNC systems that are schools, located on DWR’s website. In addition, subject to funding availability, the State Water Board will offer technical assistance to support NTNC systems that are schools in implementing this new requirement for improving drought and water shortage resiliency.

Table 4-19 Small Water Suppliers with 1,000 to 2,999 Connections and NTNC School Systems in Kings County

NAME SOURCE CONNECTIONS POPULATION
SERVED

ABRIDGED
WATER

SHORTAGE

CONTINGENCY
PLAN

DROUGHT

ELEMENT
ADDED

TO ENP OR
ERP
Armona
Community
Services District
Groundwater 1,297 4,143 Yes Yes
Island Union
School
Groundwater 17 416 Yes No
Hanford
Christian School
Groundwater 14 175 Yes No
Kings River
Hardwick
School
Groundwater 7 908 Yes No
Pioneer
Elementary
School
Groundwater 6 750 Yes No
Lakeside
Elementary
School
Groundwater 5 388 Yes No
Source: https://sdwis.waterboards.ca.gov/
In addition, America’s Water Infrastructure Act of 2018 requires community water systems serving populations greater than 3,300 to develop or update an ERP that incorporates findings of their risk assessment. This requirement is not based on number of connections, although the number of connections, therefore, there may be a small number of small water suppliers with less than 1,000 connections who are required to develop and maintain an ERP. While the Armona CSD as a small water supplier with 1,000 to 2,999 connections is not required to have a drought element added to their ENP or ERP, they are required to as a community water system that serves greater than 3,300 customers.

A summary of the requirements for small water suppliers is provided in Table 4-20.

Kings County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
2023 Update Page 4-48 Table 4-20 Summary of Small Water Supplier Requirements for Implementation of Senate Bill 552

SUMMARY OF

REQUIREMENT

COMMUNITY WATER
SYSTEM 1,000-2,999

CONNECTIONS

COMMUNITY WATER
SYSTEM 15-999

CONNECTIONS

NTNC WATER

SYSTEMS THAT

ARE SCHOOLS
Drought Resiliency Measures Yes Yes Yes
Abridged Water Shortage
Contingency Plan
Yes No No
Drought Element added to
Emergency Notification or
Response Plan
No Yes No
Annual reporting of water
supply condition information
to the State Water Board
Yes Yes Yes
Annual water demand
reporting to the State Water
Board
Yes Yes Yes
Source: https://water.ca.gov/-/media/DWR-Website/Web-Pages/Programs/Water-Use-And-Efficiency/Urban-Water- Use-Efficiency/SB-552/Primer-of-SB-552-052522_final.pdf County Requirements
SB 552 places the drought and water shortage planning responsibility on counties for state small water systems and domestic well communities within the county’s jurisdiction. SB 552’s language allows for flexibility in how the County implements new requirements. Plans and response arrangements could be developed by GSAs that cover the County, in which case the County would need to formally recognize its agreement and adoption or deference to these plans as part of its compliance with SB 552.

County Drought and Water Shortage Task Force
By January 1, 2022, each county must establish a standing County Drought and Water Shortage Task Force to facilitate drought and water shortage preparedness for state smalls and domestic wells within the county’s jurisdiction. Counties must solicit task-force membership from representatives of State and other local governments, including GSAs, community-based organizations (CBOs), local water suppliers, and residents.

As an alternative, the County may implement a different process that facilitates drought and water shortage preparedness for state smalls and domestic wells within the county’s jurisdiction. The alternative process will provide opportunities for coordinating and communicating with the state and other local governments, CBOs, local water suppliers, and residents on a regular basis and during drought or water shortage emergencies.

County Drought and Water Shortage Risk Mitigation Plan
The County will develop a plan that includes potential drought and water shortage risks and proposed interim and long-term solutions for state smalls and domestic wells within the County’s jurisdiction. The plan may be a stand-alone document or may be included as an element in an existing county plan, such as a LHMP, EOP, climate action plan or CAP, or general plan. The plan must include:
• Potential drought and water shortage risk
• Proposed interim and long-term solutions for state smalls and domestic wells in the County.

The plan must also consider the following, at a minimum:
• Consolidations for existing water systems and domestic wells. • Domestic well drinking water mitigation programs.
• Provision of emergency and interim drinking water solutions. • An analysis of the steps necessary to implement the plan. • An analysis of local, state, and federal funding sources available to implement the plan.

Kings County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
2023 Update Page 4-49 As outlined in Table 4-21, there are ten small water suppliers, supplementing the previously identified ten water districts. Within this subset, five meet the criteria for NTNCWS. All ten of these smaller suppliers, as depicted below, meet the requirements under the SB 552 legislation. These entities are mandated to draft WSCPs, with Kings County providing dedicated support for their development.

Table 4-21 Small Water Suppliers in Kings County
WATER

UTLILITIES

SYSTEM TYPE ADDRESS JURISDICTION
Kings River
Hardwick School
Non-Transient Non-Community
Water System
10300 Excelsior Ave Hanford

Hanford
Christian School
Non-Transient Non-Community
Water System
11948 Flint Ave Hanford

Island Union
School
Non-Transient Non-Community
Water System
7799 21st Ave Lemoore

Pioneer Union
Elem School
Non-Transient Non-Community
Water System
8810 14th Ave Hanford

Lakeside Union
School
Non-Transient Non-Community
Water System
9100 Jersey Ave Hanford

Kings Ranch
Ministries
State Small 13787 Kansas Ave Hanford

Villa Terrace
Apartments
State Small 13940 Hackett St Hanford
Rollerland Co State Small 18167 Medford Ave Stratford

Westlake Farms
Hqts/Cotton Gin
State Small 23311 Newton Ave Stratford
Couture Farms State Small 30650 Quebec Ave Kettleman City

Source: Kings County Department of Public Health, Division of Environmental Health Services 2023 As part of compliance with the SB 552 requirements, the County will develop a drought resiliency plan, either as a stand-alone plan or as part of another plan, like the MJHMP that includes a risk assessment and action plan for all of the water districts and small water suppliers in the County. A drought resiliency plan is a structured strategy developed by governments, communities, and organizations to proactively address drought impacts. Its primary goal is to build long-term capacity for effective drought management. The plan includes a risk assessment, water conservation actions, diversifying water sources, early warnings, legal frameworks, community engagement, ecological considerations, emergency response, research, and adaptive management components. These plans are crucial, especially in drought-prone regions or areas facing water scarcity due to factors like climate change and population growth. They aim to balance stakeholder needs with sustainable water resource management in the face of drought challenges.

4.5.4.2 Geographic area
Extensive – Drought is a regional hazard, and at its worst can affect the entire State of California with varying levels of dryness and drought activity. It is safe to assume that unless the drought event is at its very beginning or very end, if any area of the County is affected by any level of drought, other areas of the County are experiencing varying effects as well.

The U.S. Drought Monitor is a widely used site for obtaining and summarizing drought information, as it integrates data from several other sources including the Palmer Drought Index, Soil Moisture Models, U.S.

Geological Survey Weekly Stream Flows, Standardized Precipitation Index, and the Satellite Vegetation Health Index. It includes drought intensity categories for measuring dry conditions across counties, states, and regions of the U.S., so that drought can be quantified. These categories range from “abnormally dry” to “exceptional drought.” Figure 4-11 provides “snapshots in time” of the drought conditions in California.

The snapshots selected are instrumental in depicting both the historic and potential change in drought’s geographic range and severity in the County (circled).

Kings County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
2023 Update Page 4-50 Figure 4-11 U.S. Drought Monitor for California: December 27, 2022 and April 20, 2023

Source: Drought Monitor 2023

Kings County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
2023 Update Page 4-51

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

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

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.

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 water- intensive 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

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 large- scale 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

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

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.

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.

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. Water- dependent 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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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

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

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.

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.

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)

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

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

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.

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.

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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.

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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).

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.

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

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.

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.

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