Economic Analysis of the Tornado Impact upon Two ...

Economic Analysis of the Tornado Impact upon Two Communities

by

Maribel Martinez, M.S.

A Dissertation

In

WIND SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING

Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of Texas Tech University in

Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for

the Degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Approved By

Bradley Ewing, Chair

Jamie Kruse

Daan Liang

Fred Hartmeister Dean of the Graduate School

May, 2009

Texas Tech University, Maribel Martinez, May 2009

ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

It is with deepest appreciation that I thank my advisor Dr. Bradley Ewing for his

assistance, guidance, and mentoring throughout my research. I am also grateful to

committee members Dr. Jamie Kruse of the Center for Natural Hazards Research and Dr.

Daan Liang for the time, ideas, and support they have contributed over the course of the

dissertation. I would also like to thank all my family for being there for me throughout

my college career in the ups and downs, and helping me in too many ways to mention.

To Homero and Maria Martinez, Alfonso and Cynthia Martinez, Andy and Alma

McElhannon, and Homer Martinez, words can not express my gratitude for your

unending support and unconditional love. I also thank God whose strength and guidance

have carried me through.

Funding for this research was provided by the National Science Foundation

Interdisciplinary Graduate Research and Training (IGERT) program under Grant No.

022168. Additional resources were provided by the City of Amarillo and gratitude is

expressed to all Office of Emergency Management staff for their support and mentorship.


iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS................................................................................................ ii ABSTRACT........................................................................................................................ v BIOGRAPHY…………………………………………………………………………...viii LIST OF TABLES.............................................................................................................. x LIST OF FIGURES .......................................................................................................... xii CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................... 1

Objectives and Scope.............................................................................................. 5

2. LITERATURE REVIEW ......................................................................................... 7 3. TULIA, TX TORNADO......................................................................................... 15

Storm Synopsis ..................................................................................................... 15 Damage Summary................................................................................................. 25 Local Demographics and Economy...................................................................... 33 Direct and Indirect Impacts................................................................................... 39 Historical and Current Economic Overview......................................................... 49

4. CLOVIS, NM TORNADO ..................................................................................... 67

Storm Synopsis ..................................................................................................... 67 Damage Summary................................................................................................. 74 Local Demographics and Economy...................................................................... 82 Direct & Indirect Impacts ..................................................................................... 88 Historical and Current Economic Overview......................................................... 93


iv

5. DISCUSSION....................................................................................................... 100

Comparison of Results........................................................................................ 104

6. CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE WORK ........................................................... 108 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................... 112 APPENDIX A: SWISHER COUNTY IMPLAN OUTPUT .......................................... 118 APPENDIX B: CURRY COUNTY IMPLAN OUTPUT .............................................. 121 APPENDIX C: SWISHER COUNTY CONSOLIDATED FEDERAL FUNDS REPORT ........................................................................................................... 124 APPENDIX D: CURRY COUNTY CONSOLIDATED FEDERAL FUNDS REPORT 2007 .................................................................................................. 131 APPENDIX E: DISASTER DECLARATION PROCESS - A SUMMARY OF DEM-62 DISASTER RECOVERY MANUAL ................................. 140


v

ABSTRACT

The aftermath of hurricane landfalls like Katrina and Rita in 2005 and the

tornadoes of Moore, Oklahoma (1999) and Greensburg, Kansas (2007), remind us of not

only the power such systems can contain but of the great human loss, social and

emotional effects, economic loss, substantial infrastructural damage, and political and

environmental impacts such storms carry with them. Although the number of people

killed by all disasters has been generally decreasing due to better warning dissemination,

the number of people affected by disasters and costs incurred by them remains high and

continues to increase.

Tornado damage does produce a negative effect on some business operations;

however, direct damage is only one of several factors that contribute to business loss.

Damage and disruption of utilities, transportation, reduced traffic, and reduced employee

productivity can all additionally incur loss that may be as large as physical losses.

Research on the short-term and long-term economic effects after a tornadic event is

sparse, especially for small to mid-size communities. These communities often lack the

political and economic influence of larger cities when it comes to preparing and

recovering from an event. Although large metropolitans may have more population at

risk, large urban areas often have the resources, training, and funds to deal with hazards

and disasters.

This study fills a void in the literature by focusing on the impact placed on two

relatively small communities of Clovis, New Mexico and Tulia, Texas after tornadoes hit

on March 23, 2007 and April 21, 2007 respectively. Over 450 residential structures and


vi

33 businesses were damaged in Clovis. In Tulia, the business district took the brunt of

the storm, completely destroying 24 businesses in the town with a population of 5100.

This study sets a framework for future study and focuses on the collection, compilation

and documentation of engineering, atmospheric, and economic data with implications for

a rapid response economic impact analysis using primary data directly from impacted

businesses, higher reliability data than traditional regional studies. Such analysis

provides for more accurate economic estimates that would be available to federal and

state officials who decide whether to issue a Presidential Declaration and the amount of

funds to disperse to a community suffering from a disastrous event based on numbers

reported to the state. It is important that these smaller jurisdictions properly account for

all impacts since economic impacts may be larger than direct damage impacts and may be

the difference in obtaining declaration status. Additionally, local officials will be able to

determine where to exert these funds in a way that would be more economically feasible

and towards effective mitigation planning, paving the way towards a faster recovery and

leading towards greater local sustainability.

Results of the study indicated that infrastructure such as power or water services

did not play a role in business disruption as power was restored quickly in both cases.

The people in the community came together along with many others from surrounding

communities to help in the cleanup process. Debris was cleared within the week. Those

businesses that sustained major damage not only to the structure but inventory as well,

took longer to recover, between two to nine months. Additionally, permanent job loss

impacts estimated by the economic impact analysis show significant immediate impact to


vii

Swisher County, spiking unemployment by nearly 36% and a loss of 22 jobs. Swisher

County had an estimated $1,000,000 in output impact due to the decision of Alco not to

rebuild. Additionally, research showed that when businesses are hit by a tornado, some

experienced demand surge. This included auto repair shops and service firms such as

insurance agents. Others continued to operate or recovered quickly by changing

locations or operating out of their homes. However, establishments in sectors such as

manufacturing/dairy/retail sustained longer lasting periods of business interruption.


viii

BIOGRAPHY

Maribel Martinez was born in 1979 in Spearman, TX, a small town in the

northern Texas Panhandle. After graduating from Spearman High School in 1998, she

attended Texas Tech University and graduated in December 2001 with a B.S. in

Geosciences/Geophysics. As an undergraduate she was accepted into the Significant

Opportunities in Atmospheric Research and Science (SOARS) Program at the National

Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) and was a protégé at the center for four

summers. She was involved in the Severe Thunderstorm Electrification and Precipitation

Study (STEPS 2000) based in Goodland, Kansas and numerous field projects throughout

her undergraduate career. In the summer of 2003, she worked at the National Severe

Storms Laboratory (NSSL) analyzing polarimetric radar and lightning data. Maribel

accepted a Teaching Assistantship at Texas Tech University while working on her

masters. Her master’s research included analysis of lightning behavior in severe storms.

She graduated with a M.S. in Atmospheric Science in December of 2003.

Upon completion of her Masters, Maribel worked as a research assistant where

she developed radar display code in Matlab for various hurricane analyses and profiler

and West Texas Mesonet data. In August 2004, she was offered an NSF Integrated

Graduate Education Research and Training (IGERT) Ph.D. Fellowship in Wind Science

and Engineering at Texas Tech University. Maribel was a NSF Diversity Scholarship

Recipient, a member of the Society for Chicanos and Native Americans in Science

(SACNAS), Texas Tech Student Chapter of the American Meteorological Society


ix

(AMS), National AMS, Hispanic Alumni Association, a regular participant in the Texas

Tech University Storm Intercept Team, and has been deployed for eight hurricanes as

part of Hurricane Research Team.

Maribel was accepted into the Hispanic National Internship Program in the spring

of 2006 under the U.S. Department of Agriculture Farm Service Agency in Dodgeville,

Wisconsin where she worked on various GIS related projects and she did volunteer work

with the Wisconsin Emergency Management Division. Additionally, she spent several

months working and visiting every small community in the West Texas area (and also has

quite a collection of water tower pictures for each community) as part of a hazard

planning and mitigation project with the South Plains Association of Governments.

After seeing firsthand the impacts of disasters through the various avenues of field

research, Maribel decided to enter the arena of emergency management and utilize her

experiences to enhance preparation, mitigation, and recovery strategies at the local level.

She was hired by the Amarillo/Potter/Randall Office of Emergency Management as the

Assistant Emergency Management Coordinator in March of 2008.


x

LIST OF TABLES Tornado storm report information for April 21, 2007 . .................................................... 17 EF rated tornadoes on April 21, 2007 . ............................................................................. 18 Businesses receiving damage in Tulia, TX....................................................................... 31 2000 U.S. Census statistics for Tulia, TX ........................................................................ 33 Top employment by industry sectors for Tulia based on 2000 U.S. Census .................... 36 Employment by industry in 2000 ..................................................................................... 38 Businesses receiving damage in Tulia, TX....................................................................... 43 Population data for Swisher County . ............................................................................... 56 Unemployment, income, poverty, property values, and sales activity . ........................... 57 Industry employment for Swisher County . ...................................................................... 58 1992-2007 Property Tax rates for Swisher County . ........................................................ 58 Swisher County, TX Single-Family Building Permit . ..................................................... 59 Swisher County, TX 2-4 Family Building Permit . .......................................................... 60 Swisher County, TX 5+ Family Building Permit ............................................................ 61 Sales Tax, Taxable Sales Report, from 2002-2008 for the City of Tulia . ....................... 62 Sales Tax, Taxable Sales Report, from 2002-2008 for the Swisher County . .................. 64 Tornado storm report information for March 23, 2007 . .................................................. 69 Businesses receiving damage in Clovis, NM.................................................................... 81 2000 U.S. Census information for Clovis, NM. ............................................................... 83 Major employers for the Clovis area . .............................................................................. 85


xi

Major industry sectors for Clovis .................................................................................... 86 Curry County employment by industry . .......................................................................... 88 Businesses impacted in Clovis, NM. ................................................................................ 91 Curry County civilian labor force and unemployment rate . ............................................ 97 Curry County housing estimates ...................................................................................... 97 Curry County new residential permits . ............................................................................ 98 Summary of impacts for Swisher County, TX................................................................ 102 Summary of impacts for Curry County, NM. ................................................................. 103 Output multipliers - Swisher County…………………………………………………...117 Employment multipliers - Swisher County……………………………………………..118 Labor income multipliers - Swisher County……………………………………………119 Output multipliers - Curry County……………………………………………………...120 Employment multipliers - Curry County……………………………………………….121 Labor income multipliers - Curry County……………………………………………...122 Swisher County consolidated federal funds report 2007……………………………….123 Curry County consolidated federal funds report 2007………………………………….130 Types of resources……………………………………………………………………...144


xii

LIST OF FIGURES

Storm Prediction Center (SPC) Storm Reports for April 21, 2007................................... 19 0000 UTC 22 April 2007 surface map. ........................................................................... 20 Upper air analysis 250 mb observations and isotachs for 0000 UTC on 22 April 2007................................................................................................................................... 22 Upper air analysis 500 mb observations and isotachs for 0000 UTC on 22 April 2007................................................................................................................................... 22 Upper air analysis 700 mb observations and isotachs for 0000 UTC on 22 April 2007................................................................................................................................... 23 Upper air analysis 850 mb observations and isotachs for 0000 UTC on 22 April 2007................................................................................................................................... 23 Lubbock radar (KLBB) base reflectivity image at 0056 UTC. ........................................ 24 Tornado path through Tulia, TX ...................................................................................... 27 Tornado damage track with shaded areas of EF0, EF1, and EF2 damage in Tulia, TX. .................................................................................................................................... 28 Damage survey photos of the Tulia tornado track . .......................................................... 29 Tornado tracks on April 21, 2007 . ................................................................................... 30 Swisher County population estimates 2000-2008............................................................. 37 Unemployment rate trend from 2000 to 2008................................................................... 51 Swisher County state expenditures from 2000-2007 ....................................................... 66 Storm Prediction Center (SPC) Storm Reports for March 23, 2007. .............................. 68 Upper air analysis 250 mb observations and isotachs for 0000 UTC on 23 March 2007................................................................................................................................... 71 Upper air analysis 500 mb observations and isotachs for 0000 UTC on 23 March 2007................................................................................................................................... 71


xiii

Upper air analysis 700 mb observations and isotachs for 0000 UTC on 23 March 2007................................................................................................................................... 72 Upper air analysis 850 mb observations and isotachs for 0000 UTC on 23 March 2007................................................................................................................................... 72 Surface observations and isotachs for 0000 UTC on 23 March 2007. ............................. 73 Cannon AFB base-level radar reflectivity imagery at 01:58 UTC as the tornadic circulation passes through Clovis. .................................................................................... 74 Clovis, New Mexico tornado track (red) on March 23, 2007........................................... 76 Geocoded damage information for structure, roof covering, and accumulated building.. ........................................................................................................................... 78 Damage photos in Clovis, NM . ........................................................................................ 79 Curry County population estimates 2000-2008 . .............................................................. 87 Curry County annual unemployment rate ........................................................................ 95 Presidential declaration process………………………………………………………...143 Small Business Administration declaration process……………………………………144 USDA disaster declaration process……………………………………………………..145


1

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

From the years 1973 to 2003, over 6,367 natural disasters have killed more than 2

million people and caused over $1.4 trillion in damage worldwide (Guha et al., 2004).

The aftermath of hurricane landfalls like Katrina and Rita in 2005 and the tornadoes of

Moore, Oklahoma (1999) and Greensburg, Kansas (2007), remind us of not only the

power such systems can contain but of the great human loss, social and emotional effects,

economic loss, substantial infrastructural damage, and political and environmental

impacts such storms carry with them (NOAA, 2006).

Tornadoes occur most frequently in the United States, averaging about 1,200

reports each year (Grazulis, 1993). The unique geography of the U.S. allows warm,

moist air from the Gulf of Mexico and colder air from the Rockies to converge, resulting

in disturbances that are associated with cyclogenesis and severe weather. Damage paths

can be in excess of one mile wide and 50 miles in length. Every state is at some risk

from this hazard but they occur most frequently east of the Rockies during spring and

summer. On average they account for 70 deaths and more than 1,500 injuries

(Tornadoes, 2007).

Although the number of people killed by all disasters has been generally

decreasing due to better warning dissemination (Simmons and Sutter, 2005), the number

of people affected by disasters and costs incurred by them remains high and continues to

increase (Freeman et al., 2003). Interactions and changes between hazardous events,

social and demographic characteristics of communities, and the constructed environment


2

all play a role in disaster losses (Mileti, 1999; Kates, 1971). More people are exposed to

more disasters because they choose to live near hazardous places and often choose

inadequate construction designs that fail to limit destruction when that hazard occurs. It

is up to researchers, decision makers, emergency management officials, policy makers,

and U. S. citizens to prepare and plan for possible disastrous events by being committed

to building resiliency and enhancing local sustainability through mitigation,

preparedness, and response and recovery.

Direct property damage is almost always reported in the aftermath of a natural

disaster due to pressures to determine replacement investment requirements and the

extent of insured losses. In recent years some indirect business interruption losses have

been estimated and reported as well. However, indirect effects have not been studied or

modeled to the same extent as direct losses and determining these impacts have proved

challenging since they are generally spread over a much wider area as they ripple

throughout the local economy.

The purpose of this research is to economically quantify these impacts placed on

smaller communities specifically by tornadic wind damage. Although studies exist on

various aspects of impacts from these storms, many analyses concentrate only on large

urban areas and the need for more research, especially for smaller communities still

exists. Of course, one major reason that prior studies have focused on larger metro areas

and not on smaller, rural communities is due to data availability. Thus, this research is

the first attempt in the literature at a comprehensive approach to disaster impact analysis

for the smaller community in which relevant economic data do not exist or are sparse at


3

best. Research here aims to investigate the impact using a case study approach to the

Tulia, TX and Clovis, NM communities that combines and utilizes engineering,

atmospheric, and economics data, including a establishment-level business survey.

Collection, compilation and documentation of engineering, atmospheric, and economic

data could have implications for a rapid response economic impact analysis.

When it comes to tornadoes, Tornado Alley (an area of greatest risk for tornado

formation) is comprised mainly of these smaller communities like those of Clovis and

Tulia. When disaster does strike, it is heavily felt by the entire population, unlike those in

larger urban areas (Cross, 2001). Rural areas, which contain approximately a quarter of

the country’s population, have a lower tax base and fewer resources in general (Mileti,

1999). Federal resources to alleviate hardships only become fully available to local and

state governments when a presidential declaration is made and mainly come in the form

of low interest loans (Bazan, 2005). Only if the demand for assistance and services

exceeds local and state capacities or if local government revenues are substantially

threatened, do federal resources become engaged. For example, if a tornado destroyed

only houses located along a city block, the revenue of local government would not be

severely impacted and would thus not qualify for federal assistance (Clower, 2006).

Therefore, it is important for assessments to include the total (direct and indirect)

economic impact placed on a community in order to better understand the extent of the

impact and attain disaster declaration status. It is in the understanding of the overall

impacts that these jurisdictions can properly account for damages which are often missed

in traditional methods in order to increase the probability of a presidential declaration and


4

open the availability of federal assistance. Since the amount of assistance an area may

receive is a positive function of the reported amount of damage, accounting for total

impacts is vital to smaller communities who unlike larger communities may find it

difficult to meet the threshold of damage for declaration status without including

additional economic impacts. Additionally, by understanding losses or gains for different

industries in the impact area, local officials can exert these funds in a way that would be

more economically feasible and advantageous for the community, paving the way

towards a faster recovery and possibly build up a better local economy.

Through the use of economic impact analysis, losses such as those from backward-

linked production due to closed or damaged businesses or spending reductions from

suffering businesses will be investigated. Economic gains such as positive job growth,

production generated from rebuilding, and multiplier effects of these gains will also be

determined. Overall, a clearer picture of which industry sectors thrive and which suffer

the most will be obtained. Whether it be through the reinforcement of structures, more

effective land-use planning, identification of vulnerable industries through economic

impact analysis, or better allocating federal funds for minimal economic activity

interruption, a better understanding of the total loss of disasters will assist policymakers

in designing and implementing cost effective mitigation polices that in the end will

reduce losses in future disasters. Additionally, a methodology for smaller communities

who are impacted by these devastating storms in the future will be determined in order to

quickly assess economic impacts on the community and qualify them for federal aid.

Current studies often use official labor market and economic statistics like those from the


5

Bureau of Economic Analysis, Census Bureau, and the Bureau of Labor Statistics which

have a relatively larger measurement error associated with them for smaller populated

counties than those with more population. Obtaining primary data directly from the

businesses and or local officials improves reliability and thus adds to the value of this

research.

Objectives and Scope The research presented here includes the following observations for both case studies of

Tulia, TX and Clovis, NM:

1. The spatial distribution of the tornado path using the Enhanced Fujita damage

scale.

2. The number and extent of residential and business areas affected, people

impacted, and extent of infrastructure damage and disruption.

3. The impact on regional industrial sectors.

The collective and multidisciplinary approach to disaster research for small, rural

communities is unique and will provide a framework for future research, as well. Data to

fulfill objective #1 was obtained through field damage assessment and working with the

National Weather Service. Data to fulfill objective #2 was obtained through local and

state government research, and an establishment-level survey was conducted with

impacted businesses in both cases to determine the impacts to complete objective #3. For

each case, the local economy, storm synopsis, direct and indirect impacts of the storm

using collected data, and grant money received and possible allocations, are discussed


6

and examined. .Finally, a summary chapter synthesizes the findings of the two cases,

including discussion of results and comparison to previous work, and discusses

possibilities of future work.


7

CHAPTER II

LITERATURE REVIEW

Disasters can cause direct loss through physical destruction to buildings, homes

and infrastructure and indirect effects through interruptions of economic activities and

businesses. Rose (2004) along with other researchers cited in his study, found that direct

and indirect business interruption losses can be as large as physical losses. A study on

the Midwest flood and Northridge Earthquake by Tierney (1997) showed that most

businesses cited disruptions to water, electric power, and sewer and wastewater services

as most likely effects of business disruptions. Employment income, ability to ship and

receive goods, reduced employee productivity, and loss of income are also associated in

loss in secondary and tertiary employment. Even if a certain area is spared, damage to

nearby business and residential areas can result in reduced traffic, thus affecting

businesses that escaped direct damage. A report by Alesch et al. (2001) on small

business impact after various natural disasters, found that only 60% of the business were

back to normal four years following the disaster. Structural, merchandise, and equipment

damage were the cause of some failures while the impact on business and customer base

left others to close two or three years later. On the other hand, some industries and

business may even see potentially huge increases in their business activities resulting

from a disaster and the economic region may be better off after the disaster (Mileti, 1999;

Gordan et al., 2005; Okuyama, 2000; Ewing and Kruse, 2002; Skidmore and Toya,

2002). Although the impacts of disasters are very complex, advances in economic

analysis of natural disasters have increased our understanding of what goes on after these


8

events. Techniques such as surveys, econometric models, time series analyses, input-

output models, general equilibrium models, and economic accounting models have all

been used to assess the indirect and direct income effects of disasters (Cochrane, 2004;

Chang, 2003; Zimmerman et al., 2005). Ewing, Kruse, and Sutter (2007, 2009 in press)

provide a literature survey and overview of the economic impacts of Hurricane Katrina.

Input-output models are popular tools among the disaster-related research

community as they can estimate secondary or indirect effects at a regional level

(Cochrage, 1997; Wilson, 1982; Boisvert, 1992; Guimaraes et al., 1993; West and Lenze,

1994; Gordon and Richardson, 1996; Rose et al., 1997; Rose and Benavides, 1998; and

Okuyama et al., 1999). The input-output model IMPLAN is a software and database

package widely used to estimate local economic impacts. The data for IMPLAN consists

of 528 distinct producing industry sectors collected by the U.S. Department of

Commerce, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, and other federal and state government

agencies. Data includes outputs and inputs from other sectors, value added, employment,

wages and business taxes paid, imports and exports, final demand by households and

government, capital investment, business inventories, marketing margins, and inflation

factors nationwide and at the county level. Estimation of multiplier effects between

industries are determined from the direct, indirect, and induced effects. Input-output

models are able to reflect the interdependencies within a regional economy and can also

be integrated with engineering models or other data to estimate indirect effects that may

be more sensitive to changes in physical destruction (Rose, 2004). Some disadvantages

such as its static nature, lack of linearity, lack of behavioral content, lack of


9

interdependence between price and output do exist but many of the inaccuracies

associated with it are due to the inability to use it correctly rather than shortcomings of

the model itself (Mulkey and Hodges, 2007).

HAZUS, which incorporates an imbedded input-output model similar to

IMPLAN, is frequently used for assessing impact for flood, hurricane, and earthquake

hazards for planning purposes. Currently, HAZUS does not incorporate a tornado model.

Relationships between tornado damage scale and loss have been made by the North

Texas Council of Governments (NCTCOG) (Rae and Stefkovich, 2000) and Wurman et

al. (2007). Rae and Stefkovich used the May 3, 1999 Oklahoma outbreak tornado tracks

over the Dallas-Fort Worth area. Appraisal records, land use classifications,

demographic data, employment center, building locations, aerial photographs were used

to determine detailed densities, structure values, wind velocity contours, and parcels.

Instead of using a previous tornado path, which could likely underestimate the full

damage potential, Wurman et al. (2007) simulated tornado winds using high resolution

wind fields derived from mobile radars. Based on these estimates, tornado tracks and

wind swaths of simulated tornadoes were applied to different urban areas. The number of

residents impacted, deaths, number of housing units impacted and degree of damage were

obtained from varying intensities. Both studies only included estimates of damage to

structures and did not incorporate an estimate of contents of the buildings, utility,

infrastructure, or business interruption.

Other frameworks becoming widely used within disaster impact analysis are

computable general equilibrium (CGE) and time series analysis (Brookshire and McKee,


10

1992; Okuyama, 2003; Rose 2004). Most CGE models are intended for longer-term

economic effects (Rose and Liao, 2005). Rose (2004) summarized a methodology for

incorporating disequilibria and recalibrating CGE model parameters using an application

to a disruption of water services in Portland. He stated that the methodology could be

adapted to other applications of CGE models for response to other types of disasters as

well as used as a tool for emergency planners in benchmarking mitigation policies and

measures. Rose and Guha (2004) also used a CGE model to determine the economic

impact of electricity outages resulting from an earthquake. Ewing, Kruse, and Thompson

(2005) looked at the impact and recovery on the employment rate of Corpus Christi from

the disruption of Hurricane Bret (1999) using a time series analysis.

Much of the previous work to assess the economic impact of a disaster that has

been done has focused on the total economic loss incurred by a region. Such case studies

include: Hurricane Hugo (Guimaraes et al., 1993), Hurricane Andrew (West and Lenze,

1994), the Northridge (Rose et al., 1997), and Kobe (Chang, 1996) earthquakes.

Regionally, and in some cases nationally, disasters do have an immediate impact on the

economy. Output, income, market values, housing price index, employment growth, and

bank performance for various events have been used in previous literature in order to

determine the extent of impact on the region and to investigate the intermediate and long

term effects on the economy. Labor markets are a method to evaluate economic

performance because they are measured in terms of employment. The amount of output

that is produced will rise with increases in employment (Romer, 1996). Increases in

employment growth should provide economic benefits to the local economy. Less


11

variance, or volatility, in the employment growth rate suggests a more stable economic

environment and is preferred over a more volatile labor market.

Evidence on the economic impact of severe wind activity is mixed. In many

cases reconstruction, funded by disaster relief programs, compensated for output, wealth,

jobs, and state tax revenues. Such was the case during Hurricane Hugo for South

Carolina (Gillespie, 1991), in the coastal counties of Alabama after Hurricane Frederick

(Chang, 1983), and a positive short-term impact on Florida was seen after Hurricane

Andrew (West and Lenze, 1994). Ewing and Kruse (2001) examined unemployment

after Hurricane Bertha and found a longer term improvement in the economy in

Wilmington, NC. Likewise, Ewing, Hein, and Kruse (2006) did not see any adverse

impacts on profit by commercial banks from wind events and in some cases saw positive

effects. Burrus et al. (2002) focused on low intensity hurricanes that impacted the

Wilmington, N.C. region. They questioned whether the impacts would differ from those

seen in high intensity hurricane events. Results indicated that during low intensity

hurricanes, regional impacts focus more on business interruption than on structural

damage and these are not offset by external funds. The average business interruption

time across the various industries was 7.01 days, with tourism suffering the longest.

Manufacturing, health care, and commercial construction industry sectors returned to

normal operations quicker. Indirect business sectors such as real estate, auto sales,

grocery, and miscellaneous retail were impacted the most.

Regional differences will exist due to the characteristics of the region and local

labor markets. Each hazard (i.e. flood, earthquake, hurricane, tornado) may also impact


12

the economy in different ways. In the arena of tornado research, various studies exist on

the impact placed by tornadoes that hit Nashville, TN (April 16, 1998), Oklahoma City,

OK (May 3, 1999), and Fort Worth, TX (March 28, 2000). Studies by Ewing et al.

(2005a) investigated the regional labor market effect induced by each of the three

tornadoes. The business districts of Nashville and Fort Worth were hit, inflicting severe

damage to historical buildings, high rise office complexes, and some residential homes.

Many residential homes and some commercial building were destroyed in the Oklahoma

City tornado. Findings showed that employment growth rates for Nashville and

Oklahoma City remained unchanged while Fort Worth did experience a reduction in

employment growth. Impact on the industrial sectors of construction, finance, insurance

and real estate, government, manufacturing, mining, services, transportation and public

utilities, and wholesale, retail and trade were examined for the Oklahoma City tornado.

A short-lived drop in employment growth followed in the aftermath of the tornado. A

positive long run impact in the construction sector appeared. In the service,

transportation and public utilities sectors the mean employment growth did not change

but the service sector did become more stable. Employment growth was seen in the real

estate, wholesale, retail and trade sectors. Only the government sector had an adverse

effect on employment growth. Overall, the total labor market and half of the industry

sectors that were significantly affected by a tornado, experienced employment growth

and most had a more stable market in the aftermath of the tornado (Ewing et al., 2005b,

Ewing et al., 2004).


13

De Silva et al. (2005, 2006) examined the relationship between the Fujita damage

scale (F-scale) of the tornado to the reduction in property market value from the May 3,

1999 Oklahoma tornado. De Silva et al. looked at the value of the property before and

after the tornado, year built, parcel ID, area in square feet, roof type, number of floors,

location, zip code, and the percentage of damage. Ordinary least squares and spatial

economic models were used to analyze damage on 89 residential dwellings. For total

dollar loss per parcel and loss ratio, the loss in market value increased significantly in F-

1, F-3, and F-4 wind damage. Dollar losses for the lower F-0 rating ranged from $7000

to $83000. The model loss ratio for all F-scales was between 80-90%. They found that

the number of square feet is a predictor of total loss as observations indicated almost a

$23 per square foot loss in market value. Additionally, tracking over time of the

reconstruction of damaged homes showed that the tax base relative to undamaged

properties was restored about three years later.

So how do the impacts on rural communities differ from these urban areas? Do

these smaller communities undergo an economic boom after a disaster or do they slowly

recover to pre-tornado conditions? Which industries suffer the most/least? Will such

economic impact analysis better qualify these smaller communities for federal aid? Or

can mitigation measures be taken before disaster strikes based on these analysis? All

these are viable questions yet research on the impact of tornadoes on rural communities is

sparse. Each year rural communities like those of Jarrell, TX (1997), Siren, WI (2001),

Mulhall, OK (1999), Stroud, OK (1999), or Greensburg, KS (2007) are faced with

picking up the pieces after a tornado strikes. For some communities it’s a chance to


14

rebuild better facilities and infrastructure or enhance organization and mitigation

strategies. The town of Siren has rebuilt their buildings with architecture reflecting its

history. They have also geared more industry towards tourism, becoming a popular

destination for fishing, hunting, and getaways. Other communities may struggle. The

community of Stroud, OK suffered substantial loss when a tornado hit on May 3, 1999.

Fifty percent of its tax revenue was destroyed when the 44-store Tanger Outlet Mall was

hit. Three hundred jobs were lost at the mall as well as ten workers from the city.

Another major employer, the Sygma Food Distribution Center, was also lost and the roof

off the only hospital was blown off, forcing it to close. A medical center opened up two

years later, employing only 42 people. Due to the destruction of three of its major

employers, managers and public officials used IMPLAN to determine industries that

would be potential recruitment targets. Industries that would create jobs, attract new

business, and retain and expand current businesses were determined by identifying local

strengths and weaknesses (Homm et al., 2003).

The need exists for investigating issues related to hazard loss estimation. A

variety of work to assess economic impacts from hurricanes, earthquakes and floods do

exist. A few cases (Ewing et al., 2005ab, De Silva et al., 2005; 2006; Wurman et al.,

2007; Rae and Stefkovish, 2000) have looked at the amount of damage, deaths and

associated economic loss from varying intensity of tornados in major cities, yet further

research is needed to determine short-term and long-term economic impact in smaller

communities since it is these type of communities that are more often hit and more than

often already struggling to survive.


15

CHAPTER III

TULIA, TX TORNADO

Storm Synopsis Thunderstorms developed in the western South Plains in the early evening hours

of April 21, 2007. A large upper level low pressure system near the 4-corners region was

responsible for the outbreak, with the large majority of the tornadoes touching down in

the South Plains and Panhandle of West Texas. A total of twenty tornadoes were

reported in two distinct family clusters. The most widespread damage occurred in Moore

and Swisher counties, but tornado induced damage was reported in a total of seven Texas

counties in about a two hour time period. The time and location of each as reported to the

weather service is shown in Table 1 (SPC Tulia, 2007). The majority of the activity, with

the exception of Cactus and Tulia, was confined to open country side, damaging farm and

irrigation equipment, power poles, fences, and barns. Damage investigation by officials

looked at different indicators (which include such things as automobiles, structures,

residential areas, towers, trees, etc) to define degrees of damage (DOD) to each indicator.

For each varying DOD, an expected wind speed value was assigned which then

corresponded to an Enhanced Fujita (EF) damage rating. The EF scale was implemented

in place of the Fujita Scale operationally on February 1, 2007. Five of the nineteen

tornadoes on April 21, 2007 were rated as EF2 with maximum wind speeds between 50

m/s to 60 m/s, eight were rated as EF1 with maximum wind speeds between 38 m/s to 49

m/s, and six were rated as EF0 with maximum wind speeds between 29 and 38 m/s

(Table 2). As shown in Figure 1, one cluster of tornadoes (depicted in red) occurred in


16

the northeastern portion of the Panhandle while the second was mainly concentrated in

the southern portion of the Panhandle. Accompanying tornadic activity, large hail and

strong and damaging winds impacted the region (green and blue dots on the map

respectively).


17

Table 1: Tornado storm report information for April 21, 2007 (SPC Tulia, 2007).

Time Location County State Comments 2329 8 SE CAMPO BACA CO (PUB)

2345 5 WNW BOYS RANCH OLDHAM TX (AMA)

2353 3 SE CHANNING HARTLEY TX (AMA)

0000 1 SE OLTON LAMB TX

Tornado with damage in vicinity of Olton on Highway 70...barn destroyed...other buildings damaged (LUB)

0000 5 NE CHANNING HARTLEY TX (AMA)

0008 5 W HALFWAY HALE TX Large tornado remains on the ground northwest of halfway (LUB)

0015 15 NE CHANNING MOORE TX

4 miles north of 722 Hartley/Moore county line. (AMA)

0016 7 NW EDMONSON SWISHER TX

Damage to farm and irrigation equipment northwest of Edmonson (LUB)

0020 12 NE CHANNING POTTER TX

4 north 722 Hartley/Moore county line (AMA)

0042 CACTUS MOORE TX

Tornado moved through residential part of town. Power lines and poles were downed...trailer homes...semis and cars were overturned (AMA)

0048 5 ESE FOUR WAY MOORE TX

Corroborated with damage reported by NWS employee (AMA)

0048 4 SE PLANKINTON AURORA SD (FSD)

0055 TULIA SWISHER TX Tornado reported vicinity of Tulia (LUB)

0055 5 ESE PLANKINTON AURORA SD 4-5 brief touchdowns (FSD)

0107 6 SE DUMAS MOORE TX

Rope tornado - near farm to market road 1284 - spotter 6 miles east of Dumas looking south southwest (AMA)

0122 14 E HAPPY SWISHER TX Reported by WDTB meteorologist...5 miles southwest of Wayside (LUB)

0125 10 NE DUMAS MOORE TX Power flashes reported (AMA) 0139 5 NE SUNRAY SHERMAN TX (AMA) 0154 5 SW SUNRAY MOORE TX (AMA)

0156 5 NE CARTHAGE KINGSBURY SD Debris circulating at the ground. (FSD)


18

Table 2: EF rated tornadoes on April 21, 2007 (SPC Tulia, 2007).


19

Figure 1: Storm Prediction Center (SPC) Storm Reports for April 21, 2007. Red dots are tornado reports, green dots represent large hail reports, and blue depict high wind reports (SPC Tulia, 2007).

The day held all three necessary ingredients for the development of thunderstorms

and the potential of the development of strong tornadoes. The Storm Prediction Center

(SPC) issued a moderate risk for the day, a usual indication of an enhanced chance for a

significant severe storm outbreak including multiple tornadic supercells with very large

hail and widespread damaging winds. A surface map (Figure 1) from 0000 UTC 22 April

2007 showed moist air from the Gulf of Mexico being advected northward by southerly

winds. Dewpoints throughout the area were in the mid to upper 50s ahead of the dryline


20

and in the 20s behind the front. The dryline was stationed near the New Mexico border,

extending southward from the low pressure center which was located west of Amarillo

right at the New Mexico border.

Figure 2: 0000 UTC 22 April 2007 surface map. Depicted are the dryline (brown), cold front (blue), and warm front (red). Dewpoint temperatures greater than 50 degrees F are shaded in green every 5 degrees F.

Coupled with the moisture availability, the environment was characterized by

moderate instability with a favorable wind shear structure. Storms developed as a high

amplitude shortwave trough, shown through upper air analysis at 0000 UTC on April 22,

2007 at height levels of 250 mb, 500 mb, 700 mb, and 850 mb (Figure 3 - Figure 6),

entered the region. A 75 knot (86 mph) core of jet stream winds aloft provided ample

wind energy and wind shear. The environment had a large 0-6 km layer shear of about

25 m/s with 1500 to 2000 J/kg mixed convective available potential energy (MLCAPE)


21

based on a 100 hPa mixed layer. MLCAPE values between 1000-2500 J/kg characterize

moderately unstable environments.

As a result of the upper level trough, several surface boundaries across West

Texas served as an initiation points for deep moist convection. As discussed earlier and

depicted by the surface conditions in Figure 2, moist Gulf air drawn up by southerly

winds formed a dryline near the New Mexico border. A warm front extended from the

low pressure center eastward while a cold front ran along a north and south line from the

low pressure center. Convergence along the fronts and dryline, the lifting mechanism

and the third final ingredient, helped initiate the storms. They created what is known as a

triple point, an intersection between boundaries, that is often the focus point of

thunderstorms development. Once initiated, these storms had an environment favorable

for tornadogenesis. Tornadic activity concentrated along the warm front and along the

dryline.


22

Figure 3: Upper air analysis 250 mb observations and isotachs for 0000 UTC on 22 April 2007.



23




24

Convection initiated at approximately 2200 UTC in the far western Texas

Panhandle. The particular supercell that impacted Tulia, spawned a tornado early on near

Fieldton and south and east of Olton at approximately 0000 UTC, damaging several

structures and equipment along its path. The tornado persisted for nearly 40 minutes as

the cell moved northeastward. As the tornado dissipated, a new mesocyclone developed.

The storm then reached the community of Tulia, TX at 0056 UTC. Base Reflectivity

radar imagery from the Lubbock Doppler Radar in

Figure 7 shows the supercell entering Tulia as the tornado is reported on the

ground. The tornado, later given an EF2 damage rating, hit at 0101 UTC, and traveled a

total of 3.5 miles through the community and covered a maximum width of 200 yards.

No fatalities were directly associated with the event but three injuries were later reported.

Figure 7: Lubbock radar (KLBB) base reflectivity image at 0056 UTC.

TTuulliiaa

KLBB 4/22/2007 00:56:12 GMT 0.44 elev.


25

Damage Summary

The tornado touched down near the power plant at the intersection of Broadway

and U.S. Highway 87. It was along U.S. 87 where the most significant damage occurred,

hitting the Tulia business district head on. Figure 8 shows the path of the tornado as it

made its way through the community with the areas of most severe damage circled. This

included a large metal building, ALCO store, mobile homes, and residential area. The

damage path is shown in

Figure 9 with shaded levels of EF rated damage (EF0 in yellow, EF1 in pale

orange, and EF2 in darker orange). The darker orange depicts the area of most intense

wind speeds and thus greater damage. As the tornado progressed northward from the

intersection of Broadway and U.S. 87, four large overhead doors failed and resulted in

major damage to a large metal building. The damage was consistent with wind speeds of

110 to 120 mph (EF2). Further along on U.S. 87, a large portion of a local retail store

was removed and an exterior wall collapsed inward. Winds at the store were estimated to

be near 125 to 135 mph (EF2). Additional damage occurred to a Ford dealership where

close to 41 vehicles received damage. The Highland Elementary School sustained minor

damage to the roof and air conditioning units. Just west of the school, five mobile homes

in a mobile home community were destroyed (an estimated 85-95 mph winds or EF1

category), two of which the walls and roofs separated, leaving them of no use to the

occupants (approximately 105 to 125 mph or EF2 category winds). Pictures of the

damage in the area taken by National Weather Service officials are shown in Figure 10.


26

The tornado continued its track north across western Tulia and induced significant

damage to a subdivision along NW 9th and 11th Streets. Garage doors on several homes

along NW 9th street failed, resulting in moderate roof damage and scattering debris to a

southern field. Winds were estimated to near 100 to 110 mph (EF1) in this area. Along

NW 11th, roofs were torn off and exterior walls failed on those homes closer to the airport

road. Wind speeds were estimated to be near 125 to 135 mph (EF2). Further north, farm

houses on CR13 sustained weak to moderate damage indicative of 95-105 mph (EF1)

winds. Center pivots and storage structures were also damaged before the tornado lifted

just northeast of the Tulia/Swisher County Municipal Airport. A complete path of the

Tulia supercell is shown in Figure 11 as it made its way through four counties and

eventually to Tulia and Swisher County.


27

Figure 8: Tornado path through Tulia, TX (Source LBB NWS, 2007).


28

EF-2 damage to residences

EF-2 damage to Alco, large

metal building

EF0-EF2 damage to

mobile homes

Figure 9: Tornado damage track with shaded areas of EF0, EF1, and EF2 damage in Tulia, TX.


29

Photos above show the damage to the ALCO store. Damage was in the EF2 scale range. (Photos by Steve Cobb and WCM Brian LaMarre)

Photos above show the damage to the Ford dealership and a large metal building. Forty-one vehicles were damaged. (Photos by Steve Cobb and WCM Brian LaMarre)

Aerial photo taken on 22 April 2007 on the north side of Tulia along NW 9th Street where homes sustained moderate damage (100-110 mph winds). (Photo taken by Darrin Davis and Zane Price) Figure 10: Damage survey photos of the Tulia tornado track (Source LBB NWS, 2007).


30

Figure 11: Tornado tracks on April 21, 2007 (Source LBB NWS, 2007).

Damage assessment reports issued to the Texas Division of Emergency

Management for disaster declaration purposes, cited 150 damaged residential homes, 4

condemned houses, and 15 totaled structures. The business district, which took a direct

hit, reported 29 businesses heavily damaged or destroyed with 24 of those being a total


31

loss. Table 3 lists the businesses that sustained damage due to the tornado as provided by

the City of Tulia. Several businesses and homes were uninsured and have since decided

not to rebuild. The Alco, the town’s main retail store, was declared a total loss and

demolished on May 17, 2007. The company decided not to rebuild. The Ford Company

was expected to rebuild but has yet to fully recover. City wide, over 500 people were

displaced with 50 people out of work temporarily or permanently. After the initial hit,

500-700 were without power. Two days later, 120 remained without power and by the

third day, power was completely restored.

Table 3: Businesses receiving damage in Tulia, TX.

Business Name Eugene Hurt dba Eugene's Used Cars Walco International (2 locations) Young & Ellis (2 locations) (Swisher tire) David Malone Bar W Ford Ken Love Car Wash Allsup's #29 Richard Bernal dba Ernie's Bar B Que Mid Plains Rural Telephone Cosby Motor Co dba Double R The Sandra Corp dba Alco Discount Ed Rogers Insurance Ken Love Real Estate Richard McDowell dba McDowell Plumbing, Heating & A/C WTG Inc Texas Bollweevil Eradication Phillips 66 City of Tulia Power Plant Swisher County barns Leija's used tires Hong Kong Restaurant


32

A state disaster proclamation by Governor Rick Perry was issued for the Tulia

area on April 25, 2007 and was approved on May 1, 2007 by the federal government.

The declaration covered damage incurred on April 21 in Moore County and Swisher

County as well as the April 24 Eagle Pass tornado. The declaration invoked the Federal

Stafford Act, making funds available from the Individual Assistance program.

Homeowners and property owners not covered by insurance were eligible to receive

financial assistance, temporary housing, repair funds, tax relief, legal services, crisis

counseling, and disaster unemployment assistance (FEMA, 2009). Additional funds were

also made available for costs incurred by those not met by insurance or low interest loans.

This included:

Disaster Housing Assistance: Funds for repairs, temporary housing, rental assistance or reimbursement for hotel/motel lodging costs for residents who lost their homes.

The Individual and Households Program: Necessary expenses and serious needs not met by insurance, loans or other forms of assistance, which may include medical, dental and funeral expenses.

The Small Business Administration: Provided low-interest loans to homeowners, renters and businesses affected by the disaster. Loans up to $1.5 million for small businesses that have suffered disaster-related cash flow problems and need funds for working capital to recover from the disaster's adverse economic impact. This loan in combination with a property loss loan cannot exceed a total of $1.5 million. Low-interest loans to cover residential losses not fully compensated by insurance. Loans available up to $200,000 for primary residence; $40,000 for personal property, including renter losses.

Crisis counseling was made available to anyone in the designated disaster area. Disaster Unemployment Assistance administered by the Texas Workforce

Commission provided benefits for up to 26 weeks after a disaster declaration to persons who lost their jobs directly due to the disaster.

Farm Service Agency: Loans up to $500,000 for farmers, ranchers and aquaculture operators to cover production and property losses, excluding primary residence.


33

Local Demographics and Economy

Tulia, Texas, the seat of Swisher County, is located in the southern portion of the

Texas Panhandle along I-27 and covers a total area of 3.5 square miles. According to the

2000 U.S. Census (Census, 2008), the city had a population of 5,117 people with 1,698

households and 1,222 families residing in the town. The corresponding number of

employed civilians (over 16 years of age) was reported as 1,870 or about 48.7% of the

population. Four percent (137 people) were listed as unemployed. About 16.0% of

families and 19.3% of the population were below the poverty line, including 26.7% under

the of age 18 and 14% of those of age 65 or older. Estimated population growth between

the years 2000-2005 show a decline of 7.89%.

Table 4: 2000 U.S. Census Statistics for Tulia, TX (Census, 2008). Population 5,117

Number of Households 1,698

Number of Families 1,222

Employed (over 16) 1,870 (48.7%)

Unemployed 137 (4%)

In Poverty 988 (19.3%)

The Tulia Independent School District is comprised of two elementary schools,

one junior high, and one high school. Total student enrollment for students K-12 in 2006

was 1,053 students and the student to teacher ratio was 12 to 1. In regards to educational


34

attainment, 18% of the population has received a high school diploma or equivalent;

while more than 21% have some college or have obtained a higher degree.

The majority of the people in Tulia are employed in the educational, health, and

social services industry sector according to the 2000 census data.


35

Table 5 shows top employment broken down by industry sectors for Tulia (PRPC, 2009).

The educational, health, and social service sector accounts for 21% of all employment,

employing 390 people. In Tulia, this sector would mainly be comprised of the Tulia

Independent School District, Swisher Memorial Hospital, and clinics. The second top

employer is the agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting, and mining sector with 211

employees, followed closely by the retail trade industry. Arts, entertainment, recreation,

accommodation and food services; manufacturing; other services; public administration,

transportation, warehousing, and utilities; and wholesale trade are all fairly equal,

employing between 148 and 114 employees. The information sector, comprised of

establishments such as telecommunications, computer services, and publications, makes

up the smallest percent at 1.3%.


36

Table 5: Top employment by industry sectors for Tulia based on 2000 U.S. Census (PRPC, 2009)

INDUSTRY NUMBER PERCENT Educational, health and social services 390 20.9Agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting, and mining 211 11.3Retail trade 204 10.9Arts, entertainment, recreation, accommodation and food services 148 7.9Manufacturing 145 7.8Other services (except public administration) 138 7.4Public administration 139 7.4Transportation and warehousing, and utilities 137 7.3Wholesale trade 114 6.1Construction 97 5.2Finance, insurance, real estate, and rental and leasing 76 4.1Professional, scientific, management, administrative, and waste management services 47 2.5Information 24 1.3

As a county, according to U.S. Census 2000 data, Swisher had a population of

8,378 people. The number of employed civilians was 3,332 or about 53% of the

population with a median household income of $27,794 and a median family income of

$32,415 (Census, 2008). Top employment industry for Swisher County was the Services

Sector, employing 1,175 people. Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing and Hunting and Mining

employed the second highest number of people of 648. Other industries such as Retail

Trade, Transportation, Warehousing, and Utilities, Manufacturing, and Public

Administration employed from 312 to 227 people (Table 6). Overall Swisher has seen a

decline in population due to agricultural consolidation and the development of more

efficient equipment as well as the lack of through traffic. The U.S. Department of

Agriculture’s Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) has set aside an increasing amount

of acreage, thus decreasing money spent locally on seeds, implements, and implement


37

supplies, including tires and oil. The remaining land still hosts agriculture and ranching,

producing wheat, cotton and sorghum crops and cattle ranching. U.S. 87 runs along

western Tulia and the stores, service stations, and motels along the highway are now

struggling or closing as I-27 diverts traffic away from Tulia. Major retail centers near

Tulia include those in Amarillo and Lubbock which are respectively 50 miles and 74

miles away. A look at the trend of population using data estimates generated by the

Census Bureau, show the steadily decline from 2000 to 2007 (Figure 12). Total county

population in 2007 for Swisher County was 7700, down 0.6% from 2006. Of interesting

note and what will be discussed further, is the 3.8% increase from the years 2007 to 2008.

8360

8234

80267966

78687756 7747

7700

7995

7300 7400 7500 7600 7700 7800 7900 8000 8100 8200 8300 8400

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Year

Swisher County Population Estimates 2000-2008 (U.S. Census Bureau)

Figure 12: Swisher County population estimates 2000-2008 (data from Census, 2009).


38

Table 6: Employment by industry in 2000 (Census, 2008). EMPLOYMENT BY INDUSTRY IN 2000

Agriculture, Forestry,

Fishing and Hunting, and

Mining

Construction ManufacturingWholesale

Trade Retail Trade

Transportation, Warehousing, and Utilities

Information

Finance, Insurance

, Real Estate,

and Leasing

Services Public

Administration

Texas 247,697 743,606 1,093,752 362,928 1,108,004 535,568 283,256 630,133 3,812,328 417,100 Panhandle Region 14,189 12,577 19,419 7,081 21,858 10,439 3,568 9,383 69,495 9,426

Swisher County 648 150 279 152 312 235 31 123 1,175 227

Tulia 211 97 145 114 204 137 24 76 723 139

SOURCE: 2000 Census


39

Direct and Indirect Impacts

After a disastrous event, it is up to local officials to respond to the needs of the

community. Once there is no longer a threat to lives or property, the physical impact of

the disaster must be measured through a rapid assessment. This includes deaths, injuries,

and property damage and is typically completed one to three hours after the event. If the

extent of the situation is beyond the capabilities of the local jurisdiction, a request is

made to the state for assistance. State and Federal officials then conduct a preliminary

damage assessment (PDA), usually three to four days after the event, to estimate the

extent of the disaster and its impact on individuals and public facilities. The PDA helps

determine if the severity and magnitude is beyond an effective response by the State and

the local government and that Federal assistance is necessary. Normally, the PDA is

completed before the Governor's request for a Presidential Disaster Declaration.

However, when an obviously severe or catastrophic event occurs, the Governor's request

may be submitted prior to the PDA. Once the President approves the request, assistance

through various Federal programs becomes available (GDEM, 2006). The Presidential

Disaster Declaration process is discussed in further detail in Appendix E.

As reported in the Damage Summary section, direct damage reported initially to

the State by Swisher County included 150 damaged residences of which 4 homes were

condemned and 15 were totaled. A total of 29 businesses were heavily damaged or

destroyed with 24 of them being a total loss. The event displaced 500 people and 50

people were out of work temporarily or permanently. No deaths were reported and there


40

were 3 injuries. Using these numbers, a rapid request was sent to the State. The State

declared a state disaster and pushed it to the Federal level without an initial PDA. PDA

by State and Federal officials later estimated $2.0 million in direct damage and economic

loss induced by the tornado in Swisher County.

Communication with the City of Tulia and damaged businesses revealed the

extent of the initial impact and the process to recovery. The City of Tulia provided a list

of damaged businesses, this was also the list reported to the state to obtain disaster

declaration status. An establishment-level business survey was created and conducted

with each business via telephone or person. Questions asked included:

How many days did the business remain un-operational?

What type of damage, infrastructure interruption (internet, power, utilities,

etc..), and/or loss of manpower make the business become un-operational?

At what percent capacity was the business functional during the time

period from tornado impact to “normal” operations?

How long did it take to get back to “normal” operations?

Not all businesses responded in part to skepticism, fears of confidentiality thus data may

be incomplete. Continued correspondence with the city and research through the use of

local media provided progress on the rebuilding process. The methodology provides a

unique approach since such surveys are not typically done for larger metro areas due the

number of businesses involved and time constraints. The study here aims to setup a

framework, that when developed further, could be used in future cases. Future efforts

may help build trust with local community and citizens and result in better assessments.


41

Table 7 shows the information gathered, as given by impacted businesses and

allowed (i.e., the business gave consent) for use in this study, including the extent of

damage, the number of days the business was un-operational, the time it took to return to

“normal”, and the capacity it was able to run at while un-operational.

Many of the structures had to be demolished and so businesses were forced to

work at alternate locations in other parts of the town, at home, or through FEMA trailers

or makeshift trailers onsite. On average, the majority were not able to conduct business

for about a week while they were sorting out the damage, conducting debris removal, and

setting up an alternate location. After this time many were running at only limited

capacity. The establishments that took longer to get back to “normal” were those that had

to rebuild completely. Eugene’s Used Cars was declared a total loss including 15-20

vehicles that sat in the lot. The building had to be demolished and as they were able to

get new inventory to sell, they were able to return to normal operations within two

months. Bar W Ford sustained significant damage to the building and 30-40 cars in

inventory that at first were unsure if rebuilding would be economically feasible. They

ran at 20% capacity for 2-4 months, only able to perform oil changes while insurance

money came in for them to rebuild and start building up car inventory to sell. The Texas

Boll Weevil Eradication structure was flattened on three sides and had to be demolished.

McDowell Plumbing, Heating, and A/C received minor damage but still had to clean

debris in the area that caused it to be un-operational for a week.. The Mid Plains Rural

Telephone sustained structural damage and had to be rebuilt, running at 60% capacity.

Alco, the only retail store at the time in the community, sustained major damage and


42

decided not to rebuild. A total of 20 employees lost their jobs as a result. Walco

International was also heavily damaged and was operating at 75% capacity for two

months as well. Young & Ellis was the last facility to rebuild, completing reconstruction

of a new site in late February 2008. They were able to run out of other locations and

were actually one of the few businesses to see an improvement in business following the

event as people needed to change flat tires or do other automotive repair and maintenance

from damage induced by the tornado.


43

Table 7: Businesses receiving damage in Tulia, TX.

Business Category Damage Information #Days Un-operational

Time to get back to Normal

Capacity

Eugene Hurt dba Eugene's Used Cars Motor Vehicle and Parts Dealers

Demolished, operated across the street 1 week 2 months 50%

Walco International (2 locations) Veterinary Services Damage, finished repair 1 week ~2 months 75%

Young & Ellis (2 locations) (Swisher tire)

Automotive Repair & Maintenance

Bulldozed April 25; 2 buildings 4 gas/diesel pumps; complete 02/08 0 150%

David Malone Insurance Relocated 50%

Bar W Ford Motor Vehicle and Parts Dealers

Semi-relocated; only able to do oil changes

2 weeks, 4 months 20%

Ken Love Car Wash Miscellaneous Retailer

Allsup's #29 Gasoline Station

Richard Bernal dba Ernie's Bar B Que Food Services & Drinking 1 week 100%

Mid Plains Rural Telephone Telecommunication Demolished, rebuilt 60%

Cosby Motor Co dba Double R Motor Vehicle and Parts Dealers

Building torn down, relocated

The Sandra Corp dba Alco Discount General Merchandise Stores

Will not rebuild; 20 employees lost job 0%

Ed Rogers Insurance Insurance Agencies Rebuilding new, relocated 1 week 1 month 50%


44

Business Category Damage Information #Days Un-operational

Time to get back to Normal

Capacity

Ken Love Real Estate Real Estate Relocated 1 month

Richard McDowell dba McDowell Plumbing, Heating & A/C

Services to Buildings & Dwellings 1 week

WTG Inc Natural Gas Distribution Demolished, rebuilding 3 months

Texas Bollweevil Eradication Agriculture & Forestry Support Activities 3 months

Phillips 66 Oil and Gas

City of Tulia Power Plant Power Generation and Supply Operational 3 days

Swisher County barns Ag Support

Leija's used tires Motor Vehicle and Parts Dealers Rebuilding, relocated 1 week 3 months 60%

Hong Kong Restaurant Food Services & Drinking Rebuilding 3 months 0%


45

Using the information in Table 7, an economic impact analysis can be performed.

Economic impact analyses are frequently performed in order to assess the change in

overall economic activity as a result of some change or shock in one or several economic

sectors. It can help determine the economic importance an economic development

project or program would have on the local economy or be used to reveal information on

how new businesses, closings of businesses, business expansion, or retail and residential

development would result in the addition or loss of revenue, jobs, or income to the local

economy. The initial change (direct effect) has indirect or multiplier effects that ripple

throughout other sectors of the local economy as they are impacted by changes in local

spending.

For example, a closing of a business within a local area will result in the loss of a

certain amount of jobs and expenditures related to operating the business (direct effect).

The secondary or indirect effects the area would experience would be those changes in

inter-industry transactions as supplying businesses respond to the lack of demand from

that particular business closing. The induced effect would be the reduction in household

spending resulting from income changes in both the direct business closure and

subsequent indirectly affected businesses. Each industry or business that produces goods

and services generates demand for other goods and services, which in turn generates

demand for other goods and services, and on and on until leakages from the region such

as imports, wages, or profits stop the cycle. Initially when a business or industry closes,

demands for goods and services for that business cease and thus impact all business

within that cycle systemically. These iterations or cycles are known as multiplier effects


46

and represent the total level of activity that results from the initial closing and the

interdependency between economic sectors in the area’s economy. Economic impact

analyses seek to estimate these multiplier effects.

IMPLAN is frequently used for these types of economic impact analyses. The

data for IMPLAN, a software and database package that was developed by the Minnesota

Implan Group (MIG, Inc.) in Minneapolis, consists of 528 distinct producing industry

sectors collected by the U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics,

and other federal and state government agencies. Data is available nationwide, statewide,

and at that county level. It includes outputs and inputs from other sectors, value added,

employment, wages and business taxes paid, imports and exports, final demand by

households and government, capital investment, business inventories, marketing margins,

and inflation factors. IMPLAN is based on an input-output model and is driven by

changes in final demand (sales to final consumers) in order to provide the means to

examine relationships within the impact study area. Local level multipliers are

constructed within IMPLAN to describe the response to a change in demand or

production. That response is usually in the form of gain or loss of jobs or income. The

estimation of multiplier effects between industries are determined from the direct effects,

indirect effects, and induced effects. Input-output models only trace backward linkages

where linkages are defined as those links between industries and consumers. Backward

linkages would be those links between an industry and its supplier or a household and the

producer of household goods and services.


47

In IMPLAN, three different multipliers can be estimated to determine economic

impact: Type I, II, and Type SAM. Type I multipliers are those that capture only the

direct and indirect effects (or business to business transactions). Type II multipliers

capture all three effects, the direct, indirect, and induced. Type SAM multipliers also

capture all three effects but also include income that is not normally re-spent immediately

within the area. This includes wages of the people who commute, social security and

income taxes, savings, and money set aside for retirement. Total effect multipliers are

then interpreted as output multipliers, income and employment multipliers, and value

added multipliers. Output multipliers are those changes to final demand by one industry

to total changes in output (dollar value of a good or service produced or sold) by all the

other industries in the local area. Income (money earned within the region) and

employment multipliers are those changes in direct income/job to changes in total

income/job changes within the total economy. For example, if the employment multiplier

was found to be 1.9, the creation of one new job would result in 1.9 jobs in the local

economy. Lastly, value added multipliers relate changes in value added in the industry

experiencing the direct effect to total changes in value added to the local economy.

According to the information provided in Table 3 (as reported to the Texas

Division of Emergency Management) upwards of 50 people were either permanently or

temporarily out of work. The survey data shows that 20 of these people were employed

at Alco which shut down operations completely. A quick analysis of the data suggests

that one immediate impact was an increase in the number of unemployed persons by

36%. Moreover, if we assume that it generally took affected businesses three months to


48

fully return to normal (i.e., the mode in the survey responses) then the full time

equivalent job loss was 12.5 jobs. Additionally, a sustained loss of 20 full time jobs was

lost from the closing of Alco.

For the economic impact analysis (EIA) associated with temporary job loss, the

consumption function for households with disposable income of $15,000 - $25,000 was

used to correspond with the per capita income levels for the local area. The EIA was run

using the IMPLAN software and data for Swisher County (the smallest level of

aggregation available) and does not include property damage. The results indicate the

total local impacts were as follows:

Output impact $207,143 Employment impact 0.7 jobs Household income impact $17,305 Indirect business tax impact $5,624

Total economic impact on Swisher County economy was estimated to be nearly

$207,000. This is an all-inclusive measure of the impact on total economic activity.

Employment measures the impact on jobs in terms of the total number of positions and

was estimated to be 0.7 jobs. The direct temporary job loss was expected to reach

$17,305 in local household income. A portion of the direct, indirect and induced

household income will be spent on taxable items. The indirect business tax impact was

found to be over $5,000.


49

A separate analysis pertaining to the permanent job loss associated with the closing of

Alco was also conducted. The total impacts represent ongoing losses are as follows:

Output impact $1,073,809 Employment impact 22 jobs Household income impact $377,810 Indirect business tax impact $126,894

The closing of the Alco led to 20 permanent job losses that led to an estimated total

economic impact on Swisher County economy of just over $1,000,000. In total, this led

to an estimate of 22 job losses in Swisher County. The total impact on household income

would be almost $378,000 with an indirect business tax impact of nearly $127,000.

Historical and Current Economic Overview

In order to accurately interpret the above results, one has to put things in

perspective by describing the economy in general over time. Looking at different

economic indicators for Swisher County from years before the tornado in 2007 and after,

also helps to evaluate the impact on the community. Economic indicators include

unemployment and employment, building permits, home sales, poverty rate, tax sales,

and property rate. As discussed in the Local Demographics and Economy portion of the

paper, in 2000 the Services industry employed the most people in Swisher County

followed by the Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing and Hunting and Mining sector and the

Retail Trade sector. The county overall was struggling and population was on a decline.

Population rates were down between 2006 and 2007 and had been so since 2000 Census

as seen in Table 8. The percentage change from 2006 to 2007 was -0.6%. However,


50

after 2007 the county saw increase in people, going from 7700 people to 7995, an

increase of 3.8% (Census, 2009).

The annual unemployment rate for Swisher County (Table 9) steadily increased

from the years 2000 to 2004 from 4% to 5.5%, meaning there were more unemployed

people in 2004 than in 2000. It then declined from 2004 to 2007 from 5.5% to 4.4% as

more people found jobs. The year before the tornado in 2006, 0.1% more of the labor

force did not have jobs meaning more people were employed in 2007. In 2008, a year

after the tornado, unemployment was at 4.6% rising again, a 0.2% change between the

years of 2007 and 2008 (Texas EDGE Data Center, 2009). Unemployment is an

economic condition that defines the number of individuals actively seeking jobs but still

remain unhired. It is expressed as a percentage of the total available workforce and the

level of unemployment varies with economic conditions and other circumstances. When

workers are unemployed, their families lose wages, the community loses goods or

services that could have been produced, and the purchasing power of the workers

decreases, which in the end can lead to unemployment for other workers.


51

Swisher County Annual Unemployment Rate

4

4.3

4.8

5.2

5.5

4.64.7

4.4

4.5

3.5

4

4.5

5

5.5

6

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Year

Un

emp

loym

ent

Rat

e (%

)

Figure 13: Unemployment rate trend from 2000 to 2008.

The poverty rate in 2007 for Swisher County was at 18.6% (Table 9). The

previous year, the poverty rate was higher at 19.2% meaning that the percentage of

persons who were poor fell from the years 2006 to 2007 by 1.6% or an annual change of -

1.6%. The average annual change from 2002-2007 is -0.4% so fewer people were below

the poverty line or better off in 2007 than the average since 2002 (Texas EDGE Data

Center, 2009).

Employment by industry (Table 10) reveals significant distribution in industry

employment. The greatest decline in employment occurred in the Transportation and

Warehouse where 36.7% less people were employed by this industry. That number was

drastically higher than the average 4 year annual growth percentage of 2.9%. The


52

Construction industry also saw a loss of 20% of employees, where the average 4 year

annual growth was -2.4%. Industries that did exhibit growth included the Professional

and Business Services and Financial Activities. Professional and Business Services

sector was at an increase of 11.1% where the average 4 year annual growth was 1.8%.

Financial Activities was up 9.3% with an average 4 year annual growth of -2.0%. The

Government industry, which comprises the largest percentage of county employment saw

only a -0.1% change from 2006 to 2007. The second highest employer sector, Natural

Resources and Mining was down 7.7% (Texas EDGE Data Center, 2009).

Total property value in the year 2007 was $419,850,389 with a property value per

capita of $54,526 (Table 9). Property values increased from the previous year 8.9% with

a 9.6% increase of property value per capita. Both these numbers were significantly

higher than the average annual percent change from the years 2002-2007 which were

3.3% and 4.3% respectively Property values are affected by social, economic,

governmental and environmental forces. Low mortgage rates can drive home prices up

by giving buyers more purchasing power and a higher demand for housing. Additionally,

communities that have a strong job base will have a higher housing demand thus causing

higher sale prices. Communities that are struggling economically will have less demand

for housing and thus lower property values will exist. Total property tax rates did not

change from 2006 to 2007, remaining at 0.71% as shown in Table 11 (Texas EDGE Data

Center, 2009).

Home sales data was not able to be obtained for the county. New residential

construction in Swisher County has been non-existent since 2000 based on building


53

permit data (Table 12 - Table 14). Building permit activity serves as an economic

indicator because it reveals the number of authorized permits for new residential

construction or additions which can mean more investment into the community. The

average value of the unit is also an indirect economic indicator of the amount of

disposable income invested in housing because the higher the value, the more money

people are spending on house development or improving existing housing. Data from

1980 to 2007 for single-family, 2-4 family, and 5+ family building permits (U.S. Bureau

of Census and Real Estate Center at Texas A&M University, 2009). One building permit

for a single family home was issued in 2007 for an average value of $164,000. No

permits have been issued for 2-4 family units since 1993, and 5+ family housing units

since 1980 (Real Estate Center at Texas A&M University, 2009).

A look at sales tax from 2002 to 2008 for both Tulia (Table 15) and Swisher

County (Table 16) reveals that there were less gross sales in 2007 than in 2006, down

2.5%. The average annual percent change from the years 2003 to 2007 was -0.6 so there

were fewer taxable sales in 2007 than on average from previous years. Gross sales were

$89,841,198 with $16,928,725 subject to tax for the county in 2007 and $99,014,349 with

$17,369,165 subject to tax in 2006. However, gross sales were fairly comparable to

sales in years previous to 2006. Looking at the towns individually in Swisher, taxable

sales during 2007 in the city of Tulia $14,901,626, down 5.0% from 2006. In the other

two communities sales were up from 2006, 65.0% from 2006 in Happy at $666,073 and

up 9.4% in Kress at $437,090 (Texas EDGE Data Center, 2009).


54

A look at state expenditures the county from 2007 to 2000 reveals the highest

amount in 2007 with a total of $31,706,808 up 20% from 2006. State expenditures

money provided to the county for services and are broken down into categories of

Intergovernmental Payments, Labor Costs, Public Assistance, Highway Construction and

Maintenance, Operating Expenses, Capital Outlays, and Miscellaneous (Texas EDGE

Data Center, 2009). Definitions of each are listed below:

Intergovernmental Payments include grants to schools, colleges and local

governments; allocations of mixed beverage tax to cities and counties, and

textbooks for public schools and distribution of Foundation School Program funds

to local school districts.

Labor Costs are salaries and wages, employee benefits payments, travel expenses

and fees for professional consultant services. Also included is the state’s share of

retirement contributions on behalf of state employees and public school teachers.

Public Assistance is composed of Temporary Assistance for Needy Families,

Medicaid, grants-in-aid, child support payments and similar types of state

services. Expenditures for Placement Services.

Highway Construction and Maintenance includes purchases of highway right-of-

way and the expenses of constructing and maintaining the state’s roads and

bridges.

Operating Expenses are those for supplies, maintenance, utilities, rentals and

leases, printing and non-capitalized equipment.


55

Capital Outlay expenditures are for land and buildings, major improvements to

state property, computer equipment, motor vehicles, aircraft and capitalized

purchases of furniture and equipment.

Miscellaneous includes all expenditures not covered above, such as fees, court

costs, interest on debt, lottery payments and payment of claims and judgments.

In 2007, more money was spent in Labor Costs, Intergovernmental Payments, and

Miscellaneous expenditures for the county than in 2006. Less money was spent in

Highway Construction and Maintenance and Capital Outlay.

Agriculturally, agricultural cash values in Swisher County averaged $157 million

annually from 2004 to 2007. County total agricultural values in 2007 were up nearly

92.6 % from 2006. Major agriculture related commodities in Swisher County during

2007 included corn, cotton, fed beef, other beef, and wheat.

Overall, analysis of the estimated changes from the EIA and the historical and

current economy suggest large impacts to Swisher County considering the small

economy. Yet the impacts on business loss as estimated from the EIA are likely

underestimated due to full data availability. The framework established here will help

produce a method that if developed further, could be used in the future and be used as an

extra tool for emergency managers to quickly and more thoroughly estimate impacts and

be able to disseminate the information to the appropriate levels for eligibility of disaster

relief funds.


56

Table 8: Population data for Swisher County (Texas EDGE Data Center, 2009).


57

Table 9: Unemployment, income, poverty, property values, and sales activity (Texas EDGE Data Center, 2009).


58

Table 10: Industry employment for Swisher County (Texas EDGE Data Center, 2009).

Table 11: 1992-2007 Property Tax rates for Swisher County (Census, 2009).

County 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Swisher 0.53 0.6 0.63 0.63 0.62 0.64 0.64 0.64 0.64 0.63 0.63 0.68 0.68 0.673 0.71 0.71


59

Table 12: Swisher County, TX Single-Family Building Permit (Source: U.S. Bureau of Census and Real Estate Center at Texas A&M University, 2009). .

Number of Dwelling

Units

Average Value per Dwelling

Unit ($)

YearUnitsPercentChange Value

PercentChange

1980 12 - 23,200 -1981 0 -100 - -1982 2 - 47,500 -1983 4 100 75,800 601984 4 0 51,400 -321985 3 -25 48,300 -61986 1 -67 20,000 -591987 3 200 32,500 621988 2 -33 67,900 1091989 1 -50 122,000 801990 2 100 67,500 -451991 1 -50 30,000 -561992 3 200 108,300 2611993 0 -100 - -1994 0 - - -1995 2 - 82,500 -1996 0 -100 - -1997 3 - 73,300 -1998 2 -33 69,000 -61999 3 50 129,300 872000 0 -100 - -2001 0 - - -2002 0 - - -2003 0 - - -2004 0 - - -2005 0 - - -2006 0 - - -2007 1 - 164,000 -


60

Table 13: Swisher County, TX 2-4 Family Building Permit (Source: U.S. Bureau of Census and Real Estate Center at Texas A&M University, 2009).

Number of Dwelling

Units


Unit ($)

YearUnitsPercentChange Value

PercentChange

1980 0 - - -1981 0 - - -1982 0 - - -1983 30 - 30,600 -1984 2 -93 33,000 81985 0 -100 - -1986 0 - - -1987 0 - - -1988 0 - - -1989 0 - - -1990 2 - 48,500 -1991 0 -100 - -1992 2 - 16,000 -1993 0 -100 - -1994 0 - - -1995 0 - - -1996 0 - - -1997 0 - - -1998 0 - - -1999 0 - - -2000 0 - - -2001 0 - - -2002 0 - - -2003 0 - - -2004 0 - - -2005 0 - - -2006 0 - - -2007 0 - - -


61

Table 14: Swisher County, TX 5+ Family Building Permit (Source: U.S. Bureau of Census and Real Estate Center at Texas A&M University, 2009).

Number of Dwelling

Units


Unit ($)

Year UnitsPercentChange Value

PercentChange

1980 0 - - -1981 0 - - -1982 0 - - -1983 0 - - -1984 0 - - -1985 0 - - -1986 0 - - -1987 0 - - -1988 0 - - -1989 0 - - -1990 0 - - -1991 0 - - -1992 0 - - -1993 0 - - -1994 0 - - -1995 0 - - -1996 0 - - -1997 0 - - -1998 0 - - -1999 0 - - -2000 0 - - -2001 0 - - -2002 0 - - -2003 0 - - -2004 0 - - -2005 0 - - -2006 0 - - -2007 0 - - -


62

Table 15: Sales Tax, Taxable Sales Report, from 2002-2008 for the City of Tulia (Texas EDGE Data Center, 2009).


63

Table 15 contd.


64

Table 16: Sales Tax, Taxable Sales Report, from 2002-2008 for the Swisher County (Texas EDGE Data Center, 2009).


65

Table 16 contd..


66

0

5,000,000

10,000,000

15,000,000

20,000,000

25,000,000

30,000,000

35,000,000

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Year

Swisher County State Expenditures 2000-2007

INTERGOVERNMENTAL PAYMENTS LABOR COSTS

PUBLIC ASSISTANCE HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION & MAINTENANCE

OPERATING EXPENSES CAPITAL OUTLAYS

MISC.

YEAR TOTALINTER

GOVERNMENTAL PAYMENTS

LABOR

COSTS

PUBLIC

ASSISTANCE

HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION &

MAINTENANCE

OPERATING

EXPENSES

CAPITAL

OUTLAYSMISC.

2000 25,007,431 10,947,911 4,381,226 4,609,224 4,728,265 207,954 12,180 120,6712001 30,748,030 12,117,315 7,865,121 6,386,309 3,951,851 290,695 6,219 130,5192002 27,454,259 10,239,054 8,538,533 7,133,078 1,185,496 233,018 0 125,0792003 27,977,246 12,158,497 8,102,427 6,949,287 357,077 291,201 600 118,1582004 27,345,064 11,403,689 8,712,001 6,323,767 547,604 275,596 900 81,5062005 29,157,998 10,600,960 10,521,615 6,042,023 1,593,704 300,009 19,875 79,8122006 26,354,963 9,917,465 6,364,612 6,069,494 3,402,741 556,450 3,475 40,7262007 31,706,808 11,474,112 10,683,494 6,622,088 2,395,711 451,058 3,150 77,195

Figure 14: Swisher County state expenditures from 2000-2007 (Texas EDGE Data Center, 2009).


67

CHAPTER IV

CLOVIS, NM TORNADO

Storm Synopsis

Over ten tornadoes were confirmed in eastern New Mexico on March 23, 2007 as

steep lapse rates, deep layer shear, and rich moisture destabilized the environment and

made it conducive for supercellular formation. As seen in Figure 15, tornado reports

(depicted in red) were concentrated along the eastern New Mexico border and were

accompanied by reports of high damaging winds (depicted in blue) and large hailstones

(depicted in green). The system trekked northward, where the tornadic threat diminished

and evolved into a large linear line that produced a significant hail event over the

northern Texas Panhandle and central Kansas. While over eastern New Mexico, the

counties of Quay, Lea, Roosevelt, and Curry received the most significant damage from

tornadic winds including damage to roofs, mobile homes, and homes. The time and

location for each of the tornado touchdowns on March 23, 2007 is shown in Table 17.

The most severe damage was reported in Logan and Clovis, New Mexico.


68

Figure 15: Storm Prediction Center (SPC) Storm Reports for March 23, 2007. Red dots are tornado reports, green dots represent large hail reports, and blue depict high wind reports (SPC Clovis, 2007).


69

Table 17: Tornado storm report information for March 23, 2007 (SPC Clovis, 2007).

Time Location County State Comments

2125 LOGAN QUAY NM Rooftop torn off church in town of Logan. Several mobile homes demolished. Some injuries. (ABQ)

2231 16 WNW LOVINGTON

LEA NM (MAF)

2308 10 N MCDONALD

LEA NM Tornado touched down west of Tatum and north of McDonald. (MAF)

2321 7 NW TATUM LEA NM (MAF)

2334 12 N TATUM LEA NM Tornado touchdown on SH 206 between Tatum and Crossroads. (MAF)

0004 3 N CROSSROADS

LEA NM

Media reported a car overturned by a brief tornado 3 north of Crossroads on State Highway 206...Awaiting further information. (MAF)

0005 1 S MILNESAND

ROOSEVELT NM Barns damaged (ABQ)

0124 2 N ARCH ROOSEVELT NM Large tornado (ABQ) 0128 ROGERS ROOSEVELT NM Home destroyed in Rogers (ABQ)

0142 10 NE PORTALES

ROOSEVELT NM Tornado near curry county line. South of Texico just north of hwy 202 -ABQ

0154 6 SE CLOVIS CURRY NM *** 2 injuries *** houses destroyed on Curry county road 4

0158 10 ESE LAKEWOOD

EDDY NM Rope tornado reported 10-12 miles east southeast of Lakewood. (MAF)

0200 15 E LAKEWOOD

EDDY NM Public reported a rope tornado on the ground east of Lakewood. (MAF)

0205 3 S FARWELL PARMER TX Relayed by KLBK viewer. No details known at this time on damage. (LUB)

0420 7 SW MORTON

COCHRAN TX

Law enforcement reports southwest gin destroyed 7 sw Morton. House damaged 3 nw Morton. Multiple reports from local fire departments of tornado sightings (LUB)

0859 MCLEAN GRAY TX

Path length of 2 miles and width of 50 yards. Ef1 tornadic damage on south and east sides of McLean centered on south FM 3143 (AMA)


70

Steep lapse rates and deep layer shear supportive of supercells characterized the

environment for the day. A vigorous upper level low, as depicted in the 0000 UTC

March 24, 2007 upper air analysis (Figure 16-Figure 19), was located across eastern

Arizona. As the system progressed northward toward southwestern New Mexico, storm

development increased. Aloft, winds were strong south-southwesterly. Flow at 500 mb

showed a 50-70 kt southerly jet streak into eastern New Mexico which aided in ample

wind energy and wind shear. Strong low level southerly winds, gusting to around 40 kts,

maintained the moisture field into eastern New Mexico and Western Texas where surface

dew points rose to the upper 50s and lower 60s (Figure 20). Coupled with the moisture

availability, the environment was characterized by moderate instability with a favorable

deep layer wind shear structure. The potential existed for isolated tornadoes across

southern New Mexico and eastward into the Transpecos/South Plains region of Texas.

MLCAPE values of 1000-2000 J/kg based on a 100 hPa mixed layer were present in the

region. MLCAPE values between 1000-2500 J/kg characterize moderately unstable

environments.


71

Figure 16: Upper air analysis 250 mb observations and isotachs for 0000 UTC on 23 March 2007.



72




73

Figure 20: Surface observations and isotachs for 0000 UTC on 23 March 2007.

Storms began to develop along central New Mexico in the afternoon hours. As

the cells moved northeastward they converged into a line extending from the Concho

Valley in Texas upward to central Kansas. The particular supercell that impacted Clovis,

first produced a tornado out in Curry County, 12 miles south of the city at 0133 UTC,

prompting a tornado warning for the county. The storm reached the community of Clovis

at 0154 UTC. Cannon AFB base-level radar reflectivity imagery at 0158 UTC (Figure

21) shows the tornadic circulation passing through Clovis with a large hook echo region

over the community. The tornado, later given an EF2 damage rating, traveled an

intermittent 3 mile path through the community. Additionally, the storm was

accompanied by large hail that resulted in over 3600 auto claims (Damage, 2007). In


74

Clovis, 35 injuries were reported and two fatalities were associated with damage induced

to a mobile home.

Figure 21: Cannon AFB base-level radar reflectivity imagery at 01:58 UTC as the tornadic circulation passes through Clovis.

Damage Summary

A damage assessment visit to Clovis and communication with the Albuquerque

National Weather Service, revealed that the first primary damage track was observed on

the south side of Clovis, west of Highway 70/18 south of Curry Road as shown in Figure

22. Homes and mobile homes along this path received significant damage and the Clovis

Body Shop was completely destroyed. As the tornado progressed northward, extensive

damage was sustained to a residential area along the highway and east to S. Oaks Street.

The majority of businesses that sustained damage were located just east of Highway


75

70/18 and Highway 60/84/70. This included businesses such as CarQuest, Premier

Distributing Company, and ASCO Equipment. The damage track continued north along

Maple Street and a few blocks west of Sycamore Street up to Airport Highway, damaging

mobile homes, power poles, trees, and the roofs of substantial buildings and homes were

heavily damaged or blown off. Three schools sustained damaged in this area; however,

spring break was in effect so school was not impacted by the cleanup and rebuilding

process. More structures were also damaged north of Jonquil Park Drive before the

storm system headed out of town.


76

Figure 22: Clovis, New Mexico tornado track (red) on March 23, 2007.

Data from the City of Clovis Building Inspection Department was obtained for a

deeper look at damage estimates.

Figure 23 below shows areas of no damage, minimum damage, moderate damage, and

severe damage as relates to the structure, roof covering, and accumulated building.

Looking at the structure integrity, 409 buildings along the path received no damage, 40

received minimum damage, 52 received moderate damage, and 72 received severe


77

damage. The most severe structure damage concentrated along the southernmost track

segment with the least damage along the middle track segment. Roof covering analysis

revealed 84 buildings receiving no damage, 243 receiving minimum damage, 122

receiving moderate damage, and 133 receiving severe damage. Structures near all three

paths received an equal amount of damage with a slighter increased severity along the

southernmost path. Overall accumulated building analysis conferred that the strongest

wind speeds occurred just south of Clovis with still significant wind speeds through

Clovis. Four hundred and seven buildings received no damage, 50 sustained minimum

damage, 18 with moderate damage, and 107 with severe damage.

Damage surveys from the Weather Forecasting Office in Albuquerque estimated

maximum wind speeds ranging from 120 to 125 mph or an EF2 rated tornado. Although

the tornadic circulation stayed above tree level for the majority of the time, according to

National Weather Service officials, significant damage occurred to many residential and

business structures. The major business district was spared from any damage.


78

No Damage – 409 Minimum – 49 Moderate – 52

Severe - 72

No Damage – 407Minimum – 50Moderate – 18

Severe - 107

No Damage –84Minimum – 243Moderate – 122

Severe - 133

Figure 23: Geocoded damage information for structure, roof covering, and accumulated building. Units with no damage are shown in green, minimum damage in yellow, moderate damage in orange, and severe in red.

SSTTRRUUCCTTUURREE RROOOOFF CCOOVVEERRIINNGG AACCCC BBLLDDGG


79

Figure 24: Damage photos in Clovis, NM (courtesy KAMR-TV Amarillo).


80

The tornado displaced 15 families to local hotels and motels and over 200 people

were sheltered. According to local officials, 90% of the area impacted were already

facing economic hardship. Approximately 9 square miles of the town was without

power, affecting 3,000 residents. Cannon Air Force base and the National Guard closed

for a day after the storm to render aid in debris removal and other recovery efforts. The

county landfill had accepted 7,296 tons of debris as of April 3, 2007 yet several resident

owners had not been able to be contacted regarding cleanup. Clovis damage assessment

figures reported to the New Mexico Office of Emergency Management listed 154

affected, 249 damaged, and 55 destroyed residential structures for a total of 458

structures. Business structures impacted included 5 affected, 27 damaged, and 1

destroyed for a total of 33 structures. Table 18 below is a list of businesses in the Clovis

area receiving damage based on communication with the Curry County Emergency

Management Coordinator. Two agriculture structures were also completely destroyed.

The Grande Vida Dairy received damage in the amount of $3-4 million. Over 300 cows

were killed and owners estimated a 4-6 month period to rebuild and become operational

again. Further detail on the impacts will be discussed in later sections.


81

Table 18: Businesses receiving damage in Clovis, NM.

Business

Clovis Body Shop

Car Quest Premier Distributing Co ASCO Equipment Autoworld Mainline Bowl Smith RV & Marine Denton W T Warehouse Grande Vida Dairy Yucca Junior High Lakewood Elementary Parkview Elementary

A state disaster proclamation by Governor Bill Richardson was issued for Curry

and Quay counties on March 29, 2007 and was approved on April 2, 2007 by the federal

government as a Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the State of New Mexico.

The declaration covered damage incurred on March 23-34 in Curry County and Quay

County invoking the Federal Stafford Act. Funds from the Individual Assistance

program were made available and Hazard Mitigation funds were made open to the state.

Homeowners and property owners not covered by insurance were eligible to receive

financial assistance, temporary housing, repair funds, tax relief, legal services, crisis

counseling, and disaster unemployment assistance. Additional funds were also made

available for costs incurred by those not met by insurance or low interest loans. Over

$750,000 in state funds were released for roads, power lines, infrastructure, and to cover


82

overtime wages for emergency response. Through federal aid programs, assistance for

affected individuals and families included:

Rental payments for temporary housing (3 months for homeowners, 1 month for renters)

Grants for home repairs and replacement of essential household items not covered by insurance.

Grants to replace personal property and help meet medical, dental, funeral, transportation, and other serious disaster related needs (FEMA 75% and state 25%).

Unemployment payments up to 26 weeks for workers who temporarily lost jobs and do not qualify for state benefits (those who are self-employed).

Low interest loans to cover residential losses not covered by insurance ($200,000 residential, $40,000 personal property, $1.5 million business property loss).

Loans in the amount of $1.5 million for small businesses that have suffered disaster-related cash flow problems.

Loans up to $500,000 for agriculture purposes.

Local Demographics and Economy

Clovis is located in the far east-central portion of New Mexico in the Llano

Estacado. Serving a nine-county area consisting of mainly small rural communities (a

total population of 104,075), the city of Clovis spans 22.5 square miles and is the county

seat for Curry County. According to the 2000 U.S. Census (Table 19), Clovis had a

population of 32,667 people with 12,458 households and 8,596 families residing in the

city. The corresponding number of employed civilians (over 16 years of age) was

12,708 or about 54%. There were 937 people or 4% that were unemployed. About 17%

of families and 21% of the population were below the poverty line, including 28% of

those under age 18 and 15% of those age 65 or older. The median income for a

household in the city was $28,878, while the median income for a family was $33,622

(Census, 2008).


83

Table 19: 2000 U.S. Census information for Clovis, NM (Census, 2008). Population 32,667

Number of Households 12,458

Number of Families 8,596

Employed (over 16) 12,708 (54%)

Unemployed 937 (4%)

In Poverty 21%

The Clovis Independent School District is home to 13 elementary schools, 3

junior high schools, and 1 high school. Total student enrollment for students K-12 is

8,225 and the student to teacher ratio is 14 to 1. Colleges and universities in the area

include Clovis Community College where about 74% of the student population is

enrolled part-time and a Wayland Baptist University campus located downtown. The

closest four year university is Eastern New Mexico University (about 5,000 students),

located in nearby Portales (18.4 miles). As far as educational attainment, 27.9% of the

population have received a high school diploma or equivalent, while more than 30% have

some college or a higher degree (Census, 2008)

Economically, Clovis is the principal city of the Clovis Micropolitan Statistical

Area and the larger Clovis-Portales Microplex Combined Statistical Area (customer base

of 50,000) created in 2003. Clovis saw a record year for breaking economic development

in 2004 with the development of many new stores and restaurants as well as new hotels in

the northern and mid-sections of town. The launch of new residential construction and a


84

Super Wal-Mart in the northern part of town, has brought businesses such as Lowe’s

Home Improvement, a Dollar Tree store, Town & Country gas station, Payless Shoes,

Quizno’s, Rib Crib, Chili’s Bar and Grill, Applebee’s, Snyder’s Cleaners, a car

dealership and a strip mall with several specialty shops to the area. In mid-town, a

refurbished Furr’s grocery store has been transformed to the Master’s Center which

houses a Christian bookstore, the Java Loft, All About Sports, National Travel Systems,

and a Trinity Family Medicine. Additionally, a Hobby Lobby, Sprint, Dollar Tree,

Hastings Bookstore, IHOP and other specialty shops fill the shopping center across the

street. In 2005, the Southwest Cheese Company, one of the largest plants of its type in

the world, began operations and produces in excess of 2.3 billion pounds of milk yearly.

The plant has provided a substantial boost to the local economy, employing over 200

personnel. Clovis is also home to the Cannon Air Force Base and a small Army National

Guard located 8.6 miles away. The base has over 3,200 authorized active military

personnel and an additional 900 civilian employees assigned to the base, making it the

major employer for the Clovis area. Table 20 below lists the other top employers. Clovis

Municipal Schools is the second top employer with just over 1,000 employees (Clovis,

2008).


85

Table 20: Major employers for the Clovis area (Clovis, 2008).

MAJOR EMPLOYERS NUMBER Cannon AFB Combat-Fighter Wing 3,281 Clovis Municipal Schools 1,050 Cannon AFB Civilian Personnel 900 Plains Regional Medical Center 592 Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad 525 Wal-Mart 412 Federal Employees 368 City of Clovis 360 Eastern NM Rehabilitation Service 300 State of New Mexico 215 ENMR/Plateau Telecommunications 215 Allsups 200 Clovis Community College 170 McDonalds 135 Curry County 120 K-Barnett & Sons 115 Sears Roebuck 102

Overall, the diverse economy of Clovis and Curry County is based on agriculture,

railroad, military and light manufacturing. The area hosts agriculture and ranching,

including peanut and cotton farming and cattle ranching, for meat and dairy production.

Education, health, and social services comprise the majority of the industry sector in

Clovis employing 23.9% as seen below in Table 21. This sector includes establishments

such as schools, colleges, universities, and training centers while the health care and

social services are comprised of establishments providing health care and social

assistance for industries. In Clovis, the educational, health and social services would

mainly be consisted of the Clovis School District, Clovis Community College, Wayland

Baptist University campus, and the Plains Regional Medical Center. The retail trade

sector, those establishments that sell merchandise in small quantities to the general


86

public, is the second top industry with 2,231 employees or 17.6% of all industries. The

remaining sectors such as public administration, manufacturing, agriculture, and

construction are fairly equally distributed. Wholesale trade makes up the smallest

percent of all industries at 1.7%.

Table 21: Major industry sectors for Clovis (Clovis, 2008)

INDUSTRY NUMBER PERCENTEducational, health and social services 3,033 23.9Retail trade 2,231 17.6Arts, entertainment, recreation, accommodation and food services 1,095 8.6Transportation and warehousing, and utilities 966 7.6Public administration 936 7.4Other services (except public administration) 752 5.9Manufacturing 723 5.7Professional, scientific, management, administrative, and waste management services 702 5.5Construction 657 5.2Finance, insurance, real estate, and rental and leasing 652 5.1Agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting, and mining 465 3.7Information 283 2.2Wholesale trade 213 1.7

Curry County had a population of 45,044 people in 2000. As shown in Figure 25,

the population in the county has fluctuated, decreasing from the years 2000 to 2002. A

significant increase occurred between the years of 2003 and 2004 during the development

boom in Clovis. Since then, it has gradually decreased but between 2007 and 2008, there

was an increase of approximately 2.9%. In 2000, there were 16,766 households and

11,870 families residing in the county. The median income for a household was $28,917,

and the median income for a family was $33,900. About 19% of the population was

below the poverty line (Census, 2008). Major industry of employment (Table 22) was


87

the educational, health and services sector, employing 22.3% or 3788 people of the

county labor force. Retail trade followed with 16.3% and Public Administration with

8%. Remaining categories were fairly equal distributed around 7.9 to 4.8% with the

Wholesale Trade sector accounting for the least at 1.9% or 316 people of the labor force.

45044

44648 4468745004

45788 4585345626

45328

46648

43500

44000

44500

45000

45500

46000

46500

47000

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Year

Curry County Population Estimates 2000-2008 (U.S. Census Bureau)

Figure 25: Curry County population estimates 2000-2008 (data from Census, 2009).


88

Table 22: Curry County employment by industry (Census, 2008).

INDUSTRY Number Percent Educational, health, and social services 3788 22.3Retail Trade 2763 16.3Public Administration 1365 8Arts, entertainment, recreation, accommodation and food services 1346 7.9Transportation and warehousing, and utilities 1271 7.5Construction 1072 6.3Other services (except public administration 1060 6.2Agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting, and mining 996 5.9Manufacturing 914 5.4Professional, scientific, management, administrative an d waste management services 893 5.3Finance, insurance, real estate, and rental and leasing 823 4.8Information 376 2.2Wholesale Trade 316 1.9

Direct & Indirect Impacts

As reported in the Damage Summary section, direct damage reported initially to

the State by Curry County included 154 affected homes, 249 damaged, and 55 destroyed

homes for a total of 458. A total of 33 businesses were reported with 5 affected, 27

damaged, and only 1 destroyed. The event displaced 15 people and 200 were taken into

shelters. Using these numbers, a rapid request was sent to the State where a State

declared disaster was issued and pushed to the Federal level pending a PDA. Upon

completion of the State and Federal officials’ damage survey, a Presidential Disaster was

declared.

Communication with the City of Clovis and damaged businesses revealed the

extent of the initial impact and the process to recovery. The City of Clovis provided a list


89

of damaged businesses and an establishment-level business survey was created and

conducted with each business via telephone or person. Questions asked included:

How many days did the business remain un-operational?

What type of damage, infrastructure interruption (internet, power, utilities,

etc..), and/or loss of manpower make the business become un-operational?

What was the extent of the damage and did the business have to relocate?

How many employees does the business have?

How long did it take to get back to “normal” operations?

Not all businesses responded in part to skepticism, fears of confidentiality thus data may

be incomplete. Continued correspondence and research through the use of local media

provided progress on the rebuilding process.

A list of impacted businesses is shown in Table 23 below. Information gathered,

as given by impacted businesses and allowed for use in this study, included the extent of

damage – whether damaged or destroyed, if the business relocated, the number of

employees, the number of days the business was un-operational, and any additional

comments.

The business district in Clovis was not as impacted as in the case of Tulia. The

Clovis Body Shop sustained major damage, deemed structurally unsafe, and was

relocated to another location. They were un-operational for about a week while the

clean-up was complete. AutoWorld also sustained major damage to the building and to

its car inventory. They estimated damage to be between $130,000 to $140,000 and were

out of operation for 5 days. Smith RV and Marine also sustained major damage


90

destroying 28 out of the 30 units they had available to sell. Although they stated they

were not un-operational for any length of time, they did relocate and bring in new

vehicles to sell. ASCO, Premier Distributing Company, and CarQuest each had minor

damage with no real impact. Three schools also received minor damage but since

students were on spring break, no major interruptions occurred. The most extensive

damage was sustained to the Grande Vida Dairy where an estimated $3-4 million in

damage occurred. This included 2000 head of cattle plus an additional 350 dairy cows,

additional production loss, $100,000 in damage to structures, and wheat crop loss. Farm

operations were ongoing as barns and cleanup continued but dairy production ceased for

4 months.


91

Table 23: Businesses impacted in Clovis, NM.

Business Damaged Destroyed Relocated #Employees#Days Un-operational

Comments Category

Clovis Body Shop

x x 5 1 week

whole building structurally unsafe, at a new location, waiting on insurance

Motor vehicle and parts dealers

Car Quest x 3 none

has several location throughout Clovis, felt no impact


Premier Distributing Co x -- none none

Food & beverage store

ASCO Equipment

x 11 0

85% roof off, 8 big doors, N-S walls, fence, some equipment; w/o phone for a day, internet -1 week, business wise back to normal, in office trailers & no sign

Automotive equipment rental and leasing

Autoworld

x 8 5

27 cars damaged, windows, sign, about 130-140,000 in damage


Mainline Bowl x 5 9 months destroyed, rebuilt 12/07 Bowling Centers


92

Business Damaged Destroyed Relocated #Employees#Days Un-operational

Comments Category

Smith RV & Marine

x x 7 0 28 out of 30 units destroyed


Denton W T Warehouse x x n/a n/a

whole building structurally unsafe

Warehousing and storage

Grande Vida Dairy

x 5 ~4 months

Rebuilding, 2000 head of cattle to replace, $100,000 in damage, wheat crop lost

Cattle ranching and farming

Yucca Junior High

x n/a n/a roof, a/c units, students on spring break

State & local education

Lakewood Elementary x n/a n/a

students on spring break


Parkview Elementary x n/a n/a

students on spring break



93

Using the information in Table 23 the EIA for temporary job loss was estimated

using multipliers from a combination of Curry and Roosevelt counties due to the location

of the dairy and does not include property damage. The full time equivalent job is the

establishment’s number of employees multiplied by the proportion of the year it was un-

operational. From the survey data there are 6 full time equivalent jobs. As in the Tulia

case, a consumption function for households based on disposable income of $15,000 to

25,000 was used to correspond with the per capita income levels for the local area. The

results indicate the total local impacts were as follows:

Output impact $102,504 Employment impact 0.8 Household income impact $16,873 Indirect business tax impact $3,301

Total economic impact on both Counties economy was estimated to be just over

$102,000. This is an all-inclusive measure of the impact on total economic activity.

Employment measures the impact on jobs in terms of the total number of positions and

was estimated to be 0.8 jobs. The direct temporary job loss was expected to reach

$16,873 in local household income. A portion of the direct, indirect and induced

household income will be spent on taxable items. The indirect business tax impact was

found to be over $3,000.

Historical and Current Economic Overview

In order to accurately interpret the above results, one has to put things in

perspective by describing the economy in general over time. Looking at different

economic indicators for Clovis and Curry County from years before and after the tornado


94

in 2007, also helps to evaluate the impact on the community. Economic indicators

include unemployment and employment, building permits, home sales, poverty rate, tax

sales, and property rate. As discussed in the Local Demographics and Economy portion

of the paper, in 2000 the Educational, Health, and Social Services employed the most

people in Clovis followed by the Retail Trade sector and the Arts, Entertainment,

Recreation, Accommodation, and Food Services sector. The county population was

fluctuating with a decline since 2005 after the development boom of 2004. However,

after 2007 the county saw an increase in populate rate, rising from 45328 people to

46648, the sharpest increase the county had seen since 2000.

The annual unemployment rate for Curry County remained fairly constant from

the years 2000 to 2005 from 4.7% to 4.3% (Figure 26). It then declined from 2005 to

2006 from 4.3% to 3.5% as more people found jobs. In 2007, it dropped yet again from

3.5% to 2.7%. In 2008, a year after the tornado, unemployment rose slightly, a 0.2%

change between the years of 2007 and 2008. Employment and labor force numbers from

2000 to 2008 in Table 24 show an increase from 21,278 to 21,550 between the years

2007 and 2008, an additional 282 eligible employees. Median household income

increased 6.3% from the years 2006 to 2007 from $33,160 to $35,243 (Table 25).


95

Curry County Annual Unemployment Rate

4.7

4.3 4.3

3.5

2.9

4.5

4.4

2.7

4.8

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Year

Un

em

plo

ym

en

t R

ate

(%

)

Figure 26: Curry County annual unemployment rate (Census, 2008).

Covered wage and salary employment by major industry reveals significant shifts

in industry employment specifically from the years 2006 and 2007 (Table 22). The

greatest decline in employment during the two years occurred in the Information sector

where 18.1% less people were employed. Arts, Entertainment & Recreation also had a

drop of 14.8% and Transportation & Warehousing dropped 12.9%. The Construction

industry saw a loss of only 2.4%. Top industries that exhibited growth included the

Administrative & Waste Services and Wholesale Trade at 21.6% and 15.6%

respectively.

Overall housing units in Curry County in 2007 increased from the previous year.

In 2006 there were 20,122 units and in 2007 there were 20,357 units. This was an

increase of 1.2%. New residential construction or additions (


96

Table 27) in Curry County based on new residential building permits in 2007 saw a

decline of about 100 permits from the previous year or a 39% decrease. A total of 98

single family permits and 55 multi-family permits where issued for a total of 153 in the

year 2007 where 2006 saw 147 single family permits and 104 permits for multi-family

units. The years 2006 and 2004 saw the most multi-family permits due to the business

development boom of 2004. The total value of the units in 2007 for single family permits

was $20,569,281, $5,873,201 for multi-family permits with an overall total of

$26,442,482.

Agriculturally, total value of agricultural products in Curry County for 2007 was

about $347 million. Market value of production between the years 2002 and 2007 were

up 49%. Major agriculture related commodities in Curry County during 2007 included

wheat, forage-land used for all hay and haylage, sorghum, and corn. Curry County held

the second highest value of sales in the state for grains, oilseeds, dry beans, and dry peas

($27 million), cattle and calves ($100 million), and milk and other dairy products from

cows ($209 million). (Census of Agriculture, 2009).


97

Table 24: Curry County civilian labor force and unemployment rate (Clovis, 2009). Civilian Labor Force, by County (Annual Averages)

Civilian UnemploymentLabor Force Employment Number Rate (%) Year

Curry 18,723 17,848 875 4.7 2000Curry 18,876 18,060 816 4.3 2001Curry 19,253 18,333 920 4.8 2002Curry 19,830 18,931 899 4.5 2003Curry 20,326 19,428 898 4.4 2004Curry 20,737 19,854 883 4.3 2005Curry 21,178 20,432 746 3.5 2006Curry 21,278 20,710 568 2.7 2007Curry 21,550 20,933 617 2.9 2008

Table 25: Curry County housing estimates (Clovis, 2009).

July 1, July 1, July 1, July 1, July 1, July 1, July 1, 20002007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 Census

20,357 20,122 19,987 19,786 19,563 19,457 19,327 19,212

2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 200035,243 33,160 33,548 31,824 30,823 29,698 29,472 29,703

Per Capita Personal Income*, New Mexico Counties 2000-2006

Housing Unit Estimates

Median Household Income

2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 200020619 22894 23434 24,301 25,727 27,017 28,173


98

Table 26: Employment by industrial sectors for Curry County (Clovis, 2009).

COVERED WAGE AND SALARY EMPLOYMENT # BY MAJOR INDUSTRIAL SECTOR CURRY COUNTY

Sector 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Grand Total 14,015 14,601 15,169 15,607 16,034 16,449 16,702

Total Private 10,567 11,175 11,730 12,231 12,681 13,150 13,364 Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing & Hunting D D D D D D D Mining D D D D D D D Utilities 82 81 85 85 82 80 79

Construction 686 779 903 929 1,033 1,014 990

Manufacturing 335 330 344 350 443 617 576 Wholesale Trade 347 332 361 422 439 468 541 Retail Trade 2,162 2,165 2,228 2,355 2,335 2,260 2,350 Transportation & Warehousing 304 302 298 439 441 381 332

Information 389 399 414 243 237 226 185

Finance & Insurance 471 511 522 553 572 538 506 Real Estate & Rental & Leasing 133 139 150 153 145 154 151

Professional & Technical Services D D D D D D D Management of Companies & Enterprises D D D D D D D Administrative & Waste Services 279 323 403 395 354 407 495 Educational Services 6 D D D D D 11

Health Care & Social Assistance 2,083 D D D D D 2,662 Arts, Entertainment & Recreation 82 88 109 92 78 88 75 Accommodation & Food Services 1,564 1,523 1,524 1,517 1,617 1,719 1,668 Other Services, ex. Public

Administration 391 436 442 435 453 451 443 Unclassified 0 0 2 12 5 3 3

Total Government 3,448 3,427 3,439 3,376 3,353 3,300 3,339

Federal Local 2,227 2,221 2,245 2,197 2,141 2,106 2,208

856 915 886 869 878 853 782 State 323 306 320 325 335 341 349


99

New Residential Building Permits

Single Multi Single MultiArea Family Family Total Family Family Total YearClovis 39 0 39 4,260,524 0 4,260,524 2000Clovis 55 25 80 6,021,410 1,182,693 7,204,103 2001Clovis 85 45 130 10,512,675 1,087,778 11,600,453 2002Clovis 93 56 149 15,151,448 2,641,503 17,792,951 2003Clovis 184 97 281 27,999,787 6,364,987 34,364,774 2004Clovis 157 4 161 24,400,100 117,408 24,517,508 2005Clovis 147 104 251 32,593,919 10,198,621 42,792,540 2006Clovis 98 55 153 20,569,281 5,873,201 26,442,482 2007

Number of Units Value

Table 27: Curry County new residential permits (Clovis, 2009).


100

CHAPTER V

DISCUSSION The purpose of this research was to economically quantify the impacts placed on

smaller communities by tornadic wind damage. Research was conducted to help answer

some of the questions that remain when it comes to small towns and their resiliency to

disasters. After all, it is these communities that are the in the path of these violent storms

year after year. Yet, only 1% of all disasters become disaster declared, making funds

available that maybe would help the community not only recover from the event but

perhaps give it the boost it needs to get back towards positive growth.

Investigation in the immediate aftermath of the tornado strike in both Tulia and

Clovis yielded some interesting results. Infrastructure such as power or water services

did not play a role in business disruption as power was restored quickly in both cases.

The people in the community came together along with many others from surrounding

communities to help in the cleanup process. Debris was cleared within the week. Tulia,

which sustained the more severe business loss, noted an average business disruption of

about seven days except for essential services like Automotive Repair & Maintenance

who were busy fixing flats for response vehicles. Small communities only have a

handful of businesses that provide these services so when a disaster such as this takes

place, business picks up. Young & Ellis saw a 150% increase in business. In Clovis,

business interruption was minimal except for the businesses that were totaled.

Businesses that sustained damaged were able to repair the damage and clear debris the

following day. In both cases, businesses whose structures were condemned relocated to


101

different locations to run business. The exception was Mainline Bowl in Clovis that

closed down for nine months in rebuild a newer, modern bowling alley. Bar W Ford in

Tulia suffered a major loss but was still able to perform automotive repair, running at

only 20% capacity. Those businesses that sustained major damage not only to the

structure but inventory as well, took longer to recover, between two to nine months.

Economic impact analysis and historical and current economy analysis was

performed to obtain a clearer picture of industry sectors that thrive and those that suffer.

A summary of the two cases is given below in Table 28 and Table 29.


102

Table 28: Summary of impacts for Swisher County, Texas.

Impact Temporary Job Loss Permanent Job Loss

Output $207,143 $1,073,809

Employment 0.7 jobs 22 jobs

Household Income $17,305 $377,810

Indirect Business Tax $5,624 $126,894

Impact % Change

Population 3.8% Unemployment -0.1% Poverty Rate -1.6% Property Values 8.9% Property Values Per Capita 9.6

Taxable Sales -2.5% (Tulia -

5.0%) State Expenditures 20% Ag Values 92.6% Employment by Industry

Transportation and Warehousing -36.7%

Construction -20%

Natural Resources and Mining -7.7%

Retail Trade -7.7% Wholesale Trade -0.8% Government -0.1%

Education and Health Services 0%

Manufacturing 0.7%

Leisure and Hospitality 3.5% Other Services 5.1% Financial Activities 9.3%

Professional and Business Services 11.1%

Information - Unclassified - Utilities - Total -2.80%


103

Table 29: Summary of Impact for Curry County, NM.

Impact Temporary Job Loss Output $102,504 Employment 0.8 jobs Household Income $16,873 Indirect Business Tax $3,301

Impact % Change Population 2.9% Unemployment -0.7% Median Household Income 6.3% Housing Permits -39.0% Housing Units 1.2% Ag Values 49.0% Employment by Industry Information -18.14 Arts, Ent, & Recreation -14.77 Transp. & Warehousing -12.86 Manufacturing -6.65 Finance & Insurance -5.95

Accommodation & Food Services -2.97

Construction -2.37

Real Estate & Rental & Leasing -1.95

Other Services, ex Public Administration -1.77

Utilities -1.25 Unclassified 0.00 Retail Trade 3.98 Wholesale Trade 15.60

Administrative & Waste Services 21.62

Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing, & Hunting n/a

Mining n/a

Professional & Technical Services n/a

Management of Companies & Ent. n/a

Educational Services n/a Health Care & Social n/a Grand Total 1.54


104

Comparison of Results

The EIA for both cases revealed similar Employment, Household Income, and

Indirect Business Tax impacts due to temporary job loss while the output impact was

twice as large for Swisher County. Both counties would only lose one job and encounter

an estimated $3,000 to $5,000 impact to Indirect Business Tax. Tulia is a smaller

community and since output multipliers are those changes to final demand by one

industry to total changes in output (dollar value of a good or service produced or sold) by

all the other industries in the local area, businesses in smaller communities rely heavily

on each other. Additionally, permanent job loss impacts estimated by the EIA show

significant immediate impact to Swisher County, spiking unemployment by nearly 36%

and a loss of 22 jobs. Swisher County had an estimated $1,000,000 in output impact due

to the decision of Alco not to rebuild.

Swisher County overall saw an increase in population and a decline in

unemployment rates and poverty rates. Property values and property values per capital

increased. Taxable sales were down by 2.5% but state expenditures for the county went

up 20%. Agriculture values went up 92.6%. Employment by industry shows the major

industries negatively affected included Transportation and Warehousing, Construction,

Natural Resources and Mining, and Retail Trade. Wholesale Trade, Government,

Education and Health Services and Manufacturing remained fairly even. Leisure and

Hospitality, Other services, Financial Activities, and Professional Business Services were

industry sectors that saw a positive impact.


105

Curry County saw an increase in population and a decline in unemployment as

well. Median household income increased but housing permits declined nearly 40%.

Housing units increased only 1.2% and agriculture values increased 49%. Employment

by industry shows the main major industries negatively affected included Information,

Arts, Entertainment, & Recreation, Transportation & Warehousing, Manufacturing,

Finance & Insurance. Administrative & Waste Services, Wholesale Trade, and Retail

Trade were industry sectors that saw a positive impact.

So how do the impacts on rural communities differ from urban areas? Studies by

Ewing et al. (2005a) investigated the regional labor market effect induced by tornadoes in

Nashville, TN, Oklahoma City, OK, and Fort Worth. Although much larger

communities, findings showed that employment growth rates for Nashville and

Oklahoma City remained unchanged while Fort Worth did experience a reduction in

employment growth. Here in both cases, unemployment rates decreased. In Oklahoma

City a positive long run impact in the construction sector appeared. Other studies have

had similar results with manufacturing and construction companies often show gains

following a disaster and employment growth in these sectors (Durkin, 1984; Kroll et al.,

1990; Webb, Tierney, and Dahlhamer, 2000). Employment in the construction sector

was down 20% in Swisher County and down 2.3 in Curry County.

Questions have been asked as whether these smaller communities undergo an

economic boom after a disaster or do they slowly recover to pre-tornado conditions.

Mileti, 1999; Gordon et al., 2005; Okuyama, 2000; Ewing and Kruse, 2002; Skidmore

and Toya, 2002 all showed a positive impact on community growth as the recovery


106

process is a chance to rebuild better facilities and infrastructure or enhance organization

and mitigation strategies. The town of Siren, a small town hit by a tornado in Wisconsin,

has rebuilt their buildings with architecture reflecting its history. They have also geared

more industry towards tourism, becoming a popular destination for fishing, hunting, and

getaways (Homm et al., 2003). Other towns struggle to recover, such as was the case in

Stroud, OK. As discussed in Chapter 3, Tulia was struggling pre-tornado and had seen a

decline in population and new development. Impact analysis, as discussed above,

suggest that after the immediate impact Tulia has begun to see a positive effect from the

disaster. The tornado hit many abandoned buildings, houses, and mobile homes. Over

$190,000 from the Office of Rural Community Affairs provided the match for Swisher

County to conduct debris removal. The community was able to use these funds to clear

out areas that had needed to be demolished pre-tornado and allow space for new

development. A Family Dollar opened in Tulia on May of 2008. Other new construction

in Tulia has included new wrecker services, new manufacturing, farming, and the county

will begin wind development. Additionally $59,000 in federal funds was given to the

community to install three outdoor warning sirens to the eight already available in the

community. Cactus, who also was included in the disaster declaration with Swisher

County, obtained money for a community shelter.

Clovis has struggled but yet as discussed in the impact analysis, local economy

remained fairly unchanged although different sectors did react differently. Consolidated

Federal Funds for 2007 for both Swisher County and Curry County are attached as

Appendix C and D respectively. Curry County received over $1.8 million in Physical


107

Disaster Loans, another $1.8 million in Small Disaster Loans, $235,660 in Emergency

Shelter Grants, $15,199 in Crop Disaster, and $18,805 in Emergency Food and Shelter.

The City of Clovis indicated that additional funds were needed for recovery, yet federal

officials felt the extent of the damage was not beyond the capability of the city or state

and thus offered limited amounts. A more extensive economic impact analysis could

have yielded more federal aid in this case. Swisher County received $436,300 in

Physical Disaster Loans, $223,610 in Emergency Loans, and $43,667 in Crop Disaster.


108

CHAPTER VI

CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE WORK

The research conducted focuses on the impact placed on the relatively small

communities of Tulia, Texas and Clovis, New Mexico following a tornadic event.

Research was predicated on a multidisciplinary approach to better understand how these

tornadoes affected these communities. In particular, elements from the disciplines of

Economics, Atmospheric Science, Geospatial Information Systems, and Emergency

Management were utilized. Collection, compilation and documentation of engineering,

atmospheric, and economic data could have implications for a rapid response economic

impact analysis to better understand the overall impacts involved in the event of a tornado

for small rural communities. It is in the understanding of the overall impacts, both in

direct damages and consequential economic loss, that these jurisdictions can properly

account for damages which are often missed in traditional methods. This may increase

the probability of a presidential declaration and availability of federal assistance. Unlike

larger communities who may find it relatively easier to meet the threshold of damage for

declaration status without including additional economic impacts, smaller communities

need to account for the entire impact. The amount of assistance an area may receive is a

positive function of the reported amount of damage so accounting for total impacts is

vital. Official labor market and economic statistics like those from the Bureau of

Economic Analysis, Census Bureau, and the Bureau of Labor Statistics have a relatively

larger measurement error associated with them for smaller populated counties than those

with more population. Obtaining primary data directly from the businesses and or local


109

officials improves reliability and thus adds to the value of this research. Additionally,

smaller communities as a whole or specific impacted sector may have more of a regional

impact unlike larger communities. Businesses may be net importer of goods and services

or net exporters as was the case of the Grande Vida Dairy which sold most of its product

to those in other areas. If the sector hit were a net exporter, then the regional multiplier

effect would be larger and the damage impact greater than if the business were not an

exporter.

Results determined by the study here can be generalized to other communities.

Damage assessments by atmospheric and engineering teams can yield a tornado footprint

that can be overlaid with community GIS or other widely and freely available mapping

programs. Using a series of queries, specific businesses affected can be determined by

the impacted jurisdiction. Although the total or “real” economic impact will likely be

greater than reported insured losses (as the IMPLAN results show the increase in

damages is above and beyond standard valuation methods), a quick classification of

associated sector to each business affected can help to rapidly identify the extent of

temporary versus longer term (or permanent) damage impacts. Results in this study

showed that when businesses are hit by a tornado, some experience the phenomenon

know as “demand surge”. This included auto repair shops and service firms such as

insurance agents. Others can continue to operate or recover operations quickly by

changing locations such as operating out of their homes or makeshift buildings.

However, establishments in sectors such as manufacturing/dairy/retail sustain longer

lasting periods of business interruption as was determined by survey responses.


110

Ultimately, a more complete understanding of the impacts by tornadic activity on

small rural communties could lead to more complete loss-estimation tools. HAZUS-MH,

which is a common risk assessment tool used for analyzing potential physical and

economic losses from events such as floods, hurricane winds, and earthquakes does not

currently calculate loss induced by tornadic activity. Estimating losses is important to

decision makers at the national, state, and local levels of government because they

provide a basis for developing emergency preparedness, mitigation plans and policies,

and planning for response and recovery. Additionally, other decision support systems

that include a deeper understanding of tornado impacts can facilitate management by

automatically analyzing information from digital databases such as building inventories,

infrastructure, demographics, and risk. By understanding the impacts placed on the small

communities, more accurate economic estimates would be available to Federal and State

officials who must decide the amount of funds to disperse to a community suffering from

a disastrous event. Furthermore, local officials will be able to determine where to

allocate these funds in a way that would be more economically feasible, paving the way

towards a faster recovery.

It is in recovery itself and planning for recovery, where jurisdictions can build

more resilient communities to minimize disaster impacts before or in the event of another

strike. Knowing which population and economic sectors will have the most difficulty

recovering from the disaster, determining and planning for recovery demands, and having

procedures in place that address for essential tasks, can expedite the recovery process and

provide for a more efficient response and recovery. Jurisdictions should know their


111

community and determine which industries are vital and should receive immediate

attention in the disaster aftermath so that they can stimulate local investment and

consumption and speed recovery to other industries. Prior contact with agencies

responsible for damage assessment, debris removal, rezoning, service restoration, and

permit processing can be done prior to a disaster. More importantly, the recovery process

is a unique time to enact polices for hazard mitigation. Small communities can use

economic impact analysis to determine mitigation planning and put procedures in place in

sectors that receive the most damage and may take longer to recover in order to minimize

future ripple effects throughout the community. Preemptive research and planning

should be conducted to determine vulnerabilities within the community including better

construction methods and construction materials or rezoning possibilities. A community

that performs pre-disaster planning for post-disaster recovery will build a disaster

resilient community.

.


112

REFERENCES Alesch, D. J. et al. 2001. Organizations at risk: what happens when small businesses and not-for-profits encounter natural disaster. Small Organizations Natural Hazards Project Technical Report. Green Bay. Public Entity Risk Institute. Bazan, E. 2005. Robert T. Stafford disaster relief and emergency assistance act: Legal requirements for federal and state roles in declarations of an emergency or a major disaster. Congressional Research Service Report for Congress, RL33090. Boisvert, R. 1992. Indirect losses from a catastrophic earthquake and local, regional, and national interest. Indirect economic consequences of a catastrophic earthquake, pp. 207-265 (Washington, DC: National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program, Federal Emergency Management Agency). Boswell, M. R. et al. 1999. A quantitative method for estimating probable public costs of hurricanes. Environmental Management 23(3): 359-72. Brookshire, D. and M. McKee. 1992. Other indirect costs and losses from earthquakes: Issues and estimation. In Indirect Consequences of a Catastrophic Earthquake final report by Development Technologies to the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Burrus, R. T. et al 2002. Impact of low-intensity hurricanes on regional economic activity. Natural Hazards Review 3: 118-125. Census, cited 2009: U.S. Census Bureau. [Available online at: http://www.census.gov/ ] Census, cited 2008: U.S. Census Bureau. [Available online at: http://www.census.gov/ ] Census of Agriculture, cited 2009: USDA 2007 Census Publication. [Available online at: http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2007/Full_Report/Census_by_State/New_Mexico/index.asp ] Chang, S. 2003. Evaluating disaster mitigations: A methodology for urban infrastructure systems. Natural Hazards Review 4: 186-196. Chang, S. 1996. Regional impact of the January 17, 1995 Kobe, Japan Earthquake. In 43rd North American RSAI Meeting, Washington, DC, November 14-17, 1996. Chang, S. 1983 . Disasters and fiscal policy: hurricane impact on municipal revenue. Urban Affairs Q., 18, 511–23.

http://www.census.gov/

http://www.census.gov/

http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2007/Full_Report/Census_by_State/New_Mexico/index.asp

http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2007/Full_Report/Census_by_State/New_Mexico/index.asp


113

Clower, T. 2006. Economic applications in disaster research, mitigation, and planning. Chapter 18 in Disciplines, disasters and emergency management textbook. Arlington, Center for Economic Development and Research at the University of North Texas. Clovis, cited 2009: Bureau of Business & Economic Research [Available online at: http://bber.unm.edu/bber_data.html ] Cochrane, H. 2004. Economic loss: Myth and measurement. Disaster Prevention and Management 13(4): 290-96. Cochrane, H. 1997. Predicting the economic impact of a Midwest earthquake. In Economic Consequences of Earthquakes: Preparing for the Unexpected. New York: National Center for Earthquake Engineering Research. Cross, J. M. 2001. Megacities and small towns: different perspectives on hazard vulnerability. Global Environmental Change, Part B: Environmental Hazards. 3(2): 63-80. De Silva, D. G., et al. 2006. Catastrophe induced destruction and reconstruction. Natural Hazards Review 7(1): 19-25. De Silva, D. G., et al. 2005. Fujita scale and dollar losses: Evidence from the May 1999 Oklahoma City Tornado. Chapter 2 of Economics and the Wind. New York: Nova Science Publishers, Inc. Ewing, B. T. and J. B. Kruse. 2002. The impact of Project Impact on the Wilmington, North Carolina labor market. Public Finance Review 30: 296-309. Ewing, B. T. and J. B. Kruse. 2001. Hurricane Bertha and unemployment: a case study of Wilmington, NC. Proceedings of the Americas Conference on Wind Engineering. Ewing, B. T., et al. 2006. The response of insurer stock prices to natural hazards. Weather and Forecasting 21(3): 395-407. Ewing, B. T., et al. 2005a. Analysis of local labor market responses to tornadoes. Chapter 3 of Economics and the Wind. New York: Nova Science Publishers, Inc. Ewing, B. T., et al. 2005b. Transmission of labor market shocks across regions: evidence from the May 3, 1999 Oklahoma City Tornado. Prepared for U.S. Department of Commerce, National Institute of Standards and Technology. Ewing, B. T. et al. 2005c. An empirical examination of the Corpus Christi unemployment rate and Hurricane Bret. Natural Hazards Review 6(4): 191-196.

http://bber.unm.edu/bber_data.html


114

Ewing, B. T., J. Kruse and D. Sutter, “Hurricanes and Economic Research: An Introduction to the Hurricane Katrina Symposium,” Southern Economic Journal, Volume 74, Number 2, 2007, pp. 315-325. Ewing, B. T., J. Kruse and D. Sutter (2009 in press) “An Overview of Hurricane Katrina and Economic Loss,” Journal of Business Valuation and Economic Loss Analysis, Volume 4, Issue 2. FEMA, cited 2009. Federal Aid Programs for Texas Disaster Recovery. [ Available online at: http://www.fema.gov/news/newsrelease.fema?id=35892 ] Freeman, P., et al. 2003. Dealing with increased risk of natural disasters: challenges and options. IMF Working Paper No. 03/197. Washington, DC: International Monetary Fund. Gillespie, W. 1991. Economic impact of Hurricane Hugo. Internal Re., Budget and Control Board, Office of Economic Research, Columbia, S.C. Gordon, P. and H.W. Richardson. 1996. The business interruption effects of the Northridge Earthquake. Lusk Center Research Institute, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA. Gordon, P. et al. 2005. The economic impact of a terrorist attack on the Twin Ports of Los Angeles-Long Beach. A report by the Center for Risk and Economic Analysis of Terrorism Events. Los Angeles: University of Southern California. Grazulis, T. P., 1993. Significant Tornadoes: 1680-1991. Environmental Films, 1326 pp. Guha, S., et al. 2004. Thirty years of natural disasters 1974-2003: The numbers. Presses Universitaires de Louvain: Louvain-la Neuve, ID n202. Guimaraes, P. et al. 1993. Wealth and income effects of natural disasters: An economic analysis of Hurricane Hugo. Review of regional studies 23: 97-114. Homm, L. et al. 2003. Rebuilding after natural disaster: a targeted economic development approach. Journal of the community development society 34: 107-124. Kates, R. 1971. Natural Hazard in Human Ecological Perspective: Hypotheses and Models. Economic Geography 47: 438-51. LBB NWS, cited 2007: Tulia, TX Tornado. [Available online at http://www.srh.noaa.gov/lub/events/2007/20070421/tulia_damage.php]

http://www.fema.gov/news/newsrelease.fema?id=35892

http://www.srh.noaa.gov/lub/events/2007/20070421/tulia_damage.php


115

Mileti, D. 1999. Disasters by design: A reassessment of natural hazards in the United States. Washington, DC: Joseph Henry Press. Mulkey, D. and A. W. Hodges. 2000. Using IMPLAN to assess local economic impacts. Gainesville: University of Florida. Database on-line. Available from Extension FE168 http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu. NCTCOG, cited 2007: Tornado Damage Risk Assessment. [Available online at http://www.nctcog.org/weather/study/ ] NIMS, cited 2007: Homeland Security Presidential Directive/HSPD-5. [Available online at http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/02/20030228-9.html ] NISAC, cited 2007: Analysis of hypothetical hurricane scenarios for 2006. [Available online at http://www.emat-tx.org/2006_hurricane_scenarios.ppt ] NOAA, cited 2006: NOAA reviews record-setting 2005 Atlantic hurricane season. [Available online at http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2005/s2540.htm ] Okuyama, Y. 2003. Economics of natural disasters: A critical review. In 50th North American Meeting, Regional Science Association International in Philadelphia, PA, November 20-22, 2003. Okuyama, Y. et al. 1999. Economic impacts of an unscheduled, disruptive event: a Miyazawa multiplier analysis. Understanding and Interpreting Economic Structure. Berlin: Springer. PRPC, cited 2009: Swisher County demographics. [Available online at http://www.prpc.cog.tx.us/demographics/swisher.htm ] Rae, S. and J. Stefkovich. 2000. The tornado damage risk assessment predicting the impact of a big outbreak in Dallas-Fort Worth, Texas. Extended Abstracts, 20th Conference on Severe Local Storms. Orlando: American Meteorological Society. Romer, D. 1996. Advanced macroeconomics. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Rose, A. 2004. Defining and measuring economic resilience to disasters. Disaster Prevention and Management 13(4): 307-14. Rose, A. 2004. Economic principles, issues and research priorities in hazard loss estimation. Chapter 2 of Modeling spatial and economic impacts of disasters. Berlin: Springer.

http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/

http://www.nctcog.org/weather/study/

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/02/20030228-9.html

http://www.emat-tx.org/2006_hurricane_scenarios.ppt

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2005/s2540.htm

http://www.prpc.cog.tx.us/demographics/swisher.htm


116

Rose, A. and S-Y. Liao. 2005. Modeling regional economic resilience to disasters: a computable general equilibrium analysis of water service disruptions. Journal of Regional Science 45: 437-458. Rose, A. and G. S. Guha. 2004. Computable general equilibrium modeling of electric utility lifeline losses from earthquakes. Chapter 7 of Modeling spatial and economic impacts of disasters. Berlin: Springer. Rose, A. and J. Benavides. 1998. Regional economic impacts. In engineering and socioeconomic impacts of earthquakes. New York: Multidisciplinary Center for Earthquake Engineering Research. Rose, A., et al. 1997. The regional economic impact of an earthquake: Direct and indirect effects of electricity lifeline disruptions. Journal of Regional Science 37: 437–58. Skidmore, M. and H. Toya. 2002. Do natural disasters promote long-run growth? Economic Inquiry 40: 664-687. Simmons, Kevin M., and Daniel Sutter. 2005. “WSR-88D Radar, Tornado Warnings, and Tornado Casualties.” Weather and Forecasting, 20(3):301-310. SPC Clovis, cited 2007: Storm Reports for 032307. [Available online at: http://www.spc.noaa.gov/climo/reports/070323_rpts.html] SPC Tulia, cited 2007: Storm Reports for 042107. [Available online at: http://www.spc.noaa.gov/climo/reports/070421_rpts.html] Storm Stats, cited 2007. 2007 tornado fatality information. [Available online at: http://www.spc.noaa.gov/climo/torn/2007deadlytorn.html ] Texas Edge Data Center, cited 2009. Texas Economic Data for Growth and Expansion (EDGE) Data Center. [Available online at: https://fmx.cpa.state.tx.us/businessobjects/enterprise115/desktoplaunch/InfoView/logon/logon.do ] Texas Governor’s Division of Emergency Management (GDEM). 2006. Disaster Recovery Manual. ftp://ftp.txdps.state.tx.us/dem/recovery/recoverymanual0606.pdf. Tierney, K. 1997. Impacts of recent disasters on businesses: The 1993 Midwest Floods and the 1994 Northridge Earthquake. In Economic Consequences of Earthquakes: Preparing for the Unexpected. New York: National Center for Earthquake Engineering Research.

http://www.spc.noaa.gov/climo/reports/070323_rpts.html

http://www.spc.noaa.gov/climo/reports/070421_rpts.html

http://www.spc.noaa.gov/climo/torn/2007deadlytorn.html

https://fmx.cpa.state.tx.us/businessobjects/enterprise115/desktoplaunch/InfoView/logon/logon.do

https://fmx.cpa.state.tx.us/businessobjects/enterprise115/desktoplaunch/InfoView/logon/logon.do


117

Tornadoes, cited 2007. Thunderstorms, tornadoes, lightning: Nature’s most violent storms. [Available online at http://www.nssl.noaa.gov/edu/safety/tornadoguide.html ] U.S. Bureau of Census and Real Estate Center at Texas A&M University, cited 2009. Real Estate Center [Available online at: http://recenter.tamu.edu/data/ ] West, C. T. and D. G. Lenze. 1994. Modeling the regional impact of natural disaster and recovery: A general framework and an application to Hurricane Andrew. International Regional Science Review 17: 121-50. Wilson, R. 1982. Earthquake vulnerability analysis for economic impact assessment. Washington, DC: Federal Emergency Management Agency. Wurman, J., et al. 2007. Low level winds in tornadoes and potential catastrophic tornado impacts in urban areas. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 88(1): 31-46. Zimmerman, R., et al. 2005. Electricity case: Economic cost estimation factors for the economic assessment of terrorist attacks. A report by the Center for Risk and Economic Analysis of Terrorism Events. Los Angeles: University of Southern California.

http://www.nssl.noaa.gov/edu/safety/tornadoguide.html

http://recenter.tamu.edu/data/


118

APPENDIX A: SWISHER COUNTY IMPLAN OUTPUT Table A- 1: Output Multipliers - Swisher County.

Output Multipliers July 8, 2008

# Description Direct Effects

Indirect Effects

Induced Effects

TotalType I

Multiplier

Type II Multiplie

r

18

Agriculture and forestry support activities

1 0.04497 0.174204 1.219 1.044968 1.219173

19 Oil and gas extraction 1 0.21926 0.066117 1.285 1.219262 1.28538

30 Power generation and supply

1 0.09035 0.052625 1.143 1.090348 1.142973

31 Natural gas distribution

1 0.81643 0.059877 1.876 1.816432 1.876309

401 Motor vehicle and parts dealers

1 0.12402 0.109304 1.233 1.124016 1.233319

407 Gasoline stations 1 0.11076 0.074097 1.185 1.110761 1.184857

410 General merchandise stores

1 0.16422 0.094212 1.258 1.164223 1.258435

411 Miscellaneous store retailers

1 0.08744 0.125837 1.213 1.087436 1.213274

422 Telecommunications 1 0.23651 0.047557 1.284 1.236507 1.284063

428

Insurance agencies- brokerages- and related

1 0.06902 0.090171 1.159 1.069023 1.159195

431 Real estate 1 0.14397 0.045098 1.189 1.143966 1.189064

449 Veterinary services 1 0.10403 0.066643 1.171 1.104032 1.170675

458 Services to buildings and dwellings

1 0.08557 0.123949 1.21 1.085565 1.209514

481 Food services and drinking places

1 0.20813 0.073735 1.282 1.208131 1.281866

483

Automotive repair and maintenance- except car

1 0.11293 0.073846 1.187 1.112932 1.186778


119

Table A- 2: Employment Multipliers - Swisher County.

Employment Multipliers July 8, 2008


Indirect Effects

Induced Effects

TotalType I

Multiplier Type II

Multiplier

18


38.2708 0.39502 1.657477 40.32 1.010322 1.053631

19 Oil and gas extraction 1.12584 0.42834 0.629076 2.183 1.380456 1.939216


2.97666 0.24678 0.500706 3.724 1.082904 1.251115


5.83101 1.10263 0.569703 7.503 1.189097 1.286799


12.0879 1.0446 1.039975 14.17 1.086417 1.172451

407 Gasoline stations 12.6124 0.93295 0.704996 14.25 1.073971 1.129868


23.4387 1.38326 0.896381 25.72 1.059016 1.09726


39.4296 0.73647 1.197288 41.36 1.018678 1.049043

422 Telecommunications 3.99659 1.37223 0.45248 5.821 1.343351 1.456568

428


26.104 1.3025 0.85794 28.26 1.049897 1.082763

431 Real estate 6.56051 1.08422 0.429085 8.074 1.165264 1.230668

449 Veterinary services 18.5497 0.97392 0.634078 20.16 1.052503 1.086686


10.0364 0.91372 1.179324 12.13 1.09104 1.208545


23.7549 1.4943 0.701557 25.95 1.062905 1.092438

483


15.3275 1.10327 0.70261 17.13 1.07198 1.11782


120

Table A- 3: Labor Income Multipliers - Swisher County.

Labor Income Multipliers July 8, 2008


Indirect Effects

Induced Effects

Total Type I

Multiplier Type II

Multiplier

18


0.76378 0.01539 0.039552 0.819 1.020146 1.07193

19 Oil and gas extraction 0.241 0.05472 0.015011 0.311 1.227051 1.289339


0.21171 0.02367 0.011948 0.247 1.111815 1.168252


0.06905 0.19876 0.013595 0.281 3.878653 4.07554


0.4554 0.03349 0.024816 0.514 1.073529 1.128024

407 Gasoline stations 0.30151 0.02991 0.016823 0.348 1.099189 1.154986


0.37704 0.04434 0.02139 0.443 1.117604 1.174336


0.53922 0.02361 0.02857 0.591 1.043782 1.096766

422 Telecommunications 0.16286 0.04985 0.010797 0.224 1.306071 1.37237

428


0.38027 0.02304 0.020473 0.424 1.060592 1.114429

431 Real estate 0.16231 0.0394 0.010239 0.212 1.242776 1.305861

449 Veterinary services 0.2667 0.03138 0.015131 0.313 1.117655 1.174389


0.52142 0.03297 0.028142 0.583 1.063235 1.117206


0.28552 0.04428 0.016741 0.347 1.155068 1.213701

483


0.29869 0.0316 0.016766 0.347 1.105794 1.161925


121

APPENDIX B: CURRY COUNTY IMPLAN OUTPUT Table B- 1: Output Multipliers - Curry County.

Output Multipliers August 30, 2008


Indirect Effects

Induced Effects

TotalType I

Multiplier Type II

Multiplier

11 Cattle ranching and farming 1 0.74451 0.086932 1.831 1.744507 1.831439

400 Warehousing and storage 1 0.11347 0.253825 1.367 1.113474 1.367299

401 Motor vehicle and parts dealers 1 0.12354 0.219724 1.343 1.123536 1.34326

405 Food and beverage stores 1 0.12326 0.216114 1.339 1.123262 1.339376

432

Automotive equipment rental and leasing 1 0.31771 0.131888 1.45 1.31771 1.449598

477 Bowling centers 1 0.2979 0.167855 1.466 1.297901 1.465756

503 State & Local Education 1 0 0.423272 1.423 1 1.423272


122

Table B- 2: Employer Multipliers - Curry County.

Employer Multipliers August 30, 2008


Indirect Effects

Induced Effects

TotalType I

Multiplier Type II

Multiplier

11 Cattle ranching and farming

5.07827 5.79043 1.218513 12.09 2.140238 2.380184

400 Warehousing and storage

13.1725 1.36557 3.557837 18.1 1.103668 1.373764


13.4574 1.5447 3.079849 18.08 1.114785 1.343645

405 Food and beverage stores

22.5947 1.54128 3.029252 27.17 1.068214 1.202283

432


7.76391 4.53474 1.848661 14.15 1.58408 1.822189

477 Bowling centers 34.6987 3.72659 2.352809 40.78 1.107399 1.175205

503 State & Local Education

25.6549 0 5.932961 31.59 1 1.231261


123

Table B- 3: Labor Income Multipliers - Curry County.

Labor Income Multipliers August 30, 2008


Indirect Effects

Induced Effects

TotalType I

Multiplier Type II

Multiplier

11 Cattle ranching and farming

0.00878 0.1966 0.027427 0.233 23.394918 26.519108

400 Warehousing and storage

0.56567 0.034 0.080081 0.68 1.060106 1.201674


0.47397 0.04514 0.069322 0.588 1.095238 1.241497

405 Food and beverage stores

0.46554 0.04504 0.068184 0.579 1.096747 1.243208

432


0.20112 0.11047 0.04161 0.353 1.549252 1.756141

477 Bowling centers 0.2992 0.09737 0.052958 0.45 1.325415 1.502413

503 State & Local Education

1 0 0.133541 1.134 1 1.133541


124

APPENDIX C: SWISHER COUNTY CONSOLIDATED FEDERAL FUNDS REPORT Table C- 1: Swisher County Consolidated Federal Funds Report 2007 (Grants, 2009). SUMMARY TOTALS FY 2007 AMOUNT DIRECT EXPENDITURES OR OBLIGATIONS RETIREMENT / DISABILITY

PAYMENTS FOR INDIVIDUALS (DR) 21,080,423

OTHER DIRECT PAYMENTS FOR INDIVIDUALS (DO) 14,487,513

DIRECT PAYMENTS OTHER THAN FOR INDIVIDUALS (DX) 24,921,985

GRANTS (BLOCK, FORMULA, PROJECT, AND COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS) (GG) 8,619,926

PROCUREMENT CONTRACTS (PC) 323,702

SALARIES AND WAGES (SW) 1,722,223 TOTAL DIRECT EXPENDITURES

OR OBLIGATIONS 71,155,772 EXHIBIT TOTAL DIRECT EXPENDITURES

OR OBLIGATIONS - DEFENSE 332,000 TOTAL DIRECT EXPENDITURES

OR OBLIGATIONS - NON DEFENSE 70,823,772

OTHER FEDERAL ASSISTANCE DIRECT LOANS (DL) 2,481,170 GUARANTEED/INSURED LOANS

(GL) 2,165,954 INSURANCE (II) 28,663,464


125

Retirement & Disability Payments for Individuals (DR)

PROGRAM PROGRAM NAME FY 2007

AMOUNT 17.FEC FEDERAL EMPLOYEES

COMPENSATION 16,933 57.001 SOCIAL INSURANCE FOR

RAILROAD WORKERS 156,789 64.102 COMPENSATION FOR SERVICE-

CONNECTED DEATHS FOR VETERANS' DEPENDENTS 1,089

64.104 PENSION FOR NON-SERVICE-CONNECTED DISABILITY FOR VETERANS 142,244

64.105 PENSION TO VETERANS SURVIVING SPOUSES AND CHILDREN 2,060

64.109 VETERANS COMPENSATION FOR SERVICE-CONNECTED DISABILITY 856,369

64.11 VETERANS DEPENDENCY & INDEMNITY COMPENSATION FOR SVC-CONNECTED DEATH 103,081

96.001 SOCIAL SECURITY DISABILITY INSURANCE 1,924,655

96.002 SOCIAL SECURITY RETIREMENT INSURANCE 11,463,328

96.004 SOCIAL SECURITY SURVIVORS INSURANCE 4,805,264

96.006 SUPPLEMENTAL SECURITY INCOME 515,075

DR.100 FEDERAL RETIREMENT AND DISABILITY PAYMENTS--MILITARY 332,000

DR.200 FEDERAL RETIREMENT AND DISABILITY PAYMENTS--CIVILIAN 761,536

Retirement & Disability Payments for Individuals Total: 21,080,423


126

Other Direct Payments for Individuals (DO)


AMOUNT 10.551 FOOD STAMPS 1,176,913 14.197 MULTIFAMILY ASSISTED

HOUSING REFORM AND AFFORDABILITY ACT 176,513

64.1 AUTOMOBILES AND ADAPTIVE EQUIPMENT FOR CERTAIN DISABLED VETERANS 4,515

64.117 SURVIVORS AND DEPENDENTS EDUCATIONAL ASSISTANCE 1,472

64.124 ALL VOLUNTEER FORCE EDUCATIONAL ASSISTANCE 17,773

84.032 FEDERAL FAMILY EDUCATION LOANS 207,415

93.773 MEDICARE-HOSPITAL INSURANCE 7,083,689

93.774 MEDICARE-SUPPLEMENTARY MEDICAL INSURANCE 5,819,223

Other Direct Payments for Individuals Total: 14,487,513 Direct Payments Other than for Individuals (DX)


AMOUNT 10.051 COMMODITY LOANS AND LOAN

DEFICIENCY PAYMENTS 318,367 10.055 PRODUCTION FLEXIBILITY

PAYMENTS FOR CONTRACT COMMODITIES 12,838,205

10.069 CONSERVATION RESERVE PROGRAM 4,523,769

10.45 CROP INSURANCE 6,879,586 10.918 GROUND & SURFACE WATER

CONSERVATION ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY INCENTIVES PROGR 153,930

14.195 SECTION 8 HOUSING ASSISTANCE PAYMENTS PROGRAM-SPECIAL 99,798


127

ALLOCATIONS

14.85 PUBLIC AND INDIAN HOUSING 108,132 DX.100 U.S. POSTAL SERVICE--OTHER

EXPENDITURES (NON-SALARY/NON-PROCUREMENT) 198

Direct Payments Other than for Individuals Total: 24,921,985 Grants (Block, Formula, Project, and Cooperative Agreements) (GG)


AMOUNT 10.073 CROP DISASTER PROGRAM 43,667 10.555 NATIONAL SCHOOL LUNCH

PROGRAM 860,927 14.191 MULTIFAMILY HOUSING

SERVICE COORDINATORS 36,366 14.871 SECTION 8 HOUSING CHOICE

VOUCHERS 140,420 14.872 PUBLIC HOUSING CAPITAL

FUNDS 76,764 20.205 HIGHWAY PLANNING AND

CONSTRUCTION 38,058 84.01 TITLE I GRANTS TO LOCAL

EDUCATION AGENCIES 315,622 84.358 RURAL EDUCATION

ACHIEVEMENT PROGRAM 31,940 93.558 TEMPORARY ASSISTANCE FOR

NEEDY FAMILIES 215,284 93.563 CHILD SUPPORT

ENFORCEMENT 85,423 93.568 LOW INCOME HOME ENERGY

ASSISTANCE 30,802 93.6 HEAD START 594,748 93.667 SOCIAL SERVICES BLOCK

GRANT 116,977


128

93.767 STATE CHILDREN'S INSURANCE PROGRAM (CHIP) 191,450

93.769 DEMONSTRATION TO MAINTAIN INDEPENDENCE AND EMPLOYMENT 8,559

93.776 HURRICANE KATRINA RELIEF -43,821 93.777 STATE SURVEY AND

CERTIFICATION OF HEALTH CARE PROVIDERS AND SUPPLIERS 11,138

93.778 MEDICAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM 5,665,629

93.786 STATE PHARMACEUTICAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS -165

93.959 BLOCK GRANTS FOR PREVENTION AND TREATMENT OF SUBSTANCE ABUSE 125,302

94.002 RETIRED AND SENIOR VOLUNTEER PROGRAM (RSVP) 74,836

Grants (Block, Formula, Project, and Cooperative Agreements) Total: 8,619,926 Procurement Contracts (PC)


AMOUNT PC.200 PROCUREMENT CONTRACTS--

ALL FED GOVT AGENCIES OTHER THAN DEFENSE & USPS 9,510

PC.300 PROCUREMENT CONTRACTS--U.S. POSTAL SERVICE 314,192

Procurement Contracts Total: 323,702


129

Salaries and Wages (SW)


AMOUNT SW.500 SALARIES AND WAGES--ALL FED

GOVT CIVILIAN EMP EXCEPT DEFENSE & USPS 447,000

SW.600 SALARIES AND WAGES--U.S. POSTAL SERVICE 1,275,223

Salaries and Wages Total: 1,722,223 Direct Loans (DL)


AMOUNT 10.404 EMERGENCY LOANS 223,610 10.406 FARM OPERATING LOANS 1,613,260 10.407 FARM OWNERSHIP LOANS 208,000 59.008 PHYSICAL DISASTER LOANS 436,300

Direct Loans Total: 2,481,170 Guaranteed/Insured Loans (GL)


AMOUNT 10.406 FARM OPERATING LOANS 1,274,724 14.117 MORTGAGE INSURANCE HOMES 782,555 64.114 VETERANS HOUSING

GUARANTEED AND INSURED LOANS 108,675

Guaranteed/Insured Loans Total: 2,165,954


130

Insurance (II)


AMOUNT 10.45 CROP INSURANCE 28,163,456 64.103 LIFE INSURANCE FOR

VETERANS 76,508 97.022 FLOOD INSURANCE 423,500

Insurance Total: 28,663,464


131

APPENDIX D: CURRY COUNTY CONSOLIDATED FEDERAL FUNDS REPORT 2007

Table D- 1: Curry County Consolidated Federal Funds Report 2007 (Grants, 2009).

SUMMARY TOTALS FY 2007 AMOUNT

DIRECT EXPENDITURES OR OBLIGATIONS RETIREMENT / DISABILITY

PAYMENTS FOR INDIVIDUALS (DR) 134,340,438

OTHER DIRECT PAYMENTS FOR INDIVIDUALS (DO) 50,986,946

DIRECT PAYMENTS OTHER THAN FOR INDIVIDUALS (DX) 18,543,868

GRANTS (BLOCK, FORMULA, PROJECT, AND COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS) (GG) 73,207,499

PROCUREMENT CONTRACTS (PC) 74,600,639 SALARIES AND WAGES (SW) 162,974,730 TOTAL DIRECT EXPENDITURES OR

OBLIGATIONS 514,654,120

EXHIBIT TOTAL DIRECT EXPENDITURES OR

OBLIGATIONS - DEFENSE 244,419,838

TOTAL DIRECT EXPENDITURES OR OBLIGATIONS - NON DEFENSE 270,234,282

OTHER FEDERAL ASSISTANCE DIRECT LOANS (DL) 1,838,000 GUARANTEED/INSURED LOANS (GL) 22,860,833 INSURANCE (II) 64,709,827


132

Retirement & Disability Payments for Individuals (DR)


AMOUNT

10.03 INDEMNITIES 755,085 17.307 COAL MINE WORKERS'

COMPENSATION 13,040 17.FEC FEDERAL EMPLOYEES

COMPENSATION 648,771 57.001

SOCIAL INSURANCE FOR RAILROAD WORKERS 11,719,533

57.AAA SOCIAL INSURANCE FOR RR WORKERS - UNEMPLOYMENT & SICKNESS BENEFITS 84,046

64.102 COMPENSATION FOR SERVICE-CONNECTED DEATHS FOR VETERANS' DEPENDENTS 1,124

64.104 PENSION FOR NON-SERVICE-CONNECTED DISABILITY FOR VETERANS 483,367

64.105 PENSION TO VETERANS SURVIVING SPOUSES AND CHILDREN 133,767

64.109 VETERANS COMPENSATION FOR SERVICE-CONNECTED DISABILITY 10,356,722

64.11 VETERANS DEPENDENCY & INDEMNITY COMPENSATION FOR SVC-CONNECTED DEATH 1,894,205

86.001 PENSION PLAN TERMINATION INSURANCE 34,650

96.001 SOCIAL SECURITY DISABILITY INSURANCE 15,015,877

96.002 SOCIAL SECURITY RETIREMENT INSURANCE 42,680,753

96.004 SOCIAL SECURITY SURVIVORS INSURANCE 16,973,446

96.006 SUPPLEMENTAL SECURITY INCOME 1,596,786 DR.100 FEDERAL RETIREMENT AND

DISABILITY PAYMENTS--MILITARY 20,508,000 DR.200 FEDERAL RETIREMENT AND

DISABILITY PAYMENTS--CIVILIAN 11,356,312


133

DR.300 RETIREMENT AND DISABILITY PAYMENTS-COAST GUARD/UNIFORMED EMPLOYEES 23,601

DR.500 RETIREMENT AND DISABILITY PAYMENTS--FOREIGN SERVICE OFFICERS 15,812

DR.700 FEDERAL RETIREMENT AND DISABILITY PAYMENTS--PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE 45,541

Retirement & Disability Payments for Individuals Total: 134,340,438

Other Direct Payments for Individuals (DO)


AMOUNT

10.551 FOOD STAMPS 6,955,865 64.101 BURIAL EXPENSES ALLOWANCE FOR

VETERANS 2,012 64.116 VOCATIONAL REHABILITATION FOR

DISABLED VETERANS 24,101 64.117

SURVIVORS AND DEPENDENTS EDUCATIONAL ASSISTANCE 220,230

64.124 ALL VOLUNTEER FORCE EDUCATIONAL ASSISTANCE 1,322,980

84.007 FEDERAL SUPPLEMENTAL EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITY GRANTS 47,360

84.032 FEDERAL FAMILY EDUCATION LOANS 21,105

84.033

FEDERAL WORK STUDY PROGRAM 67,647 84.063

FEDERAL PELL GRANT PROGRAM 1,789,738


134

93.773 MEDICARE-HOSPITAL INSURANCE 20,950,434 93.774

MEDICARE-SUPPLEMENTARY MEDICAL INSURANCE 19,585,474

Other Direct Payments for Individuals Total: 50,986,946

Direct Payments Other than for Individuals (DX)


AMOUNT

10.051 COMMODITY LOANS AND LOAN DEFICIENCY PAYMENTS 69,754

10.055 PRODUCTION FLEXIBILITY PAYMENTS FOR CONTRACT COMMODITIES 6,669,821

10.069 CONSERVATION RESERVE PROGRAM 6,893,589

10.08 MILK INCOME LOSS CONTRACT PROGRAM 275,962

10.45 CROP INSURANCE 3,727,814 10.918

GROUND & SURFACE WATER CONSERVATION ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY INCENTIVES PROGR 67,236

14.157 SUPPORTIVE HOUSING FOR THE ELDERLY 160,602

14.181 SUPPORTIVE HOUSING FOR PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES 244,457

14.195 SECTION 8 HOUSING ASSISTANCE PAYMENTS PROGRAM-SPECIAL ALLOCATIONS 5,814

14.85 PUBLIC AND INDIAN HOUSING 427,728 DX.100

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE--OTHER EXPENDITURES (NON-SALARY/NON-PROCUREMENT) 1,091


135

Direct Payments Other than for Individuals Total: 18,543,868 Grants (Block, Formula, Project, and Cooperative Agreements) (GG)


AMOUNT

10.073 CROP DISASTER PROGRAM 15,199

10.555 NATIONAL SCHOOL LUNCH PROGRAM 2,493,903

10.557 SPECIAL SUPPLEMENTAL FOOD PROGRAM FOR WOMEN, INFANTS, AND CHILDREN 1,428,237

11.302 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT-SUPPORT FOR PLANNING ORGANIZATIONS 150,000

14.231 EMERGENCY SHELTER GRANTS PROGRAM 235,660

14.25 RURAL HOUSING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 300,000

14.856 LOW INCOME HOUSING ASSISTANCE PROGRAM-SECTION 8 MODERATE REHABILITATION 2,000

14.87 RESIDENT OPPORTUNITY AND SUPPORTIVE SERVICES 40,000

14.871 SECTION 8 HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS 4,104,632

14.872 PUBLIC HOUSING CAPITAL FUNDS 240,098 16.606

STATE CRIMINAL ALIEN ASSISTANCE PROGRAM 36,672

16.71 PUBLIC SAFETY PARTNERSHIP AND COMMUNITY POLICING GRANTS -2,810

16.738 EDWARD BYRNE MEMORIAL JUSTICE ASSISTANCE GRANT PROGRAM 27,383

17.269 COMMUNITY BASED JOB TRAINING GRANTS 1,270,705


136

20.106 AIRPORT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 266,583

20.205 HIGHWAY PLANNING AND CONSTRUCTION 1,032,652

84.01 TITLE I GRANTS TO LOCAL EDUCATION AGENCIES 1,881,478

84.031 HIGHER EDUCATION-INSTITUTIONAL AID 574,446

84.041 IMPACT AID 757,828 84.042

TRIO-STUDENT SUPPORT SERVICES 235,689 84.047 TRIO-UPWARD BOUND 250,000 84.126

REHABILITATION SERVICES-VOCATIONAL REHABILITATION GRANTS TO STATES 656,430

84.334 GAINING EARLY AWARENESS AND READINESS FOR UNDERGRADUATE PROGRAMS 468,000

84.335 CHILD CARE ACCESS MEANS PARENTS IN SCHOOL 35,174

84.358 RURAL EDUCATION ACHIEVEMENT PROGRAM 62,153

93.558 TEMPORARY ASSISTANCE FOR NEEDY FAMILIES 2,900,454

93.563 CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT 277,687 93.568 LOW INCOME HOME ENERGY

ASSISTANCE 325,643 93.767 STATE CHILDREN'S INSURANCE

PROGRAM (CHIP) 906,068 93.768

MEDICAID INFRASTR GRANTS TO SUPPORT THE COMPETIT EMPLOY OF PEOPLE W/ DISA 24,638

93.777 STATE SURVEY AND CERTIFICATION OF HEALTH CARE PROVIDERS AND SUPPLIERS 26,080

93.778 MEDICAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM 52,021,509 93.959 BLOCK GRANTS FOR PREVENTION

AND TREATMENT OF SUBSTANCE ABUSE 73,291


137

94.002 RETIRED AND SENIOR VOLUNTEER PROGRAM (RSVP) 18,041

94.011 FOSTER GRANDPARENT PROGRAM 53,171

97.024 EMERGENCY FOOD AND SHELTER NATIONAL BOARD PROGRAM 18,805

Grants (Block, Formula, Project, and Cooperative Agreements) Total: 73,207,499 Procurement Contracts (PC)


AMOUNT

PC.100 PROCUREMENT CONTRACTS--DEPT OF DEFENSE 70,224,838

PC.200 PROCUREMENT CONTRACTS--ALL FED GOVT AGENCIES OTHER THAN DEFENSE & USPS 2,647,741

PC.300 PROCUREMENT CONTRACTS--U.S. POSTAL SERVICE 1,728,060

Procurement Contracts Total: 74,600,639 Salaries and Wages (SW)


AMOUNT

SW.100 SALARIES AND WAGES--DEPT OF DEFENSE (ACTIVE MILITARY EMPLOYEES) 136,242,000

SW.200 SALARIES AND WAGES--DEPT OF DEFENSE (INACTIVE MILITARY EMPLOYEES) 691,000

SW.400 SALARIES AND WAGES--DEPT OF DEFENSE (CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES) 16,754,000


138

SW.500

SALARIES AND WAGES--ALL FED GOVT CIVILIAN EMP EXCEPT DEFENSE & USPS 2,274,000

SW.600 SALARIES AND WAGES--U.S. POSTAL SERVICE 7,013,730

Salaries and Wages Total: 162,974,730 Direct Loans (DL)


AMOUNT

10.406

FARM OPERATING LOANS 10,000 59.008

PHYSICAL DISASTER LOANS 1,828,000

Direct Loans Total: 1,838,000 Guaranteed/Insured Loans (GL)


AMOUNT

10.406

FARM OPERATING LOANS 1,550,000 10.407

FARM OWNERSHIP LOANS 445,000 14.108

REHABILITATION MORTGAGE INSURANCE 100,684

14.117

MORTGAGE INSURANCE HOMES 10,592,308 59.012

SMALL BUSINESS LOANS 1,807,898 64.114

VETERANS HOUSING GUARANTEED AND INSURED LOANS 8,364,943


139

Guaranteed / Insured Loans Total: 22,860,833 Insurance (II)


AMOUNT

10.45 CROP INSURANCE 15,294,395 64.103

LIFE INSURANCE FOR VETERANS 162,054 97.022 FLOOD INSURANCE 49,253,378

Insurance Total:

64,709,827


140

APPENDIX E: DISASTER DECLARATION PROCESS - A SUMMARY OF DEM-62 DISASTER RECOVERY MANUAL

DEM-63 Disaster Recovery Manual (GDEM, 2006) provides a step-by-step

approach to local jurisdictions requesting aid. Summarized here are the initial stages of

assessments and the different types of resources available. It is within these processes

where a quick economic impact analysis may be of benefit to the jurisdiction in order to

obtain disaster declaration status. Generally, a detailed assessment is less likely needed

in the wake of a catastrophic incident to qualify for State and/or Federal assistance. The

more marginal the event, the greater the need for a detailed assessment.

Assessments

In the immediate aftermath of a local disaster, it is up to the local emergency

management coordinator to begin the damage assessment process in order to determine

the impact and magnitude of the disaster, the resulting unmet needs of individuals,

businesses, and the public sector, and amount of assistance that is needed. A Rapid

Assessment or an initial size up of the affected areas is first completed. Information

included in this assessment focuses on humanitarian and emergency needs (i.e. life

safety – search and rescue, injuries and fatalities, mass care, hazardous material; life lines

– utilities and transportation systems; and critical facilities).

As emergency needs are met and debris is cleared, a Windshield Assessment is

performed where the main priority is assessing residential damage. The form used for the

Windshield Assessment for the state of Texas is included at the end of this appendix.


141

Damage is categorized by the type of residential property (single, mobile, or multi-

family), the relative income of the residents (low, middle, or high), severity of the

damage (affected, minor, major, or destroyed), and the estimated insurance coverage (%).

Guidelines the state has set for estimating insurance coverage:

Renters are less likely to have insurance

Low-income residents are less likely to have insurance.

Homeowners who are still paying off their mortgage will normally have the

appropriate type of insurance.

The severity of the damage, whether classified under affected, minor, major, or

destroyed) is defined by the following:

Affected − If the living unit, porch, carport, garage, etc., was damaged but in the

inspector’s judgment the living unit is still habitable, the Affected category should

be used. A few shingles, some broken windows, damage to cars.

• Minor −Minor damage is when the home is damaged and uninhabitable, but may

be made habitable in a short period of time with home repairs. Any one of the

following may constitute minor damage:

o Can be repaired within 30 days

o Has less than 50% damage to structure

• Major − Major damage is when the home has sustained structural or significant

damages, is uninhabitable and requires extensive repairs. Any one of the

following may constitute major damage.


142

o Substantial failures to structural elements of the residence (e.g., walls,

floors, foundation, roof)

o Has more than 50% damage to structure

o Damage that will take more than 30 days to repair

Destroyed − Destroyed is used when there is a total loss or damage to such an

extent that repairs are not economically feasible. Any one of the following may

constitute a status of destroyed: (Should be obvious)

o Structure is not economically feasible to repair

o Structure is permanently uninhabitable

o Complete failures to major components of structure (e.g., foundation,

walls, roof w/noticeable distortion of the walls)

o Unaffected structure that will require demolition as a result of the disaster

(e.g., floodplain)

Requesting Assistance

Upon completion of the damage assessment, the situation must be analyzed to

determine if assistance is actually needed. The following questions should be posed to

the County Judge/Mayor to determine if an effective response for the incident is beyond

the capabilities of the jurisdiction:

Is the damage primarily agricultural? If there is a need for agriculture assistance

only, the County Judge needs to obtain a Flash Situation Report from the local


143

Farm Service Agency (FSA) and submit a letter of request for agricultural

assistance to the Governor.

Are uninsured damages and unmet needs of disaster victims beyond the capability

of the local government, the American Red Cross (ARC), The Salvation Army

(TSA), the Mennonite Disaster Service, and other local volunteer agencies?

Will the extent of damage to residential property require a significant and long-

term need for temporary housing?

Are there significant uninsured business losses? Have business losses created a

severe impact on jobs, production and/or revenue?

Does the jurisdiction’s budget have sufficient funds to make needed repairs to

Public Property? If not, can the jurisdiction re-prioritize non-disaster related

projects and use those funds to recover?

If assistance is deemed necessary, the County Judge/Mayor must submit:

A request letter to the Governor

A local State of Disaster Declaration

A Disaster Summary Outline (see outline document at the end of this appendix)

The state reviews the submitted items and determines whether a State and Federal

assessment will be required. If denied, the state will hear an appeal by the jurisdiction

only if new information is presented that helps the case. However, after the initial denial

of funds, the Small Business Administration (SBA) and the United States Department of

Agriculture (USDA) will not consider any appeals. If the request for assistance is

approved, the request is forwarded to the Federal Emergency Management Agency


144

(FEMA), SBA, the USDA, or other state or federal agencies. A flow chart of the

Presidential Disaster Declaration Process is given in Figure E- 1 with the associated time

frame and information needed for the varying types of assistance in Table E- 2.

Similarly, Figure E- 2 and Figure E- 3 show the steps through the SBA declaration

process and USDA declaration process respectively. A least 25 homes and/or businesses

must have sustained uninsured losses of at least 40% of their replacement value or at least

3 business have sustained uninsured losses of at least 40% of their replacement value and

as a direct result of the disaster, at least 25% of the workforce in the community would be

unemployed for at least 90 days for a jurisdiction to qualify for SBA assistance.

Figure E- 1: Presidential Declaration Process (GDEM, 2006).


145

Table E- 2: Types of Resources (GDEM, 2006).

Figure E- 2: Small Business Administration Declaration Process (GDEM, 2006).


146

Figure E- 3: USDA Disaster Declaration Process (GDEM, 2006).


148

Disaster Summary Outline

GENERAL Jurisdiction (County/City): _________________________ Population: ___________ Type of Disaster (Flood, Hurricane, Tornado, etc.) ________________________________________________________________________ If this is a flood event, does the City/County participate in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP)? Yes/No Inclusive dates of the disaster: ______________________________________________ Was a local disaster declaration issued? Yes/ No (Not applicable for Agriculture assistance only) Contact Person: ___________________________ Title: _________________________ Address: _____________________ City: ________________ Zip Code: _____________ Phone ( )_______________ Fax ( ) _______________ Pager ( )_____________ 24-Hour Duty Officer/Sheriff’s Office ( )________ INDIVIDUAL ASSISTANCE Casualties: (Contact local area hospitals) A. Number of Fatalities _______________ B. Number of Injuries _______________ C. Number Hospitalized _______________ Number of homes isolated due to road closure (high water, etc.):__________________________________ Agricultural Losses: (Contact the Farm Service Agency in your county)


149

Is agricultural assistance needed? Yes/ No If yes, please attach USDA flash situation report. Residential Losses - Primary Residence Only: (Local Damage Assessment) See guidelines on page 4.

Type of Homes

Destroyed

Major Damage

Minor Damage

Affected

% Covered by Insurance

Single Family Homes

Mobile Homes

Multi-Family Units

Totals

Estimated number of persons whose situation will not be satisfied by volunteer organizations (Contact local volunteer organizations) _________________________ Are shelters opened? Yes/No How many? ______________ Name, location, capacity, and current occupancy of shelters? ________________________________________________________________________ Business Losses/Impacts:

Number # Covered by Adequate Insurance

Total estimated repair cost

Major Damage(greater than )

$

Minor Damage (less than 40%)

$

Totals $

How many businesses have ceased operations: _______________________ How many businesses have experienced economic injury: _______________ Estimated number of persons unemployed because of this disaster__________________ (Contact affected businesses and the local Texas Workforce Commission Office)


150

PUBLIC ASSISTANCE NOTE: All disaster related costs should be separated into the seven damage/work categories listed below: Category

Subcategory

No. of Sites

Estimated Repair Costs

Anticipated Insurance *

Debris Clearance $ $

Emergency (EMS, Fire, Police)

$ $

Road & Bridge Roads - Paved $ $

Roads - Unpaved $ $

Bridges - Destroyed $ $

Bridges - Closed & Repairable

$ $

Bridges - Damaged & Serviceable

$ $

Culverts - Totally washed away

$ $

Culverts - Damaged & still in place

$ $

Water Control Facilities (Dams, levees, dikes)

$ $

Buildings & Equipment

$ $

Public Utility Systems (Gas, Electric, Sewer, Water)

$ $

Other (Recreational Facilities, Airports, etc.)

$ $

Totals $ $

* Anticipated insurance is normally calculated by subtracting any deductible, depreciation or uncoverable loss from the estimated repair cost.


151

Total annual maintenance budget (i.e. Public Works, Road & Bridge): $_____________ Start of Fiscal Year: Month____________ Others (Contact non-profit or governmental, medical, emergency, utility, educational, custodial care facilities, etc.) Organization/ Facility

No. of Sites

Estimated Repair Costs

Anticipated Insurance *

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

Totals

$

$

This form is for damage assessment reporting purposes only. In accordance with the State Emergency Management Plan, if a Mayor/County Judge determines that a situation is of such severity and magnitude that an effective response is beyond the affected jurisdiction’s capability to recover, a letter outlining the disaster impact and the need for supplemental State and/or Federal assistance must accompany this DSO. Once this form is completed, submit pages 1-3 to your local Disaster District Committee, and to: Texas Department of Public Safety Division of Emergency Management P.O. Box 4087 Austin, Texas 78773 or FAX to: 512-424-2444


152

RESIDENTIAL LOSS GUIDELINES Destroyed: Structure is permanently uninhabitable and can not be repaired. Look for the following: Structure gone, only foundation remains; Major sections of walls missing or collapsed; Entire roof gone with noticeable distortion of the walls; Structure has shifted off of its foundation; More than 4 feet of water, over 12" for mobile homes. Major: Structure is currently uninhabitable and extensive repair is required to make it habitable. Look for the following: Portions of the roof, including decking, missing; Twisted, bowed or cracked walls; Penetration of structure by trees or cars, etc.; 2 to 4 feet of water, 6" to 12" for mobile homes. Minor: Structure is habitable with minor repairs. Look for the following: Many missing shingles, broken windows and doors; Siding loose, missing or damaged; Minor shifting or settling of foundation; Damaged septic systems (flood); 6" to 2 feet of water, less than 6” for mobile homes. Affected: Structure is habitable. Some minor damage may be eligible for assistance. Look for the following: A few missing shingles; Some broken windows; Damage to cars; Damage to Air Conditioner Compressor only; Less than 6” of water. Estimating Insurance: The following are general guidelines to estimating insurance coverage. Renters are less likely to have insurance. Low income residents are less likely to have insurance. Homeowners who are still paying off their mortgage will normally have the appropriate type of insurance.

Economic Analysis of the Tornado Impact upon Two ...

Documents

Transcript of Economic Analysis of the Tornado Impact upon Two ...