howard county hazard mitigation plan 2012 - midmorpc.org mitigation/howard/final plan with... ·...

Howard County

Hazard Mitigation Plan 2012

Prepared by: Mid-Missouri Regional Planning Commission

206 East Broadway P.O. Box 140

Ashland, MO 65010 Phone: (573) 657-9779

Fax: (573) 657-2829

Plan available online at mmrpc.org

Cover Photos: Flood and wind are two of the most damaging natural hazards in Howard County. Aerial photos show flooding in 1993 and tornado damage in 2006. Photos courtesy of Fayette Advertiser/Democrat Leader.

Contents List of Acronyms Used in Plan ............................................. viii

Executive Summary .................................................................. 1

Prerequisites .............................................................................. 2

Section 1: Introduction and Planning Process ....................... 3

1.1 Purpose ............................................................................................................ 3

1.2 Background ...................................................................................................... 4

1.3 History of the Howard County Hazard Mitigation Plan ................................. 4

1.4 Participating Jurisdictions ............................................................................... 6

1.5 The Update Process ......................................................................................... 8

Section 2: Planning Area Profile and Capabilities ............... 15

2.1 Geography and Ecology ...............................................................................15

2.2 Climate ..........................................................................................................20

2.3 History ..........................................................................................................22

2.4 Natural Hazard History .................................................................................23

2.5 Demographics ...............................................................................................26

2.6 Education ......................................................................................................29

2.7 Employment and Income ..............................................................................31

2.8 Transportation and Commuting Patterns ......................................................34

2.9 Planning Area Capabilities ...........................................................................38

Legal Authority ..................................................................................................................... 38

Policy, Planning, and Program Capabilities ......................................................................... 39

Emergency Operations Plan .......................................................................................... 40

Other Regulations ......................................................................................................... 40

National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) ................................................................... 40

Communications and Media ......................................................................................... 41

Special Districts .................................................................................................................... 45

Fire Protection Districts ................................................................................................ 45

Water Districts .............................................................................................................. 47

Ambulance District ....................................................................................................... 48

Road Districts............................................................................................................... 48

Non-Governmental and Volunteer Organizations ................................................................ 49

Community and Regional Partnerships ................................................................................ 49

Political Willpower ............................................................................................................... 49

2.10 Participating Jurisdictions - Profiles and Assets ........................................50

Overview of Planning Area .................................................................................................. 50

Howard County ..................................................................................................................... 54

Armstrong ............................................................................................................................. 59

Fayette ................................................................................................................................... 61

Glasgow ................................................................................................................................ 64

New Franklin ........................................................................................................................ 67

New Franklin R-I School District ......................................................................................... 70

Howard Co. R-II School District .......................................................................................... 71

Fayette R-III School District ................................................................................................. 72

Central Methodist University ................................................................................................ 73

Howard Co. Consolidated Public Water Supply District #1................................................. 75

Howard Co. Regional Water Commission............................................................................ 77

Section 3: Risk Assessment .................................................... 79

3.1 Introduction and Methodology ......................................................................79

Identification of Hazards....................................................................................................... 79

Profiling of Hazards .............................................................................................................. 80

Assessment of Vulnerability ................................................................................................. 81

Inventory of Assets ............................................................................................................... 83

3.2 Hazard Profiles and Vulnerability Overviews ..............................................84

3.2.1 Dam Failure ................................................................................................................ 84

3.2.2 Drought ...................................................................................................................... 101

3.2.3 Earthquake ................................................................................................................. 109

3.2.4 Extreme Heat ............................................................................................................ 121

3.2.5 Flood ......................................................................................................................... 127

National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) Repetitive Loss Properties ...................... 146

National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) ................................................................. 147

3.2.6 Land Subsidence/Sinkhole ......................................................................................... 150

3.2.7 Levee Failure ............................................................................................................. 153

3.2.8 Severe Winter Weather .............................................................................................. 167

3.2.9 Wildfire ...................................................................................................................... 174

3.2.10 Windstorm, Tornado, and Hailstorm ...................................................................... 183

Windstorm....................................................................................................................... 186

Tornado ........................................................................................................................... 190

Hailstorm......................................................................................................................... 195

Section 4: Mitigation Strategy ............................................. 201

4.1 Hazard Mitigation Goals ..............................................................................201

4.2 Update of Mitigation Actions .......................................................................202

4.3 Mitigation Goals, Objectives, and Actions ..................................................213

Mitigation Actions – Hazards Addressed and Applicable Jurisdictions ............................. 216

Mitigation Actions Addressing Compliance with NFIP Requirements .............................. 220

4.4 Prioritization, Implementation, and Administration ....................................221

4.4.1 Prioritization of Actions using STAPLEE and Benefit/Cost Reviews ..................... 221

4.4.2 Implementation and Administration in Participating Jurisdictions .......................... 231

Howard County ............................................................................................................... 232

Armstrong ....................................................................................................................... 241

Fayette ............................................................................................................................. 244

Glasgow .......................................................................................................................... 250

New Franklin .................................................................................................................. 256

New Franklin R-I School District ................................................................................... 261

Howard County R-II School District .............................................................................. 265

Fayette R-III School District ........................................................................................... 269

Central Methodist University .......................................................................................... 273

Howard Co. Consolidated Public Water Supply District #1........................................... 276

Howard Co. Regional Water Commission...................................................................... 278

4.5 Funding Sources ...........................................................................................281

Section 5: Plan Maintenance Process ................................. 287

5.1 Plan Monitoring and Evaluation ...................................................................287

5.2 Plan Updating ...............................................................................................289

5.3 Public Participation in Plan Maintenance ....................................................290

Appendix A - Adoption Resolutions .................................... 291

Appendix B - Meeting Announcements and Agendas ........ 303

Appendix C - Planning Meeting Participants ..................... 319

Appendix D - Jurisdictional Value Statements .................. 324

Appendix E - Vulnerability Chart ....................................... 333

Appendix F - Earthquake National Exercise Invitation .... 335

Appendix G - Fire District Burning Ordinances ................ 337

Appendix H - Priority Scale Development .......................... 342

Addendum: Yearly Monitoring and Evaluation of Plan ... 344

2013 Monitoring and Evaluation ........................................................................344

Overview of Hazard Events in Howard County ................................................................. 344

Survey of Participating Jurisdictions .................................................................................. 349

Continuity of Operations Planning Workshops .................................................................. 352

Changes Made in Plan .......................................................... 354

“Across the United States, natural, manmade, and other disasters have led to increasing numbers of deaths, injuries, property damages, and disruptions of business and government services. This can take an immense toll on people, businesses and government, especially in these challenging economic times. The time, money and effort to respond to and recover from disasters divert public resources and attention from other important programs. Hazard mitigation is defined by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) as any action taken to eliminate or reduce the long-term risk to human life and property from hazards and their effects. This is crucial to the residents, businesses, and governments of Missouri. Hazard Mitigation is the only phase of emergency management specifically dedicated to breaking the cycle of damage, reconstruction, and repeated damage.”

- Missouri State Hazard Mitigation Plan, July 2010

List of Acronyms Used in Plan CDBG – Community Development Block Grant CSIP – Comprehensive School Improvement Plan DED – Department of Economic Development DHSS - Department of Health and Senior Services EMD – Emergency Management Director EAP – Emergency Action Plan EOC – Emergency Operations Center EOP - Emergency Operations Plan FCC – Federal Communications Commission FEMA - Federal Emergency Management Agency FIRM - Flood Insurance Rate Map HAZUS-MH - Risk assessment software program for analyzing potential losses from floods, hurricane winds and earthquakes HCEDC – Howard County Economic Development Council MDFS - Missouri Division of Fire Safety Mid-MO RPC – Mid-Missouri Regional Planning Commission MMI - Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale MoDNR – Missouri Department of Natural Resources MoDOT – Missouri Department of Transportation MSA – Metropolitan Statistical Area MSHSAA - Missouri State High School Activities Association MULES – a law enforcement computer data network used by the Missouri Highway Patrol NAWAS – National Warning System NDMC - National Drought Mitigation Center NFIP – National Flood Insurance Program NMSZ - New Madrid Seismic Zone NOAA - National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NWS – National Weather Service OMB - U.S. Office of Management and Budget PDSI - Palmer Drought Severity Index PWSD – Public Water Supply District RSMo – Revised Statutes of Missouri SAME – Specific Area Message Encoding SEMA - State Emergency Management Agency SoVI™ - Social Vulnerability Index SPI - Standardized Precipitation Index STAPLEE – a prioritization tool using Social, Technical, Administrative, Political, Legal, Economic, and Environmental factors for analysis USDA - U.S. Department of Agriculture USGS - United States Geological Survey USFWS – United States Fish and Wildlife Service

Executive Summary

The Howard County Hazard Mitigation Plan is a multi-jurisdictional plan prepared and written with the participation of Howard County government and the following Howard County communities, school districts, special districts, and university: City of Armstrong, City of Fayette, City of New Franklin, City of Glasgow, New Franklin R-I School District, Howard County R-II School District, Fayette R-III School District, Central Methodist University, Armstrong Fire Protection District, Fayette Fire Department, Howard Co. Fire Protection District, Glasgow Special Road District, Bonne Femme Levee District #1, Howard Co. Levee District # 2, Howard Co. Drainage District # 3, Howard Co. Levee District # 4, Howard Co. Levee District #6, Howard Co. Drainage District # 7, Howard Co. Consolidated Public Water Supply District #1 and Howard County Regional Water Commission.

Howard County, Armstrong, Fayette, New Franklin, Glasgow, New Franklin R-I School District, Howard County R-II School District, Fayette R-III School District, Central Methodist University, Howard Co. Consolidated Public Water Supply District #1 and Howard County Regional Water Commission completed the requirements to be considered participating jurisdictions in the plan.

The plan profiles twelve natural hazards (Dam Failure, Drought, Earthquake, Extreme Heat, Flood, Levee Failure, Land Subsidence/Sinkhole, Severe Winter Weather, Wildfire, Windstorm, Tornado, and Hailstorm) which threaten lives and property in some, or all, of the participating jurisdictions. All hazards were evaluated with regard to previous occurrence, probability and severity of future occurrence, existing mitigation strategies, and the potential impact on each jurisdiction.

An overall mitigation strategy was developed through the consideration of potential threats and the resources and willpower available to mitigate their effects. The goals of this mitigation strategy are:

Goal 1: Mitigation Planning - Mitigate effects of future natural hazards throughout the County through public and private cooperation.

Goal 2: Mitigation Policy - Develop policies that limit the impact of natural hazards on lives and property.

Goal 3: Mitigation Programs - Implement cost effective and feasible mitigation programs to protect lives and property of Howard County jurisdictions.

Goal 4: Public Awareness - Increase public awareness of natural hazards in order to make the public a greater partner in hazard mitigation planning.

Goal 5: Future Development - Promote hazard-proof development in the jurisdictions of Howard County.

Specific mitigation actions have been developed and prioritized to further the goals of the overall mitigation strategy in each participating jurisdiction.

2 Howard County Hazard Mitigation Plan

The Howard Hazard Mitigation Plan will be formally adopted by each of the participating jurisdictions after a final draft is approved by FEMA. Participation in, and formal adoption of, the plan qualifies a jurisdiction to apply for Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) pre-disaster mitigation grants and the mitigation portion of post-disaster mitigation grants.

The plan will be updated in five years, as required by FEMA. It will be evaluated and maintained on an annual basis prior to this update.

Prerequisites Multi-Jurisdictional Plan Adoption

Requirement §201.6(c)(5): For multi-jurisdictional plans, each jurisdiction requesting approval

of the plan must document that it has been formally adopted.

Adoption resolutions for the participating jurisdictions are included in Appendix A.

Section 1: Introduction and Planning Process 1.1 Purpose The Howard County Hazard Mitigation Plan is designed as a resource for county and municipal governments, residents, developers, organizations, and others interested in controlling the potentially disastrous effects of natural hazards in Howard County. Each year natural hazards take a great toll in the United States. Howard County is not immune; it is subject to numerous natural hazards which can threaten life and property. A well-conceived mitigation strategy, developed through an inclusive and thoughtful planning process, is an important step in protecting citizens and reducing loss. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) defines mitigation as “sustained action taken to reduce or eliminate long-term risk to people and their property from hazards and their effects.” A 2006 study by the Institute for Building Science found that $4 was saved in post-disaster response and recovery for every $1 spent on pre-disaster mitigation. The Howard County Hazard Mitigation Plan was developed by the communities and citizens of Howard County, their elected officials and public servants. The process was carried out by identifying the natural hazards that impact Howard County and its residents, assessing the probability of occurrence and severity posed by each hazard, identifying the most vulnerable areas, and evaluating all possible mitigation actions which might be effective. Potential mitigation actions were assessed and prioritized based on the perceived need, probable outcome, potential for being executed, and benefit related to cost. The plan was developed in accordance with FEMA’s Mitigation Planning regulations under Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Title 44, Part 201.6, Local Mitigation Plans. Relevant requirements from CFR §201.6 are highlighted throughout the plan. Multiple jurisdictions within Howard County participated in the development of this plan. Having a current and approved hazard mitigation plan makes each of the participating jurisdictions eligible to apply for FEMA pre-disaster mitigation grants and the mitigation portion of post-disaster mitigation grants.


1.2 Background Responding to and mitigating for natural disasters has been a subject of increasing focus for the federal government in the past decades. The process for declaring Presidential Disasters was established with the passage of the Disaster Relief Act of 1974. In 1988, the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act created the organizational framework through which funds and assistance would be provided after a Presidential Disaster Declaration; FEMA was designated to coordinate the relief efforts. In 1993, FEMA created the Mitigation Directorate to oversee hazard mitigation. This established mitigation as the cornerstone of emergency management. The Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 further defined activities related to disaster relief and mitigation; one of its provisions encourages development of hazard mitigation measures, including land use and construction regulations. 1.3 History of the Howard County Hazard Mitigation Plan In November 2003, a “current and approved” hazard mitigation plan became a FEMA eligibility requirement for local jurisdictions applying for pre-disaster mitigation grants and the mitigation portion of post-disaster grant funds. Due to this change in FEMA grant requirements, the Missouri State Emergency Management Agency (SEMA) contracted with the Missouri Council of Governments for the Regional Planning Commissions to direct hazard mitigation planning for interested counties within their respective regions. Howard County, a member of the Mid-Missouri Regional Planning Commission (Mid-MO RPC), contracted with the Mid-MO RPC to facilitate the development of a hazard mitigation plan for the county. The original Howard County Hazard Mitigation Plan was approved by FEMA and adopted by the participating jurisdictions in February 2006. Maintenance of Plan and Hazard Mitigation Activities 2006-2011 The Howard County Hazard Mitigation Plan 2006 was written to be a working document to guide participating jurisdictions in the county in the work of mitigating potential hazards. To this effect, the plan has been publicly available on the website of the Mid-MO RPC (www.mmrpc.org) since it was approved and adopted in 2006. During the ensuing years, the Mid-MO RPC has kept the jurisdictions informed of mitigation grant opportunities through letters, the RPC’s monthly newsletter (The Current), and announcements at meetings of the RPC.

The maintenance plan in the original document called for an annual review of the plan by the Howard County Hazard Mitigation Steering Committee, facilitated by the Mid-MO RPC. These annual reviews did not take place; lack of a defined time table for the reviews, shortage of time and personnel, and personnel changes all played a role in this omission. The updated plan lays out a clearly defined maintenance process with a timetable for review and a concrete tool to be employed in the review (see Section 5.1). While the annual review of the Hazard Mitigation Plan did not occur, there has been mitigation activity taking place in the Planning Area since the original plan was adopted. In the current update review process (see Section 4.2), the following actions in the original plan were identified as completed:

• Create, revise and update Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs). (The FIRM maps were updated in 2009.)

• Raise minimum flood protection level from the Base Flood Elevation (BFE) to 1’ or 2’

above BFE.

• Pass ordinance to not allow development in mapped floodway.

• Identify vulnerable populations needing potential relocation to shelter in event of power outage.

• Develop evacuation procedures for dams. (This is included in the Howard County LEOP (Local Emergency Operations Plan).)

• Identify multiple sources of water in areas currently receiving water from minimal

supplies. The following actions were identified as completed or currently taking place; due to their nature, they will continue as ongoing actions in the plan:

• Review and update flood damage prevention ordinance to ensure maximum protection from flood hazard events.

• Adopt and enforce latest model building codes and national engineering standards. (This

has been completed in the City of Fayette.)

• Ensure that manufactured homes are secured to ground to maximize their longevity. (This has been completed in the Cities of Fayette and New Franklin.)

• Establish formal agreements with appropriate shelter locations throughout the County.

• Evaluate access problems to critical infrastructure in the event of a flood.


• Develop public education hazard awareness program.

• Ensure that school buses have two-way radios on board.

• Have alternate power supplies for fueling emergency vehicles.

• Ensure reliable warning system and dissemination of information regarding high wind situations throughout county.

• Promote the use of NOAA radios

• Provide public education materials before storm events to inform people of the danger of icy roads

• Encourage safe driving through public education campaigns, community events, etc.

• Remove vegetation and combustible materials around critical infrastructure.

1.4 Participating Jurisdictions

Requirement §201.6(a)(3):

Multi-jurisdictional plans…may be accepted, as appropriate, as long as each jurisdiction has participated in the process….Statewide plans will not be accepted as multi-jurisdictional plans.

The Howard County Hazard Mitigation Plan is a multi-jurisdictional plan. Planners from the Mid-MO RPC (Plan Author) developed the following criteria for a jurisdiction to qualify as a participating jurisdiction:

1. Participation in the planning process through planning meetings 2. Completion of survey re: jurisdiction 3. Development of plan for administration and implementation of mitigation actions specific

to jurisdiction 4. Review of plan draft 5. Formal adoption of plan after approval by FEMA

The participating jurisdictions in the original plan (2006) and those participating to any degree in the updated plan (2012) are shown in Figure 1.4.1. The chart also tracks the completion of the criteria for inclusion as a participating jurisdiction in the plan. The column on the far right of the chart in Figure 1.4.1 (“2012 Participating Jurisdictions”) indicates those jurisdictions which have completed the above requirements and are requesting approval of the plan prior to formal adoption. The term “Planning Area” is used in the plan to indicate, as a whole, all of the jurisdictions which participated in the planning process to any degree.

Figure 1.4.1

JurisdictionParticipating Jurisdiction

(2006)

Group Meetings

Individual Meetings/ Contacts

Planning Meeting(s)

Survey Completed

Review of Draft

Mitigation Actions

Formal Adoption

Participating Jurisdiction

(2012)

Howard County x x x x x x x x xCity of Armstrong x x x x x x x x xCity of Fayette x x x x x x x x xCity of Franklin x xCity of Glasgow x x x x x x x xCity of New Franklin x x x x x x x x xNew Franklin R-I School District

x x x x x x x

Howard Co. R-II School District

x x x x x x x

Fayette R-III School District

x x x x x x x x

Central Methodist University

x x x x x x x x

Howard Co. CPWSD #1 x x x x x x x

Howard Co. Regional Water Commission x x x x x x x

Armstrong Fire Protection District x x x

Howard Co. Fire Protection District

x x x

Glasgow Special Road District

x x x

Bonne Femme Levee District #1

x x x x

Howard Co. Levee District # 2

x x

Howard Co. Drainage District # 3

x x

Howard Co. Levee District #4

x x x

Howard Co. Levee District #6

x x

Howard Co. Drainage District # 7

x x

Multi-jurisdictional Plan ParticipantsUpdate Process

(2011) Participating Jurisdiction Criteria Met


1.5 The Update Process

Requirement §201.6(c)(1):

[The plan shall document] the planning process used to develop the plan, including how it was prepared, who was involved in the process, and how the public was involved.

A Hazard Mitigation Plan must be updated and adopted by the participating jurisdictions every five years to be considered current. The update process for the current plan commenced in March 2011; the update was directed by the Mid-MO RPC (Plan Author) as specified by contract with Howard County. Susan Galeota, Regional Planner, was the lead planner for the update; maps were developed by Katrina Thomas, Regional Planner/GIS Specialist. Mid-MO RPC planners decided on the following general planning process for the update:

1. Initial update of technical data in charts and graphs (e.g. storm history events, population statistics, etc.) by Mid-MO RPC staff

2. Planning meetings in Howard County for review of plan and decisions on the following: • Sections of plan to be updated • Review of each hazard profile and mitigation actions from the original plan • General discussion of each hazard and mitigation needed for future • Prioritization of mitigation actions for updated plan using general cost: benefit

review 3. Survey to officials of participating jurisdictions regarding assets and critical infrastructure 4. Incorporation of survey information into update draft 5. Presentation of update draft to officials of participating jurisdictions, neighboring

jurisdictions, the public, interested agencies, businesses, and non-profits 6. Initial SEMA review of preliminary draft 7. Continuing work on update of the plan 8. Review of mitigation actions by participating jurisdictions including development of

plans for implementation and administration of mitigation actions within the jurisdictions 9. Ongoing incorporation of feedback into update draft with continuing review by the those

involved in the planning process 10. Presentation of final draft for public comment before SEMA/FEMA final approval 11. Adoption of FEMA approved plan by participating jurisdictions

Planning Meetings The Emergency Management Agency in Howard County is well connected with the citizens and officials throughout the County. The Emergency Management Directors, Bill John and Bryan Kunze, sent letters to county and city officials, school districts, fire districts, water districts, special road districts, and levee districts to initiate the planning process in the County. General planning meetings were held March through May of 2011. Public notice was given for the meetings in accordance with Missouri’s “Sunshine Law” (Revised Statutes of Missouri 610.010, 610.020, 610.023, and 610.024.)

In addition to posting and dissemination of notices, the meetings were announced in the calendar of events on the website of the Mid-Missouri Regional Planning Commission (Plan Author) at www.mmmrpc.org. The Mid-Missouri Regional Planning Commission (Mid-MO RPC) is the regional planning commission for a 6 county area in central Missouri. Posting of the meetings and articles on the website assisted in informing personnel in neighboring counties that the hazard mitigation plan was being updated in Howard County.

A brief summary of each planning meeting is included in Figure 1.5.1. Public notices of the meetings (with the tentative agenda) are included in Appendix B. Lists of those present at each planning meeting are included in Appendix C. Copies of the actual sign-in sheets from meetings are on file at Mid-Missouri Regional Planning Commission. Figure 1.5.1

Planning Committee Meetings Meeting Agenda Date

General Planning #1 General Overview: mitigation, hazard mitigation plans, update process, benefits of participation, requirements for participating jurisdictions

3/9/2011

General Planning #2 Measures of Probability and Severity; decision made to update all sections of plan; hazard profiling and mitigation actions for Levee Failure

3/23/2011

General Planning #3 Hazard profiling and mitigation actions for Flooding and Wildfire 4/13/2011

General Planning #4 Hazard profiling and mitigation actions for Tornado, Windstorm, Hailstorm, and Severe Winter Weather 4/26/2011

General Planning #5

Hazard profiling and mitigation actions for Earthquake including participation in National Level exercise; hazard profiling and mitigation actions for Land Subsidence/Sinkholes, Drought, and Extreme Heat

5/18/2011

Public Presentation (#1) of Draft of Update

Presentation of an overview of the plan benefits and requirements, planning process, evaluation of the hazards affecting the Planning Area, and mitigation actions in the plan. Question and comment period followed presentation.

8/8/2011

School District Meeting

Discussion of mitigation actions for the school districts and administration/implementation of those actions. 8/8/2011

Public Presentation (#2) of Updated Plan

Public presentation of the updated plan, followed by a question and answer period, before submission to SEMA/FEMA for review. 11/9/2011

In addition to the group planning meetings, other information was gathered by the Plan Author through individual meetings, phone conversations and emails with representatives of participating jurisdictions and others with information relevant to the plan. This was necessary in part because finding a meeting time (evening versus day) which would allow attendance by all parties was difficult.


Planning Participation There was a wide-ranging participation in the update of the Howard County Hazard Mitigation Plan, both with the Planning Area as a whole and within the individual jurisdictions. The primary planning representatives from each of the jurisdictions participating in the process are shown in Figure 1.5.2. In addition, there were other staff members or departments members who attended a meeting or assisted in the planning process in some way.

Figure 1.5.2

Jurisdiction Name PositionBill John Emergency Management DirectorBryan Kunze Emergency Management DirectorSherri Beeler 911 DirectorGary Dillon Roads and Bridges DepartmentFred Stroupe MayorBob Cramer President of Park BoardRobin Triplett City AdministratorMarvin Hilgedick Electrical Line SuperintendentJeff Stockhorst Street SuperintendentKyle Conrow Fayette Fire Dept.Jeff Oswald Fayette Police Dept.David Ford Fayette Police Dept.

City of Glasgow Kevin Atwood City Administrator/Police ChiefCity of New Franklin Pat Cunningham City AdministratorNew Franklin R-I School District David Haggard SuperintendentHoward Co. R-II School District Mike Reynolds SuperintendentFayette R-III School District James F. Judd Superintendent

Rosemarie Adams Grants SpecialistDerry Wiswall Director of Plant OperationsJane Harris ClerkRobbie Harvey Chief Water Operator

Howard Co. Regional Water Commission Pat Cunningham Board SecretaryArmstrong Fire Protection District Glenn Spotts Vice PresidentFayette Fire Dept. Jeff Oswald Volunteer

David Kunze Board PresidentTed Townlain VolunteerTim Hill VolunteerW. Michael Monnig CommissionerJim Dobbins Grader operatorRandy Kircher PresidentGene Sandner Secretary/Treasurer

Howard Co. Levee District # 2 Larry Wilmsmeyer SecretaryHoward Co. Drainage District # 3 Eric Colvin SecretaryHoward Co. Levee District #4 Kendall Kircher PresidentHoward Co. Levee District #6 William Lay SecretaryHoward Co. Drainage District # 7 Robert Seltsam President

Howard Co. Cons. PWSD #1

Bonne Femme Levee District #1

Primary Planning Representatives

Howard County

City of Armstrong

Glasgow Special Road District

Howard Co. Fire Protection District

City of Fayette


Public Meetings for Comment and Input

Requirement §201.6(b):

In order to develop a more comprehensive approach to reducing the effects of natural disasters, the planning process shall include: (1) An opportunity for the public to comment on the plan during the drafting stage and prior to plan approval;


In order to develop a more comprehensive approach to reducing the effects of natural disasters, the planning process shall include: (2) An opportunity for neighboring communities, local and regional agencies involved in hazard mitigation activities, and agencies that have the authority to regulate development, as well as businesses, academia and other private and non-profit interests to be involved in the planning process;

While all planning meetings were posted as public meetings in accordance with Missouri’s Sunshine Law, two meetings were held specifically to elicit public comment and input on the update of this plan:

1. Meeting during drafting stage: August 8, 2011, 8-9 am, Commercial Trust Bank, Fayette. 2. Meeting prior to submission to FEMA for final approval: November 9, 7 pm,

Commercial Trust Bank, Fayette.

In addition to being posted in accordance with Missouri’s Sunshine Law, these meetings were announced through the following:

• Press releases sent to the local newspapers in the Planning Area: The Fayette Advertiser & The Democrat Leader The Glasgow Missourian

• Direct email invitations to Emergency Management Directors in the surrounding counties (Boone, Chariton, Cooper, Randolph, and Saline)

• Direct email invitation to Jo Ann Sumner of Howard Co. Economic Development Council (HCEDC) requesting that the email be forwarded to all members of HCEDC

• Public notice posting at Mid-Missouri Regional Planning Commission office • Calendar listing on the Mid-Missouri Regional Planning Commission website

(www.mmmrpc.org)

The meeting announcements and press releases are included in Appendix B. Lists of those present at each meeting are included in Appendix C; copies of the actual sign-in sheets are on file at the Mid-MO RPC.


Summary of Changes to Structure of Plan The decision was made early in the planning process (General Planning Meeting #2) to update each section of the plan. The original plan was written early in FEMA’s decision making cycle regarding interpretation of requirements for Hazard Mitigation Plans. An overview of changes and updates made to the original plan structure is shown in Figure 1.5.3. Figure 1.5.3

General Review and Update of Plan by Section

Description Pages

(Original Plan)

Revised

Executive Summary 7 Yes Howard County Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee All information on the planning process is included in Section 1 of the update. 8 Yes

Project Managers All information on the planning process is included in Section 1 of the update. 8 Yes

Section 1: Introduction Moved some material from Section 1 to more appropriate sections in the plan. Added some material and reorganized according to the following subsections: Purpose, Background, History of the Howard County Hazard Mitigation Plan, Participating Jurisdictions, and The Update Process. Material on Plan Monitoring was moved to a new Section in updated plan (Section 5: Plan Maintenance Process).

9-16 Yes

Section 2: Community Profile Updated all charts and graphs to reflect more recent data. NFIP information moved to Section 3 under Flood. Section was reorganized and renamed "Planning Area Profile and Capabilities" for updated plan.

17-36 Yes

Section 3: Risk Assessment Updated all charts and graphs; edited text to reflect new information; changed rating system of each hazard to "Measure of Probability and Severity" using a rating system modeled on the one in the Missouri State Hazard Mitigation Plan 2010; reorganized hazard profiles and made specific changes to each hazard profile to make the plan a more relevant and useful document; reformatted vulnerability assessments to meet current interpretation of FEMA guidelines; removed hazard profile worksheets.

37-122 Yes

Section 4: Capability Assessment Section removed entirely: this information is now in Section 2. 123-134 Yes

Section 5: Mitigation Goals and Strategies Updated the mitigation actions to reflect decisions made by those involved in the planning process. This is now Section 4 in the update and is entitled "Mitigation Strategy".

135-168 Yes

Section 6: Plan Maps Removed all maps; numerous new maps created. 169-180 Yes

Section 7: FEMA Repetitive Losses Table Removed this section; this is now discussed in Section 3 under Flood. 181 Yes

Endnotes Removed this section; cited sources in the body of the text or in charts. 183-184 Yes

Appendix A: Jurisdiction Resolutions Replaced resolutions with current resolutions for updated plan. na Yes

The plan was also restructured from its original organization to promote readability and flow. The current plan’s organization is as follows:

Table of Contents Executive Summary Prerequisites Section 1: Introduction and Planning Process Section 2: Planning Area Profile and Capabilities Section 3: Risk Assessment Section 4: Mitigation Strategy Section 5: Plan Maintenance Process Appendices

Sources Consulted


In order to develop a more comprehensive approach to reducing the effects of natural disasters, the planning process shall include: (3) Review and incorporation, if appropriate, of existing plans, studies, reports, and technical information.

Many existing plans, studies, and reports were consulted in the development of this plan. These include:

• The Missouri State Hazard Mitigation Plan (2010), State Emergency Management Agency (SEMA), was used extensively in developing the hazard profiles and vulnerability assessments in Section 3. Some information from the 2007 State Plan (not included in the 2010 State Plan) was also used in this plan.

• The Missouri Hazard Analysis (2010), SEMA, was used in developing the hazard profiles in Section 3.

• Howard County Local Emergency Operations Plan (LEOP) - Relevant information

from the LEOP has been integrated into the appropriate sections of the Howard County Hazard Mitigation Plan, specifically in the section on Communications and Media.

• SEMA Situation Reports were used in profiling previous occurrences of some of the

natural hazards (Section 3). The Situation Reports document levels of damage and disruption (by county) for major events. The type of information potentially available includes power outages and restoration progress, sheltering needs, and buildings damaged. This information was used to supplement the more generalized NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) data. (Note: In the early drafting stages of this plan, an archive of Situation Reports was available online; due to a remake of the SEMA website, only more recent reports appear to be available at the current time.)


• The Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy for the Mid-MO Region (CEDS, 2009), Mid-MO Regional Planning Commission, was used in developing the Planning Area Profile (Section 2).

• The Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP), Missouri Department of Transportation, was used in developing the Transportation section (Section 2.8).

• The Regional Transportation Plan (2009), Mid-MO Regional Planning Commission,

was used in developing the Transportation section (Section 2.8).

• The Atlas of Missouri Ecoregions, Missouri Department of Conservation, was used as the source for the Geography and Ecology section (Section 2.1).

• The Missouri Drought Plan (2002), Missouri Department of Natural Resources, was

used to develop the Hazard Profile on Drought.

• A History of Northeast Missouri (1913), edited by Walter Williams, was used in developing the brief histories of the County and its communities in Section 2.

Section 2: Planning Area Profile and Capabilities 2.1 Geography and Ecology Howard County is located in central Missouri with an area covering approximately 466 square miles. It is approximately midway between Kansas City to the west and St. Louis to the east. The county is bordered on the south and southwest by the Missouri River, which separates it from Cooper and Saline Counties, respectively. It is bordered on the northwest by Chariton County, on the north by Randolph County, and on the east by Boone County. Ecologically, the county is situated where the Ozark Highlands to the south meet the plains to the north. Ozark Highlands Most of the county, except for the northwest section, is located in the northern part of the Ozark Highlands. The Atlas of Missouri Ecoregions, published by the Missouri Department of Conservation, describes the Ozark Highlands as a distinctive biogeographic region that includes most of southern Missouri and much of northern Arkansas and small parts of Illinois, Oklahoma, and Kansas. Geologically, the Ozark Highlands is a low structural dome of essentially horizontally bedded strata that has been undergoing erosion and weathering for a quarter billion years into a thoroughly dissected plateau. The Ozark Highlands is very diverse biologically and geographically with rugged hills, prairies, savannas, and open woodlands. The predominant underlying bedrock is carbonate (limestone and dolomite), giving rise to karst topographic features such as caves, underground streams, and sinkholes. The majority of land in Howard County falls into two different subsections of the Ozark Highlands distinguished by differing landforms, soils, and vegetation (see Figure 2.1.1). In turn, these subsections give rise to differences in land use patterns, conservation needs, and vulnerability to certain natural hazards.


Figure 2.1.1

The following information summarized from the Atlas of Missouri Ecoregions gives brief descriptions of the landtypes found within the Ozark Highlands subsections in Howard County.

Missouri River Alluvial Plain This subsection, consisting of the Missouri River channel and its adjoining alluvial plain, is found along the southern and southwestern border of the county. Soils are deep and loamy and the area is subject to riverine flooding. Historically, the vegetation was typical bottomland species such as cottonwood, willow, sycamore, silver maple, elm, and hackberry. The area is primarily used for cropland. The cities of Franklin and New Franklin are located at least partially in the Missouri River Alluvial Plain.

Outer Ozark Border This subsection comprises most of the land area of the County, except for that in the northwest and along the Missouri River channel. The land is transitional between the Ozarks and the Dissected Till Plain. Local relief of 150 feet may reach 200 feet near the Missouri River. The uplands have a covering of loess over till; the loess may be quite deep in the blufflands. Deep ravines are found in some areas. Springs are saline and streams tend to be also. Historically, the area was oak forest. Currently, the area is predominantly pasture with cropland; second-growth forests and cedar thickets are found in isolated patches. The City of Fayette is located in the Outer Ozark Border. Central Dissected Till Plains The northwest part of the county is located in the Central Dissected Till Plains, which the Atlas of Missouri Ecoregions describes as

characterized by moderately dissected glaciated plains that slope regionally toward the Missouri and Mississippi Rivers. The section covers almost all of Missouri north of the Missouri River and extends into southern Iowa and portions of Kansas, Nebraska, and Illinois. In Missouri, the ecoregion is blanketed with Pleistocene loess over glacial till that varies in thickness from complete absence in peripheral regions to over three hundred feet thick in northern Missouri.

More specifically, the land in Howard County is found in two subsections of the Central Dissected Till Plains, the Loess Hills Subsection and the Chariton River Hills Subsection (see Figure 2.1.1).

Loess Hills Subsection This subsection, which comprises most of northwest Howard County including the cities of Glasgow and Armstrong, consists of rugged, deep loess hills with local relief typically over 200 feet. Historically, the area was forested with oak and other hardwoods. Currently, second growth forests remain along with pasture and scattered croplands.

Chariton River Hills Subsection A small slip of the land east of Armstrong belongs to this subsection which is characterized by local reliefs of 100-200 feet and moderately wide valleys. The southern part of this subsection was mined for coal, but much of the land has been reclaimed. The area is currently cropland and pastureland.


Current Land Use

Current land use in Howard County is shown in Figure 2.1.2.

Figure 2.1.2

The Missouri River The Missouri River's relationship to Howard County deserves special attention. It is the defining physical feature in Mid-Missouri and forms the southern and southwestern borders of the County. The location of population centers close to the river has meant significant flooding damage in the County in the recent past (see Section 2.4). The Missouri River is the longest river in the nation; it measures 2,341 miles long, according to the U.S. Geological Survey. The river drains approximately one sixth of the North American continent and is only a few hundred miles from its confluence with the Mississippi River at St. Louis when it flows through mid-Missouri. Flood control structures, power plants, and other engineering projects have profoundly changed the course of the river since Lewis and Clark first traversed it in the early 1800s. In recent years debates over the future of the Missouri River have taken place among the seven states through which it run. Commercial river traffic, recreational use, environmental concerns, managing river levels to comply with the needs of endangered species, and the preservation of sacred and historical sites along the river and floodplain are all issues which make the management of the river a sensitive balancing act. In both 1994 and 1995 the Missouri River was listed as one of the “10 Most Endangered Rivers in the Country” by American Rivers, a river conservation group (http://www.americanrivers.org/) . This “Most Endangered” list does not reflect the rivers in the worst condition; rather, it seeks to highlight rivers “confronted by decisions in the coming year that could determine their future.” The Missouri River was chosen for the list in the mid-1990s because of dam, channelization, navigation, and agricultural runoff issues. The flooding of the river in 2011 brought the controversy over its management into sharp focus. Record snowfalls in the Rockies combined with heavy spring rains to result in record water releases from six reservoirs on the river. Flooding occurred along the river from Montana to Missouri; Howard County dealt with high river levels for most of the summer and was included in a Presidential Disaster Declaration for flooding. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers came under sharp criticism for not releasing water earlier in the season so the reservoirs would be able to accommodate the snow melt and rains. Meetings were held throughout the Missouri River Basin where local frustration was voiced over species protection and recreation being prioritized over flood control in river management decisions.


2.2 Climate Howard County, like the rest of the state of Missouri, has variable weather patterns and extremes of temperature. With its central continental location, Missouri receives air masses bringing weather from all directions. Warm humid air from the Gulf of Mexico can bring moisture year round and is the principal source of precipitation in the spring, summer, and fall; in contrast, air from other directions may be hot and dry (southwest), warm and dry (west), cold (northwest and north), cool and moist (northeast). The flow from the different source regions typically changes in a matter of days, giving rise to the commonly heard expression in Missouri, “If you don’t like the weather, wait a day.” At times, the flow of air from one of the source regions will settle in and persist for weeks or months. These periods are associated with particular upper air flow patterns and associated surface conditions. The Missouri State Hazard Mitigation Plan quotes Dr. Grant Darkow of the University of Missouri - Department of Atmospheric Science on the importance of understanding these weather patterns: “The persistence of these weather patterns and the possible resulting condition is the subject of several of the natural disasters discussed in this study. Specifically, floods, droughts, fires, heat waves, severe cold, and winter storms can be the result of the persistence of one of these weather patterns, whereas tornadoes can represent the outgrowth of rapid shifts in weather patterns. Knowing these patterns may assist in alerting disaster planners and the general public to the possibility of a developing emergency situation.” While Howard County does have extreme variations in weather at times, there is a relative pattern of temperature and rainfall consistent with a humid continental climate (see Figures 2.2.1 and 2.2.2). The data shown in the charts was collected at the New Franklin weather station in the years 1961-1990. The rainfall data showed an average of 37.1” of rainfall per year; average rainfall in this data set is defined as including precipitation of any form.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

J F M A M J J A S O N D Yr

High

24-hr

Low

Source: http://www.worldclimate.com/cgi-bin/grid.pl?gr=N39W092

Fig. 2.2.1

Average Temperature in Howard County °F, 1961-1990


2.3 History The area which is now Howard County first gained attention of European Americans when the famous Lewis and Clark expedition explored the banks of the Missouri River. Their voyage stopped in and near Howard County both on their outgoing and homeward journeys in 1804 and 1806 respectively. The county was officially organized on January 23, 1816 and took its name from Benjamin Howard, the first governor of the Missouri Territory. It received its nickname, the “Mother of Counties," because it was the first county in the Boon's Lick region of central Missouri and “gave birth” to most of the surrounding counties. Twenty-nine counties were eventually carved out of the original area of Howard County. Agriculture Howard County has had an important connection to agriculture for a long time. The first European settlers moved to the area in the early 1800s in order to start farming in the rich soils of the Missouri River bottoms. This "land of promise" as it was known at the time was to be an agricultural paradise. Ironically, the early settlers found themselves more dependent on the game in the region rather than crops. Widespread farming did not occur until more people settled in the region in the mid 1800s. Eventually, agriculture became the dominant way of life and the area produced crops such as tobacco, corn, and wheat. Migration West Howard County was also the beginning of the famous Santa Fe Trail during America’s original westward migration. Unlike many of the trails which were essentially one-way trails leading settlers to the west, the Santa Fe Trail was a two-way trail for trade and commerce. It brought people, goods, and services through Howard County from 1821 until the completion of railroad routes in the 1860s.

2.4 Natural Hazard History Howard County has been subject to many natural hazards in the past. Floods, droughts, windstorms, hail, tornadoes, severe winter weather, and extreme heat have all taken their tolls. A brief overview of the more recent natural hazard events in the county will be discussed here; more extensive history will be given with each Hazard Profile in Section 3 of the plan. Probably the most prominent natural hazard within memory is the Flood of 1993 (see Figures 2.4.1-2.4.3). This flood was devastating to much of Missouri and the Midwest. Howard County was one of the counties hit hardest in the state. According to data from the U.S. Corps of Engineers (http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/flood/fl93home.html), there was between $1 Million and $5 Million damage to both residential property and the transportation system in the county. Commercial property sustained between $1 Million and $10 Million in damages. Over 50,000 acres of agricultural land were impacting costing more than $10 Million in losses. Figure 2.4.1

Photo Courtesy of Fayette Advertiser/Democrat Leader

Figure 2.4.2

Fayette Advertiser/Democrat Leader


Figure 2.4.3

Estimates of the per capita costs of this flood for the six counties in the Mid-Missouri Region are shown in Figure 2.4.4. This chart reflects both the heavy losses in Howard County and the fact that it has the lowest population of the six counties. The devastating flood of 1993 was followed by serious flooding once again in 1995. There has been only one year since this time when an official report of flooding in Howard County has not been submitted to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Thunderstorms can be expected annually. In most years there are reports of associated Hail someplace in the county and often reports of high winds (Windstorms). Less frequently, thunderstorms will spawn Tornadoes in the area. Howard County experienced nine tornadoes between 1958 and 2011 resulting in at least $1.025 million in property damage. Severe Winter Weather can be expected in Howard County on a general average of every second or third year. The county was included in Presidential Disaster Declarations for severe winter weather in 2002, 2007, 2009 and 2011. Periods of Extreme Heat are fairly common, usually in July or August. Drought is an ever present concern and has taken its toll in the County in the past.

$0 $100 $200 $300 $400 $500 $600 $700

Boone

Callaway

Cole

Cooper

Howard

Moniteau

Per Capita Costs of 1993 Flood in Central Missouri

Public Facilties Commercial Residential

Figure 2.4.4

Source: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers


2.5 Demographics Some key demographic statistics for Howard County and the State of Missouri are shown in Figure 2.5.1. The statistics as a whole paint a picture of county that is losing population and where household income is below the state average while the poverty level is above the state average. The mean travel time to work is slightly above the state average and the second highest in the mid-Missouri region; more information on this can be found in Section 2.8 (Transportation and Commuting Patterns).

Figure 2.5.1 Selected Demographic Statistics

Howard County Missouri

Total population (2010) 10,144 5,988,927 Estimated population change from 2000 Census -1% 7% Percentage of population 65 years and older (2010) 16% 14% High school graduates (age 25+) 87% 86% Bachelor's degree or higher (age 25+) 20% 25% Median household income $39,870 $46,005 Percentage of people below the poverty level 16% 14% Average commute time to work (minutes) 25 23 Percentage speaking language other than English at home 2% 6% Sources: U.S. Census Bureau - http://www.factfinder.census.gov; data is from 2005-2009 American Community Survey 5-year estimates unless noted as 2010 Census.

Racial/Ethnic Demographics Howard County has a predominantly white, non-Hispanic population (see Figure 2.5.2). Those of Hispanic or Latino origin may be of any race and are included with the applicable race category in the data.

Figure 2.5.2 Race/Ethnicity in Howard County

Race/Ethnicity % White alone 91 Black or African-American alone 6 Two or more races 2 Asian alone <1 American Indian and Alaska Native <0.5 Some other race <0.5 White non-Hispanic 90 Hispanic 1 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2005-2009 American Community Survey 5-year estimates: http://www.factfinder.census.gov

Population Density There are five incorporated communities in Howard County: Fayette (the county seat), Armstrong, Franklin, New Franklin and Glasgow. Population densities in the county are shown in Figure 2.5.3. Figure 2.5.3


Vulnerable Populations The elderly, children, and the poor are all particularly vulnerable to natural hazards. When data was collected for the U.S. Census in 2000, over 10% of the county’s population was under the age of 10 and over 16% was 65 years and older (see Figure 2.5.4).

The elderly and those recovering from health emergencies are often living in specific group residences or facilities. The locations of these nursing homes and extended care facilities are shown in Figure 2.10.4 (Section 2.10 Participating Jurisdictions – Profiles and Assets). The poor are also a vulnerable population. Poor housing conditions, lack of reliable transportation, and inadequate insurance can all contribute to making the impacts of a natural hazard worse for people living in poverty. Those living below the poverty level in Howard County was estimated to be 14.9% in 2008 (see Figure 2.5.1). Howard County Sheltered Workshop Endless Options, which supports Howard County citizens with developmental disabilities, is located in Fayette . This private not for profit, 501(c) 3 organization receives some funding through Howard County. Endless Options provides employment services, day services, and residential services aimed at helping people live in their own homes.

2.6 Education Pre K-12 There are three public school districts with schools in the Planning Area (New Franklin R-I School District, Howard Co. R-II School District, and Fayette R-III School District, see Figure 2.6.1). All three of these districts are participating jurisdictions in the Howard Co. Hazard Mitigation Plan. More specific jurisdictional information on these three school districts can be found in Section 2.10 (Jurisdiction Specific Assets and Capabilities.) Three other school districts from outside the Planning Area serve students in some of the rural areas (see Figure 2.6.1). Figure 2.6.1


Students are a vulnerable population as they are dependent on others for natural hazard information during the school day. A mitigation plan must take this into account. Often, this has been done by building schools out of floodplains and having safe areas within the school where the students can assemble in the event of a disaster. School buildings can also be potential locations for community shelters and safe rooms. As of the 2011-2012 school year, there were 1,514 students and over 232 staff members in the public and private schools in the Planning Area (see Figure 2.6.2).

Figure 2.6.2 Howard County Pre-K - 12 Schools

Public Location Schools Students Staff New Franklin R-I New Franklin 3 440 77 Howard Co. R-II Glasgow 2 300 56 Fayette R-III Fayette 3 640 99

Total 8 1380 232 Private Grace N. Glory Christian Academy New Franklin 1 16 na

St. Mary's School Glasgow 1 118 na Total 2 134 na

Total Public and Private 10 1514 169+ Sources: School district personnel; http://www.privateschoolreview.com/county_private_schools/stateid/MO/county/29089

Higher Education The main campus of Central Methodist University (CMU) is located in the City of Fayette; the university has nine other campus centers located outside of the Planning Area. Student enrollment on the Fayette campus was 1,172 in the fall of 2011. A faculty and staff of 358 (includes full-time and part-time employees) brings the total population on campus to 1,530.

CMU is a designated Red Cross shelter facility location and a participating jurisdiction in the Howard Co. Hazard Mitigation Plan. More specific jurisdictional information on CMU can be found in Section 2.10 (Jurisdiction Specific Assets and Capabilities.) Howard County Library District The Howard County Library District provides library services and computer access for residents of Howard County. The Howard County Public Library is located in the City of Fayette and, in addition to books, offers internet access to patrons. This is a valuable service as internet access in many areas of Howard County is limited due to the rural location.

In addition to the library in Fayette, a librarian brings library services to Armstrong and New Franklin through visits twice a month.

2.7 Employment and Income Many of the major employers for Howard County residents are not located in Howard County. Howard County citizens rely heavily on more populated regional centers such as Columbia (Boone County), Boonville (Cooper County), Moberly (Randolph County) and Marshall (Saline County) for employment and other commercial activity. Howard County was added to the Columbia Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) in the year 2000. Metropolitan statistical areas are geographic entities defined by the federal Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for use by Federal statistical agencies in collecting, tabulating, and publishing Federal statistics. An MSA consists of a core urban area of 50,000 or more population, the county or counties containing the core urban area, and adjacent counties which have a high degree of social and economic integration with the urban core (as measured by commuting to work). Columbia has jobs in the university and medical sectors which are often more lucrative than jobs in the surrounding areas. The inclusion of Howard County in the Columbia MSA is indicative of the number of people in the Planning Area who commute to Columbia/Boone County for work. More information on commuting patterns in Howard County is found in Section 2.8 (Transportation and Commuting Patterns.) Major Employers The major employers located in Howard County, according to the Howard County Economic Development Council, are by sector:

Health and Education • Central Methodist University – Fayette • University Physicians – Fayette Medical Clinic • Fayette School District • New Franklin School District • Glasgow School District • The Braun Home – Fayette • Fayette Caring Center

Manufacturing • American Discovery Textile Manufacturing – Glasgow • CMMG – Fayette • Missouri Pacific Lumber – Fayette • Monnig Industries – Glasgow • Penny Plate – Glasgow

Other • Addison Biological Laboratories – Fayette • Inovatia – Fayette • Jennings Premium Meats – New Franklin • C&R Supermarket – Fayette • Howard Electric Cooperative – Fayette

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/inforeg/statpolicy.html�

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/inforeg/statpolicy.html�


Agriculture Agriculture is still widely seen throughout Howard County but it has lost its place as the dominant economic force in the county. Manufacturing, education, and other types of employment have overtaken farming. The University of Missouri’s Horticulture & Agroforestry Research Center is located at New Franklin. The 660-acre research farm is also the site of the U.S. National Arboretum Midwest Plant Research and Education Site. Key research areas include flood tolerance studies, high value mushroom production, and development of eastern black walnut, northern pecan, and Chinese chestnut orchard crops. The annual Missouri Chestnut Roast in the fall draws more than 4,000 visitors to the Center; unfortunately, this annual event was cancelled in 2011 due to budget cuts at the University of Missouri. Income A breakdown of household incomes is shown in Figure 2.7.1.

Figure 2.7.1 Household Income and Benefits

Howard County

Income # of Households

% of Households

Less than $10,000 344 9.2 $10,000 - $14,999 274 7.3 $15,000 - $24,999 500 13.3 $25,000 - $34,999 614 16.4 $35,000 - $49,999 509 13.6 $50,000 - $74,999 798 21.3 $75,000 - $99,999 361 9.6 $100,000 - $149,999 272 7.3 $150,000 - $199,999 24 0.6 $200,000 or more 53 1.4 Median household income $39,870 Mean household income $49,069 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2005-2009 American Community Survey 5-year estimates: http://www.factfinder.census.gov

Unemployment Rates The unemployment rate in Howard County in the recent past has been lower than the national rate and either consistent with, or somewhat higher, than the average for the six counties of the Mid-MO RPC Region (Boone, Callaway, Cole, Cooper, Howard, and Moniteau Counties). Along with the rates in the rest of the country, the unemployment rate in the county has risen sharply since the economic downturn in 2007 (see Figure 2.7.2).


2.8 Transportation and Commuting Patterns Roadways Howard County, like most of the rural United States, is heavily dependent upon roads and personal vehicles (see Figure 2.8.1). Roads are the dominant artery for the county, moving all goods and services that flow in and out of the county. The Missouri Department of Transportation (MODOT) maintains the state and federal roads in the county. Howard County Public Works takes care of the remaining roads while the incorporated communities maintain their roads.

The most trafficked roads in Howard County are Routes 5 and 240. Route 5 runs north-south through the county and Route 240 runs from the southeast to the northwest. Between 2,000 and 3,000 cars a day travel Route 5 and approximately the same amount travel Route 240. Access to Interstate 70 is a short distance from New Franklin and is often used to go to regional centers such as Columbia. Public Transportation OATS, Inc., a private not-for-profit corporation, is the predominant provider of public transportation in Howard County. The organization was founded by a group of seniors in 1971 as transportation for older citizens. Its current mission is to “provide reliable transportation for transportation disadvantaged Missourians so they can live independently in their own communities.” OATS serves a wide diversity of citizens in 87 Missouri counties. From Howard County, OATS provides transportation to Columbia in Boone County, Boonville in Cooper County, and Moberly in Randolph County. OATS predominantly serves the elderly and disabled, but will serve anyone needing transportation. Airports Howard County does not have a public passenger airport. There is a small public-use airport owned by the City of Boonville in neighboring Cooper County to the south.

The nearest airport with commercial service is the Columbia Regional Airport (Boone County), approximately forty miles to the southeast of Fayette, the seat of Howard County. Airports in Kansas City to the west and St. Louis to the east provide national and international service; both cities are located approximately 150 miles from Fayette. Railroads Rail Freight The Kansas City Southern Railroad (formerly the Gateway and Western) carries freight through the Northern third of Howard County; the freight trains enter the County at Glasgow, pass through Armstrong, and exit the County near the northern boundary with Randolph County.

Passenger Rail The nearest Amtrak passenger rail connection is at Jefferson City (Cole County), approximately 60 miles from Fayette.

Figure 2.8.1


Commuting Patterns Howard County has the highest percentage of workers commuting outside of their place of residence when compared with the surrounding counties and other counties in the Mid-MO RPC Region (see Figure 2.8.2). This correlates with one of the highest average commute times in the region (see Figure 2.8.3).

By far, the majority of commuting trips made outside the county for work are to neighboring Boone County (see Figure 2.8.4) but Howard County residents commute to numerous other locations to work.

It should be noted, however, that commuting is not only in an outward direction from Howard County; some workers, albeit a much smaller number, commute into Howard County for work.

Figure 2.8.4

Location of Work # of Trips % of Total TripsMissouri Counties

Howard 2,353 49.1Boone 1,416 29.6Cooper 595 12.4Randolph 159 3.3Saline 88 1.8Chariton 48 1.0Callaway 30 0.6Jackson 23 0.5Cole 21 0.4Moniteau 16 0.3St. Louis 16 0.3Taney 13 0.3

OtherCraig Co. OK 10 0.2

Total 4,788 98.8

Commuting Destinations of Howard County Workers

Source: U.S. Census (2000), http://mcdc2.missouri.edu/websas/workflow.html

Figure 2.8.5

MO County of Residence # of Trips % of Total TripsHoward 2,353 81.8Cooper 145 5Chariton 121 4.2Boone 96 3.3Saline 83 2.9Randolph 40 1.4Greene 27 0.9Audrain 10 0.3Total 2,875 99.8Source: U.S. Census (2000), http://mcdc2.missouri.edu/websas/workflow.html

Residence of Howard County Workers


2.9 Planning Area Capabilities This section presents a general overview of capabilities found within the Planning Area. It begins with a discussion of the legal authority invested in the local governments by the State of Missouri. This is followed by an overview of policy, planning, and program capabilities within the Planning Area which can contribute to hazard mitigation efforts and the important roles of the special districts, non-governmental/volunteer organizations, and community/regional partnerships. The section ends with an assessment of the political willpower present in the Planning Area for taking action on hazard mitigation Legal Authority Howard County has at its disposal a variety of powers given to it by the State of Missouri relevant to mitigation activities. A brief outline of these powers is listed below.

Land Use and Building Codes The State of Missouri has given local governments the right to create and enforce planning and zoning regulations around construction and development including areas within designated floodplains and subdivisions. Acquisition Missouri legislation empowers cities, towns, and counties to acquire property for public purpose by gift, grant, devise, bequest, exchange, purchase, lease or eminent domain. Local governments may find the most effective method for completely “hazard-proofing” a particular piece of property or area is to acquire the property (either in fee or a lesser interest, such as an easement); this removes the property from the private market and eliminates or reduces the possibility of inappropriate development. Taxation The power to levy taxes and special assessments is an important tool delegated to local governments by Missouri law. The power of taxation extends beyond the collection of revenue, and impacts the pattern of development in the community. Local units of government also have the authority to levy special assessments on property owners for all or part of the costs of acquiring, constructing, reconstructing, or improving protective structures within a designated area. This can serve to increase the cost of building in such areas, thereby discouraging development. Special assessments seem to offer little in terms of control over land use in developing areas. They can, however, be used to finance the provision of necessary services within municipal or county boundaries. In addition, they are useful in distributing to the new property owners the costs of the infrastructure required by new development. The major constraint in using special assessments is political.

Spending Local governments have the power to make expenditures in the public interest. A community can control its growth to some extent by tentatively committing itself to a timetable for the provision of capital to extend services, especially when the provision of on-site sewage disposal and water supply to the surrounding area is unusually expensive. A local community can also regulate the extension of and access to services. This tactic can help guide development away from hazard prone areas. Police Powers The police are responsible for protecting the overall public; local governments can add requirements pertinent to hazard mitigation.

Policy, Planning, and Program Capabilities A summary of the plans and regulations in the County and incorporated communities of the Planning Area is shown in Figure 2.9.1.

Figure 2.9.1

Plans and Regulations Howard County and Incorporated Communities

x = Plan or regulations in place

How

ard

Cou

nty

Arm

stro

ng

Faye

tte

Fran

klin

*

Gla

sgow

New

Fra

nklin

Master plan x

Emergency Operations Plan x x x x x x

Building regulations x x x

Zoning regulations x x x

Subdivision regulations x x x

Stormwater regulations x x

NFIP participation x x x x x x

* Franklin is not a participating jurisdiction in the Howard County Hazard Mitigation Plan (2011).


Emergency Operations Plan The Howard County Emergency Operations Plan (LEOP) is an extensive and inclusive document which “…establishes policies and procedures that will allow the respective governments of Howard County to save lives, minimize injuries, protect property, preserve functioning civil government, and maintain economic activities essential to their survival and recovery from natural and technological hazards.”

Information from the LEOP, specifically in the area of Communications and Media, has been integrated into the appropriate sections of the Howard County Hazard Mitigation Plan.

Other Regulations The Cities of Fayette, Glasgow, and New Franklin all have building, zoning and subdivision regulations but Fayette is the only city with a Building Inspector. The City of Armstrong was in the process of writing building codes in 2011.

Both the Cities of Fayette and Glasgow have stormwater ordinances in place which prohibit stormwater entering the sewer system.

National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) The National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) was established by an act of Congress in 1968. Jurisdictions which participate in the program are required to adopt and enforce floodplain regulations. Property owners in participating jurisdictions are able to purchase federal flood insurance. Howard County and all of its incorporated communities participate in the NFIP, as shown in Figure 2.9.2.

Figure 2.9.2 Howard County Jurisdictions Participating in NFIP

Jurisdiction Entry into Program Date of Current FIRM Howard County 1/5/1989 10/16/2009 Armstrong 8/3/1984 10/16/2009 (M) Fayette 1/19/1983 10/16/2009 Franklin 3/2/1983 10/16/2009 Glasgow 8/2/1982 10/16/2009 New Franklin 1/19/1983 10/16/2009 * (M) indicates that no elevation was determined

Source: http://www.fema.gov/fema/csb.shtm

Communications and Media The ability to distribute timely and reliable information before at and at the time of an emergency is vital. The Planning Area is well prepared with numerous sources of information and means of notifying the public. Communications capabilities exist primarily with the Howard County Emergency Operations E-911 Center (EOC) and Emergency Management Office, located in Fayette. Warning Procedures as Outlined in the Howard County LEOP (see Figure 2.9.3):

Initial warning information is received from either the Missouri Law Enforcement System (MULES) or the National Warning System (NAWAS), both of which have terminals located in the EOC. (MULES is a law enforcement computer data network operated by the Missouri Highway Patrol primarily for law enforcement operations. It is also used to disseminate information emergency information such as weather conditions, flood stages, and road conditions.) Warning information is also received from the National Weather Service (NWS) office in Pleasant Hill (Cass County). The warning information, in turn, is dispersed throughout Howard County and also to Boonville in neighboring Cooper County. The EOC automatically activates outdoor warning sirens in Armstrong (1 siren), Fayette (3 sirens) and New Franklin (2 sirens). To initiate activation of the three sirens in Glasgow, the EOC radios the Glasgow Police Department; the police department and Glasgow Fire Protection District then manually set off the warning sirens in the city. Warnings in some municipalities and unincorporated areas are supplemented with mobile public address operations by the sheriff and municipal police. When warnings are issued, the EOC also begins telephone notification to special facilities. Warning sirens are tested monthly.


The EOC is staffed on a 24-hour basis. It is equipped with a back-up generator which can operate the equipment in case of a power interruption; the generator is tested weekly. The Howard County Public Works and Fayette Public Works Departments provide their own dispatching. However, the EOC can provide radio communications if needed. In addition to official alerts from MULES, NAWAS, and the NWS, trained weather spotters are available through the Howard County Sheriff’s Department , the Fire Protection Districts/Departments, Boonville (Cooper County) Police Department, and Boonville (Cooper County) Fire Department. Local Amateur Radio operators can provide additional communications, if needed. EAS: The nationwide Emergency Alert System (EAS), jointly coordinated by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), FEMA, and the NWS, provides a link between the government agencies monitoring potential hazards/emergencies and local broadcasters who can inform the public in a timely manner. The Planning Area is located in the Moberly EAS Operational Area.

Figure 2.9.3

Source: Howard County EOP, Appendix 1 to Annex B

Missouri Highway Patrol Troop F Jefferson City

Howard County Warning Flow Chart

News MediaLaw Enforcement

Sheriff's Office City Police

Ambulance Service Public Works Outdoor Sirens

Howard County E-911 Dispatch

Center

Local Media: Local media outlets can also provide avenues for educating the public about emergency preparedness and the need for certain mitigation actions. The media points of contact for Emergency Operations in Howard County are shown in Figure 2.9.4.

Figure 2.9.4 Media Points of Contact

Radio Stations Frequency Location KWIX 1230 AM Moberly KWRT 1370 AM Boonville (Cooper County) KZBK** 96.9 FM Brookfield KRES* 104.7 FM Moberly KTXY 106.9 FM Columbia (Boone County) TV Stations Channel Base City KRCG (CBS) 13 Holts Summit (Callaway County) KOMU (NBC) 8 Columbia (Boone County) KMIZ (ABC) 17 Columbia (Boone County) Newspapers Boonville Daily News Boonville (Cooper County) St. Louis Post Dispatch Jefferson City (Cole County) bureau Jefferson City News Tribune Jefferson City (Cole County) * LP1 - Primary Emergency Alert System (EAS) station ** Secondary EAS station; has emergency power and redundant facilities

Source: Howard County LEOP; Howard County Emergency Management Co-Directors; Missouri Broadcasters Association website: http://www.mbaweb.org/mc/page.do?sitePageId=22313


NOAA Weather Radio: The Planning Area is also covered by NOAA Weather Radio transmissions from two different sites. A tower site and transmitter in Jamestown in Moniteau County reaches most of Howard County (see Figure 2.9.6); the northwestern part of the County is reached by transmissions from Carrollton in Carroll County (see Figure 2.9.5). Severe weather updates, including tornado and severe thunderstorm warnings, flash flood warnings, and other 24-hour weather advisories are broadcast for the affected area. Special NOAA weather radios are activated when a severe weather bulletin is broadcast. NOAA radios are available from many retail/wholesale stores NOAA radios which have SAME (Specific Area Message Encoding) can be programmed to receive messages for only the geographical areas of interest and not the entire broadcast area. Figure 2.9.5 Figure 2.9.6

Source: National Weather Service - http://www.weather.gov/nwr/Maps/PHP/missouri.php

Special Districts There are numerous special districts in the Planning Area which are vital to the health and safety of the population. In addition to providing basic services, personnel of the Special Districts possess a wealth of knowledge and experience valuable for hazard mitigation planning.

Fire Protection Districts There are four fire protection districts/departments which respond to fires, accidents, and other emergencies within the Planning Area (see Figures 2.9.7-2.9.8). The districts/departments are also responsible for search and rescue operations and first aid. They are dispatched by the Howard County E-911 Dispatch Center, fire phones and fax machines.

Figure 2.9.7 Howard County Fire Protection Districts/Departments

Name Stations Volunteers Armstrong Fire Protection District 1 10-12 Fayette Fire Department 1 25* Glasgow Fire Protection District 1 25 Howard County Fire Protection District 3 65-70 * Volunteers are paid-per-call Sources: Fire districts and departments

Fayette Fire Department and Howard County Fire Protection District Station #1 are housed in the same building in Fayette; they maintain separate equipment. The City of Fayette and Howard County Fire Protection District own the building together; improvements and insurance costs are shared equally. The building is equipped with a transfer switch for generator backup.

Mutual aid agreements exist between all the districts/departments and also with those in surrounding counties through the statewide mutual aid agreement; Howard County is located in Region F.

The fire districts have been proactive in public education campaigns, updating training, and general outreach efforts to ensure the community at large is safe. The fire districts/departments are key players in hazard mitigation and preparedness activities.


Figure 2.9.8

Water Districts There are three Public Water Supply Districts serving the Planning Area (see Figure 2.9.9). The Water Districts are responsible for distributing water throughout the County except in places served by a municipality, private company, or private well. They are responsible for developing new water supply infrastructure and maintaining existing infrastructure.

Figure 2.9.9


Each water district is composed of an elected board. Water Districts are primarily related to mitigation activities focused on drought, wildfire, and flood. Connecting water supplies so that rural areas of Howard County have multiple water supplies is an important mitigation technique. Protecting water supply infrastructure from floodwaters is an important task also under the purview of the Districts.

Armstrong is served by Thomas Hill Public Water Supply District #1; Franklin is served by Howard County Consolidated Public Water Supply District #1. Fayette, Glasgow, and New Franklin currently have their own city water systems.

Howard County Consolidated Public Water Supply District #1 is a participating jurisdiction in the Hazard Mitigation Plan and is discussed in detail in Section 2.10.

The following interconnections exist between water supplies in the Planning Area:

• An agreement and interconnection exists between Thomas Hill Public Water Supply District #1 and the City of Fayette Water for backup when needed.

• Public Water Supply District #2 gets its water from the City of Glasgow; the City of Glasgow Water does not have any backup or interconnections in place but it does have two wells from which to operate. A mitigation action (#1.1.5) is included in Glasgow’s mitigation strategy which deals with establishing cooperative agreements for backup with other water districts.

• In 2008, Fayette, New Franklin and Howard Co. Consolidated Public Water Supply District #1

joined together to form the Howard Co. Regional Water Commission. The Commission is still in the planning stages; a projected date for it to become operational is 2016. The Commission is a participating jurisdiction in the Hazard Mitigation Plan and is discussed in detail in Section 2.10.

Ambulance District Howard County Ambulance District serves all of Howard County.

Road Districts In addition to the Howard County Roads and Bridges Department (General Road District #1), there are two special road districts located within the county which have their own elected officials.

Armstrong Special Road District #42 maintains 27 miles of road in the northern part of the county; Glasgow Special Road District #60 maintains 30 plus miles of road in the Glasgow area.

Non-Governmental and Volunteer Organizations Local churches assist in disaster relief in the Planning Area. There is a Ministerial Alliance in Fayette which supports such work; the Unity Baptist Church in Fayette has a chainsaw crew. There are also Food Banks in both Fayette and Glasgow.

In addition, many other local organizations are available to be called upon in times of emergency or disaster. Some of these include: Community Betterment Groups in Armstrong, Fayette, and New Franklin; the Optimist, Lions, Rotary, and Round Table Clubs in Fayette; the VFW Auxiliary in New Franklin and various other women’s organizations; and student groups at Central Methodist University. In addition, the Senior Center in Fayette has a kitchen which can be made available for use when needed.

There is not a local American Red Cross Chapter in Howard County but, in times of disaster, the county is aided by the American Red Cross from Columbia (Boone County).

Community and Regional Partnerships The Howard County government has working relationships with the towns and cities located within the county as well as with neighboring counties. This is particularly evident in mutual aid agreements that exist between fire jurisdictions, law enforcement jurisdictions, and emergency operations agencies, including 911. Howard County jurisdictions have partnered successfully through and with the Mid-MO RPC on regional transportation planning and multiple local grant applications. In addition, local governments have representation on Mid-MO RPC transportation and economic development advisory committees. Political Willpower Howard County has seen firsthand the effects of natural hazards, most notably the flood of 1993. Citizens are well aware of the impacts to life and property events such events can have on a community. Due to this high degree of awareness, current and future political climates are expected to be favorable for supporting and advancing hazard mitigation strategies in the Planning Area.


2.10 Participating Jurisdictions - Profiles and Assets The jurisdictions in the Planning Area have many assets (both human and material) at risk from natural hazards. An overview of the population and critical infrastructure in the Planning Area begins this section. This is followed by a profile of each participating jurisdiction. The profile includes some key demographics and an inventory of assets (including estimated building counts and assessed values). Estimated building counts for each jurisdiction were generated from HAZUS-MH software, a modeling software used by FEMA to compare relative risk from certain natural hazards. (In this section of the plan, only the software’s estimates of building numbers and types have been used.) Specific capabilities within a jurisdiction and any plans for future development are included with each profile. Overview of Planning Area

Population An age profile of the Howard County population (including all the incorporated communities) compared to that of the State of Missouri is shown in Figure 2.10.1. Age is one factor that that can influence vulnerability to a natural hazard as needs and abilities may vary widely between age groups.

Figure 2.10.1 Population

Howard Co. Missouri

Population 10,144 5,988,927 Persons under 5 years old 5.9% 6.5% Persons under 18 years old 21.5% 23.8% Persons between 18 and 65 years old 62.6% 62.2% Persons 65 years old and over 15.9% 14.0% Source: US Census 2010

Critical Facilities Critical facilities are defined by FEMA as “… all manmade structures or other improvements that, because of their function, size, service area, or uniqueness, have the potential to cause serious bodily harm, extensive property damage, or disruption of vital socioeconomic activities if they are destroyed, damaged, or if their functionality is impaired.” Critical facilities commonly include all public and private facilities that a community considers essential for the delivery of vital services and for the protection of the community (see Figures 2.10.2-2.10.5). The adverse effects of damaged critical facilities can extend far beyond direct physical damage. Disruption of health care, fire, and police services can impair search and rescue, emergency medical care, and even access to damaged areas.

Figure 2.10.2


Figure 2.10.3

Figure 2.10.4 Nursing Homes/Residential Care Facilities

Name Location Emergency Generator Colonial Manor of Glasgow Glasgow - Golden HR Retire Home and Annex New Franklin - Fayette Caring Center Fayette yes Golden LivingCenter Glasgow yes Maplelawn Residential Care Facility Co. Rd. 112 (NE Howard Co.) yes Pierce Home Co. Rd. 241 (SW of Armstrong) - Rest Haven Residential Care Fayette -

Senior Citizen Housing Name Location Emergency Generator Brookview Apartments of Glasgow Glasgow - Fayette Housing Partners Fayette - New Franklin Sr. Housing Association New Franklin - Sources: Howard County EOP; Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee

Critical Water Facilities

Figure 2.10.5 Public Water Supply

District # of Towers/

Tanks in Planning Area

Source of Water Customers or Meters

City of Armstrong* 0 Mark Twain Lake ~125 customers City of Fayette 2 D.C. Rogers Lake ~1100 customers City of Glasgow 1 2 wells 512 customers City of New Franklin 1 2 wells 425 meters Howard Co. Cons. PWSD #1 5 3 wells 800 meters Howard Co. PWSD #2** - Glasgow's wells - Prime - - - Thomas Hill PWSD #1 0 Mark Twain Lake 928 customers * Armstrong purchases water from Clarence Cannon Wholesale Water Supply; and uses Thomas Hill Water Supply District #1's lines; the pressure from the Thomas Hill tower is sufficient to deliver water to Armstrong.

** Howard Co. PWSD #2 purchases its water from the City of Glasgow.

Source: Cities and Public Water Supply Districts


Howard County

Figure 2.10.6 Howard County Profile

Classification Third class county Population (2010) 10,144 Median household income $39,870 Median owner-occupied housing value $92,300 Total housing units (2010) 4,582

Water service Howard County Water District #1, Prime, Thomas Hill, City of Glasgow

Electric service Howard Electric Cooperative, City of Fayette, KCP&L, Ameren Missouri

Ambulance service Howard County Ambulance Service Sewer service Varies throughout county Fire service Varies throughout county

Website http://www.mo-river.net/Howard/Government/index.htm

Master plan No Emergency Operations Plan Yes Building regulations No Zoning regulations No Subdivision regulations No Stormwater regulations No NFIP participation Yes Floodplain regulations Yes Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2005-2009 American Community Survey 5-year estimates: http://www.factfinder.census.gov; 2010 Census; local officials

Governmental Structure Howard County is governed by an elected three member Board of Commissioners composed of a Presiding Commissioner, an Eastern District Commissioner, and a Western District Commissioner. The Commission carries out the following responsibilities:

• establishes Howard County policy • approves and adopts the annual budget for all County operations • approves actual expenditures for each department • supervises the operations of County departments • ensures County-wide compliance with numerous statutory requirements • acts as liaison with County boards, commissions, and other local and regional

governmental entities

Howard County has the following departments and offices:

• Assessor • Auditor • Collector • County Clerk • Emergency Management • Prosecuting Attorney • Public Administrator • Public Works • Recorder • Sheriff • Treasurer

The following offices and departments play especially important roles in hazard mitigation:

Howard County created an emergency management agency in 1980. According to the Howard County Emergency Operations Plan (LEOP), the agency was charged with “…the preparation and implementation of emergency functions for Howard County in accordance with Chapter 44, RSMo and the State of Missouri Emergency Operations Plan.”

Emergency Management

More information on the Howard County LEOP is found in Section 2.9 (Policy, Planning, and Program Capabilities.)

The Howard County Sheriff is the law enforcement coordinator for the unincorporated areas of the County and for the incorporated communities of Armstrong and Franklin, which do not have their own law enforcement agencies.

Sheriff

Public Works

The County Maintenance Supervisor provides Public Works services for the unincorporated areas of the County. There are two Special Road Districts in the County (Armstrong and Glasgow) which also provide public works services. There are also outside and private resources which are available to assist with public works, if necessary.


Agriculture An overview of agricultural land and the value of crop and livestock production in Howard County is shown in Figure 2.10.7. Since 93% of the land area of Howard County is farmland, the impact of agricultural losses due to a natural hazard could have wide ranging effects.

Figure 2.10.7 2007 Howard County Agricultural Overview

Number of Farms 867 Total Farm Acreage 276,590

(93% of land in Howard County) Total Market Value of Products Sold $45,061,000 Crop Sales $34,407,000 Livestock Sales $10,654,000 2007 Census of Agriculture, County Profiles: http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2007/Online_Highlights/County_Profiles/

Public Land The State of Missouri owns and manages land in seven areas in unincorporated Howard County (see Figure 2.10.8).

Figure 2.10.8 Public Land in Howard County (unincorporated)

Area Name Responsible Agency Acres Rudolf Bennitt Conservation Area MO Dept. of Conservation 3575* Davisdale Conservation Area MO Dept. of Conservation 2701 Diana Bend Conservation Area MO Dept. of Conservation 1016 Franklin Island Conservation Area MO Dept. of Conservation 1625 Hungry Mother Conservation Area MO Dept. of Conservation 274 Moniteau Creek Conservation Area MO Dept. of Conservation 844 Boone's Lick State Historic Site MO Dept. of Natural Resources 51 *includes area in Boone and Randolph Counties Source: MO Dept. of Conservation website (http://mdc.mo.gov/)

Historic Places

Figure 2.10.9 National Register of Historic Places - Howard County (unincorporated)

Historic Place Location Boonslick State Park Boonsboro Finks-Harvey Plantation Roanoke Source: http://nrhp.focus.nps.gov/natreghome.do

Figure 2.10.10

Property Count and Valuation - Howard County (unincorporated) HAZUS Building Count

Building Type # Residential 1961 Commercial 99 Industrial 38 Agricultural 97 Religious 7 Governmental 3 Educational 1 Source: HAZUS MH

2010 Assessed Values - Howard County (unincorporated)

Real Estate Personal Property Residential $29,698,830

$15,735,689 Agricultural $12,390,980 Commercial $3,155,380

Total $45,245,190 $15,735,689 Source: Howard County Assessor's Office

County Owned Property

Property Replacement Cost Buildings

Courthouse $2,596,000 Gazebo $7,650 Shop Building $124,000 Equipment Shed $52,000 Keller Building $2,568,000 Jail $1,886,000

Total Building Insured Value $7,233,650 Vehicles (27) $214,500 Total $7,448,150 Source: Howard County Clerk, Howard Co. Insurance Statement


Future Development Plans Information from the U.S. Census indicates that the population of Howard County decreased by 0.7% between the years 2000 and 2010. Public officials and private citizens are working to bring more jobs and opportunities to the County in order to reverse this trend. The Board of Directors of the Howard County Economic Development Council (HCEDC), with a wide representation of jurisdictions and agencies throughout the County, directs the economic development strategy for the County. In the fall of 2011, the HCEDC was successful with an application to the Missouri Certified Sites Program of the Missouri Department of Economic Development (DED). The purpose of the Certified Sites Program, according to the DED website, is to:

… provide consistent standards regarding the availability and development potential of commercial or industrial development sites…. The certification of a site is performed through a comprehensive review of items including the availability of utilities, site access, environmental concerns, land use conformance, and potential site development costs… the certification process works to assemble current and accurate information into a single, useable package and format it such that potential buyers can have this information readily available for review immediately upon showing interest in a site.

The successful application resulted in Howard County Industrial Park becoming Certified Site #11 in the State of Missouri. The site, owned by Howard County and located south of Fayette, is currently the only Certified Site in the state which is not located in a city. It will be promoted on the DED Certified Sites webpage along with the other sites. The HCEDC is a member of Missouri CORE (Connecting Our Regional Economy) which markets a 10 county region in the central part of the state. The Howard County Industrial Park Certified Site will also be promoted by CORE. With continued economic development efforts in the County, there may be a reverse in the population trend seen in the previous decade. Future development can potentially be impacted by a number of natural hazards. Mitigation measures should be considered during the planning stages of any development.

Armstrong

Armstrong was laid out in 1878 and located along the Chicago & Alton Railroad line; it was incorporated in 1879.

Armstrong is governed by a City Council and Mayor. City staffing consists of part-time positions to carry out the duties of City Clerk, Collector and Public Works.

Figure 2.10.11 Armstrong Profile

Classification Fourth class city Population (2010) 284 Median household income $40,938 Median owner-occupied housing value $36,300 Total housing units (2010) 137 Water service City of Armstrong* Electric service Kansas City Power and Light Ambulance service Howard County Ambulance Service Sewer service City of Armstrong Fire service Armstrong Fire Protection District Website No Master plan No Emergency Operations Plan Yes Building regulations No Zoning regulations No Subdivision regulations No Stormwater regulations No NFIP participation Yes Floodplain regulations Yes * The city buys water from Clarence Cannon Wholesale Water Supply and uses Thomas Hill Public Water Supply District #1's lines. Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2005-2009 American Community Survey 5-year estimates: http://www.factfinder.census.gov; 2010 Census; local officials


Figure 2.10.12

Property Count and Valuation - Armstrong

HAZUS Building Count Building Type #

Residential 142 Commercial 6 Industrial 2 Agricultural 3 Religious 0 Governmental 2 Educational 0 Source: HAZUS MH

2010 Assessed Values - Armstrong

Real Estate Personal Property Residential $549,630

$340,441 Agricultural $30,500 Commercial $179,190

Total $759,320 $340,441 Source: Howard County Assessor's Office

City Owned Property

Property Replacement Cost 3 buildings - City Hall, old high school gym, storage bldg. $10,000

Tractor and mower $2,500 Warning Siren $6,500

Total $19,000 Source: City of Armstrong

Future Development Plans Plans are underway for the construction of a new City Hall; a grant has been secured through the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) to fund a portion of the project. As of the fall of 2011, the project was still in the preconstruction phase.

In 2011, the Armstrong Park Board made outreach to school districts across a wide area to obtain a donation of used playground equipment. High quality equipment was donated by the Kansas City Missouri School Board and will be installed in the City Park.

Fayette Fayette was laid out in 1823 as the county seat of Howard County. It was named after General Lafayette, the Revolutionary War hero from France, who was visiting the United States that year. Fayette’s rich history and civic involvement is witnessed by the inclusion of thirteen local properties on the National Register of Historic Places (see Figure 2.10.14). Fayette remains the county seat and is home to Central Methodist University.

Figure 2.10.13 Fayette Profile

Classification Fourth class city Population (2010) 2,688 Median household income $29,670 Median owner-occupied housing value $80,400 Total housing units (2010) 1,097 Water service City of Fayette

Electric service Missouri Public Energy Pool and City of Fayette (old power plant used for backup)

Ambulance service Howard County Ambulance Sewer service City Fire service Fayette Fire Department Website http://fayette.missouri.org/ Master plan Yes (Comprehensive Plan) Emergency Operations Plan Yes Building regulations Yes Zoning regulations Yes Subdivision regulations Yes

Stormwater regulations Yes - Extent of stormwater regulations in Fayette, as of 2011, is minimal regulation included in the subdivision ordinance.

NFIP participation Yes Floodplain regulations Yes Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2005-2009 American Community Survey 5-year estimates: http://www.factfinder.census.gov; 2010 Census; local officials

The City of Fayette has generator backup for its critical infrastructure. Generators are located at the fire department, police department and wastewater treatment plan. In addition, engines at the old power plant could supply the water plant and part of the town with power, if absolutely necessary.


Figure 2.10.14

Property Count and Valuation - Fayette HAZUS Building Count

Building Type # Residential 1249 Commercial 80 Industrial 15 Agricultural 6 Religious 10 Governmental 6 Educational 7 Source: HAZUS MH

2010 Assessed Values - Fayette


$2,838,051 Agricultural $44,530 Commercial $3,177,040


City Owned Property

Property Insured Replacement Cost

Buildings (59) $8,116,510 Personal Property in

Buildings $5,920,516

Road, sewer, water, electrical equipment $549,744 Vehicles (26) na

Total $14,586,770+ (See Appendix D for a detailed listing of Fayette Building and Personal Property Values)

Source: City of Fayette Insurance Statement

Public Land

Figure 2.10.15 Public Land in City of Fayette

Area Name Responsible Agency Acres D. C. Rogers Lake City of Fayette/MO Dept. of Conservation 185 Peters Lake City of Fayette/MO Dept. of Conservation 80 Source: MO Dept. of Conservation website (http://mdc.mo.gov/)

Historic Places

Figure 2.10.16 National Register of Historic Places - Fayette

Alfred W. Morrison House Central Methodist College Campus Historic District Coleman Hall Dr. Uriel S. Wright Office Edwin and Nora Payne Bedford House Fayette City Park Swimming Pool Fayette Courthouse Square Historic District Fayette Residential Historic District Greenwood Prior Jackson Homeplace Oakwood South Main Street Historic District St. Mary's Episcopal Church Source: http://nrhp.focus.nps.gov/natreghome.do

Future Development Plans

The City of Fayette is joining with the City of New Franklin and Howard Co. Consolidated Public Water Supply District #1 to form the Howard Co. Regional Water Commission (see Water Districts in Section 2.9).

Fayette is continually updating the water and sewer distribution lines.

There are a few mitigation projects which the City would like to undertake to deal with flash flooding. More information on this can be found under “Fayette” in Section 3.2.5

While City Hall will need to be remodeled or replaced at some point in the future, there are no plans for the project at the current time. Action #3.2.5 in the mitigation strategy for Fayette discusses including plans for a tornado saferoom in any new city building project.


Glasgow

Glasgow was settled in 1836 by Europeans in search of a good port location on the Missouri River. The river port and a bridge built over the river by the Chicago & Alton Railroad for its Chicago-Kansas City route combined to make Glasgow an important commercial center.

During the Civil War, the Confederates won the Battle of Glasgow which was fought in and around the town on October 15, 1864 during Sterling Price’s Missouri Expedition.

A small portion of Glasgow is located in Chariton County to the north of Howard County.

Figure 2.10.17 Glasgow Profile

Classification Fourth class city Population (2010) 1,067 Median household income $32,727 Median owner-occupied housing value $69,400 Total housing units (2010) 516 Water service City of Glasgow Electric service Kansas City Power and Light Ambulance service Howard County Ambulance Service Sewer service City of Glasgow Fire service Glasgow Fire Protection District

Website http://www.mo-river.net/government/Howard/city_glasgow.htm

Master plan No Emergency Operations Plan Yes Building regulations Yes Zoning regulations Yes Subdivision regulations No Stormwater regulations Yes NFIP participation Yes Floodplain regulations Yes Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2005-2009 American Community Survey 5-year estimates: http://www.factfinder.census.gov; 2010 Census; local officials

Figure 2.10.18

Property Count and Valuation - Glasgow HAZUS Building Count

Building Type #


2010 Assessed Values - Glasgow

Real Estate Personal Property

Residential $4,326,190 $2,402,597 Agricultural $23,440

Commercial $2,134,580 Total $6,484,210 $2,402,597

Source: Howard County Assessor's Office

City Owned Property

Property* Replacement Cost Buildings $3,828,838 Business Personal Property $578,825 Vehicles (8) - Estimate $200,000

Total $4,607,663 (See Appendix D for a detailed listing of Glasgow Buildings

and Business Personal Property Values)

Source: City of Glasgow Insurance Statement, City of Glasgow official

Public Land

Figure 2.10.19 Public Land in Glasgow

Area Name Responsible Agency Acres Stump Island Park Access MO Dept. of Conservation 4.5 Source: MO Dept. of Conservation website (http://mdc.mo.gov/)


Historic Places

Figure 2.10.20 National Register of Historic Places - Glasgow

Campbell Chapel African Methodist Episcopal Church Glasgow Commercial Historic District Glasgow Presbyterian Church Glasgow Public Library Inglewood Source: http://nrhp.focus.nps.gov/natreghome.do

Future Development Plans The City of Glasgow is working with an engineering firm and the Mid-Missouri Regional Planning Commission to find a viable solution to the flooding problems at its wastewater lagoons. This is a pressing issue in immediate need of mitigation due to sludge deposit in the lagoon during flooding in 2010. (More information on this can be found under Glasgow in Section 3.2.5 – Flood.) There are currently three different options being assessed.

The city also has plans to upgrade the drinking water lines in two sections of town. This potential project is in the preliminary design stages; it has taken a back seat to the more pressing problem with the wastewater system.

New Franklin A major flood of the Missouri River in 1826 contributed to the settlement of the area which became the town of New Franklin. The town of Franklin (sometimes referred to as “Old Franklin”) was seriously flooded; many residents decided to move further away from the river and settled in the area which was to become New Franklin. New Franklin was incorporated by order of the legislature in 1833. The route of the Missouri, Kansas, & Texas Railroad (MKT) passed through the town and helped contribute to population growth.

New Franklin is governed by a Board of Aldermen and Mayor. The city staff is composed of a City Administrator, Collector, a Police Chief and second officer, and three City Services employees (public works). The Police Chief serves as the Emergency Management Services Director.

Some recent and ongoing projects in the city include:

• Updating of the City Code Book in 2010 – This was adopted by the Board of Aldermen in December 2010. The updating was done by an outside consultant; the City budgeted over a 3 year period to pay for this project.

• A Capitol Improvement Sales Tax of 1/2¢ - This money is used to fund a street overlay project in part of the city every two years.

Figure 2.10.21 New Franklin Profile

Classification Fourth class city Population (2010) 1,089 Median household income $34,120 Median owner-occupied housing value $72,900 Total housing units (2010) 545 Water service City of New Franklin Electric service Ameren Missouri Ambulance service Howard County Ambulance Service Sewer service City of New Franklin Fire service Howard County Fire Protection District Website http://newfranklin.missouri.org/ Master plan No Emergency Operations Plan Yes Building regulations Yes Zoning regulations Yes Subdivision regulations Yes Stormwater regulations No NFIP participation Yes Floodplain regulations Yes Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2005-2009 American Community Survey 5-year estimates: http://www.factfinder.census.gov; 2010 Census; local officials


Figure 2.10.22

Property Count and Valuation - New Franklin

HAZUS Building Count Building Type #


2010 Assessed Values - New Franklin


$1,438,843 Agricultural $35,640 Commercial $502,910


City Owned Property

Property Insured Value Buildings and Structures $1,636,054 Vehicles (6) $58,459 Road equipment $58,861

Total $1,753,374 (See Appendix D for a detailed listing of New Franklin Property and Values)

Source: New Franklin Insurance Statement

Historic Places

Figure 2.10.23 National Register of Historic Places - New Franklin

Historic Place Harris-Chilton-Ruble House Thomas Hickman House Rivercene Source: http://nrhp.focus.nps.gov/natreghome.do

Future Development Plans New Franklin has joined with the City of Fayette and Howard County Consolidated Public Water Supply District #1 to develop the Howard County Regional Water Commission. When the new regional water system becomes operational, projected to be around the year 2016, the wells and water treatment plant in New Franklin will no longer be used.

New Franklin is also working on a plan to change the wastewater treatment system from a three-cell lagoon system to a land application system.

In addition, the city is working with the Mid-MO Regional Planning Commission to generate a complete sewage collection system map of the city.

The city has also received Transportation Enhancement Grant funding from the Missouri Department of Transportation (MoDOT) for a $147,000 project at Crossroads Park in the southernmost part of the city. The project includes erecting an $80,000 Santa Fe Trail memorial, setting the historic MKT Caboose #128 at the site and installing period lighting. The park is located at the intersection of State Rte. 5 and the Katy Trail State Park.


School Districts There are three public school districts located in the Planning Area: New Franklin R-I, Howard County R-II, and Fayette R-III School District. Each district has an elected Superintendent and School Board along with several administrative staff. During the 2011-2012 school year, the school districts employed a total of approximately 232 staff members and educated approximately 1,380 students in 8 schools. New Franklin R-I School District The New Franklin R-I School District educates K-12 students in an elementary, middle and high school. The original school building was built by the citizens of New Franklin in the 1930’s as a WPA (Works Progress Administration) project. An elementary school was constructed in the 1960’s and a middle school addition added in the 1990’s. All three schools are connected on a single campus. The current high school was a dedicated Civil Defense shelter in the past. This is where the majority of students are directed during severe storms. Total enrollment at the beginning of the 2011-2012 school year was 440 students with a staff of 77.

Figure 2.10.28

New Franklin R-I School District - Assessed Values (2010) Real Estate Personal Property Residential $12,157,820

$5,521,804 Agricultural $2,903,240 Commercial $969,990


District Owned Property

Buildings (2) $10,354,784* Vehicles (7) $ 150,000** * Insured Value - buildings and contents ** Estimated value

Source: New Franklin R-I School District Personnel

Future Development Plans There are no development plans in the district as of the fall of 2011.

Howard Co. R-II School District Howard Co. R-II School District serves K-12 in one school building located in Glasgow which houses both Howard Co. Elementary and Glasgow High. Total enrollment at the beginning of the 2011-2012 school year was approximately 300 students who were served by a staff of 56.

Figure 2.10.25

Howard Co. R-II School District - Assessed Values (2010) Real Estate Personal Property Residential $9,009,250




Structures: School Building Agricultural Science Shop Storage Building with concession stand Grandstand at baseball complex

Replacement Value - Buildings and Contents $12,000,000 Vehicles (4) - Insured Value $350,000 Source: Howard Co. R-II School District Personnel

Future Development Plans There are currently no plans for any future development in the school district.


Fayette R-III School District Fayette R-III School District serves K-12 in three schools – Laurence J. Daly Elementary, William N. Clark Middle School and Fayette High School. Total enrollment for the 2011-2012 school year was 640 students who were served by a fulltime equivalent (FTE) staff of 99.

Figure 2.10.31

Fayette R-III School District - Assessed Values (2010) Real Estate Personal Property Residential $24,731,910




Buildings and Other Structures Insured Value (Building and Contents)

Elementary & Middle School $7,083,320 Vocational Agriculture $764,886 New Fayette H.S./Gym & Music $7,463,675 Home E. & Ind. Arts $665,603 Bus Garage $338,008 Maintenance Shop & Garage $206,604 Portable Storage #1 $13,381 Portable Storage #2 $13,381 Portable Storage #3 $13,381 4 Lighted Poles, Football Field $31,559 Superintendent Office $99,760 Press Box $81,636 Concession Stand - Softball Field $20,075 Union School Building $62,159

Total $16,857,428

Vehicles Number Cars 2 Trailers 1 Trucks 4 Buses 11

Source: Fayette R-III School District Insurance Statement

Future Development Plans There are currently no development plans in the School District.

Central Methodist University Central Methodist University was founded in 1854. It is a private, nonprofit educational institution. Any applicant who meets CMU’s admission requirements may enroll. Central Methodist University does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, sexual preference, religion, sex, national origin, age, or federally defined disability in its recruitment and admission of students. The University complies with all federal and state non-discrimination requirements. Campus officials work closely with the City of Fayette Police and Fire Departments on safety issues and emergency response. A large number of the campus maintenance staff are volunteer firemen and carry pagers; this provides one connection to local emergency alerts. The CMU Crisis Committee, composed of faculty and staff, is responsible for coordinating emergency drills which are held during each school year. There are two emergency call stations located on campus which connect directly to campus security. In addition, there is an outdoor PA (Public Address) system. The Fayette warning siren can be heard in outdoor locations on campus as well as in parts of some buildings. The campus has a text messaging/computer banner alert system for emergency information. Faculty, staff, and students can all sign up for the alerts. The CMU website contains pages addressing both earthquake and tornado safety procedures in the Campus Safety section (http://www.centralmethodist.edu/safety/index.php ). The information is thorough and covers what to do both during and after the event. The Philips Recreation Center on campus has been designated as a Red Cross shelter by the American Red Cross. The field house is an auxiliary location for bedding, if needed, and the outdoor athletic facility is designated for laundry. As of fall 2011, the shelter has not been used. It would be open to Fayette community members in addition to CMU faculty, staff and students, should it become operational during a hazard event. CMU meets the definition of an eligible private non-profit per the 44 Code of Federal Regulations, according to communication received by Sheila Huddleston, State Hazard Mitigation Officer, from FEMA Region VII. This information was communicated to Rosemarie Adams, Grants Specialist at CMU, in an email dated August 18, 2011.


Building Counts and Replacement Costs

Figure 2.10.27 University Owned Property

Property Insured Value Buildings and Structures $69,919,000 Vehicles (12) $199,795

Total $70,118,795 (See Appendix D for a detailed listing of CMU Property and Values)

Source: Central Methodist University Insurance Statement

Population The main campus of Central Methodist University, located in Fayette, had a student enrollment of 1,172 in the fall of 2011. A faculty and staff of 358 (includes full-time and part-time employees) brings the total population on campus to 1,530. Future Development Plans The University is currently working on updating its Facilities Master Plan which was written sometime in the 1990s. The Steering Committee for this project is looking at various factors, including:

• Upgrades needed to facilities and infrastructure • Needs of growing departments • Student access and pedestrian flow around campus

In addition, the campus Crisis Committee is looking at ways to make the campus safer. The two emergency call stations on campus are slated for replacement with new stations. CMU is also in the process of forming a Sustainability Committee which will be composed of faculty, staff, and students. The committee will initially be focusing on recycling and energy management.

Howard Co. Consolidated Public Water Supply District #1 Howard Co. Consolidated Public Water Supply District #1 (CPWSD#1) is governed by an elected Board of Directors composed of five members. The board meets monthly to monitor all expenditures and issues associated with the water district. Planning takes place at these meetings with a budget determined annually. The district has two full-time employees (Chief Water Operator and Clerk/Treasurer) and three part-time employees. The district pumps alluvial water from the Missouri River floodplain with wells reaching depths of 90-100 feet. Due to the abundance of this source, water availability is never an issue for the district. Power to the district is provided by Howard Electric Cooperative and Ameren Missouri. The district does not have its own backup power supply but this is not a concern. Even during the historic Flood of 1993, there was no loss of power to the district. Guidelines from the Missouri Department of Natural Resources (MoDNR) specify that water tanks are sized so as to have one and half days’ backup supply of water. If it would become necessary to generate power, water supply districts are on a priority list for the rental of generators. There are six or seven places where the district could rent a generator. Building Counts and Replacement Costs

Figure 2.10.28 Howard Co. CPWSD #1

Property Insured Value

Buildings (13) Standpipe & Controls - Hill Old Franklin $39,638 Pump, Controls & Motor at Well - MKT Crossing $8,820 Pump, Controls & Motor at Well - W. MKT Crossing $7,875 Booster Pump Station - Clarks Chapel $114,500 Water Treatment Plant - Crews Avenue $24,255 Water Standpipe & Controls - Co. Road 303 $109,200 Booster Pump Station & Control - Co. Road 336 $44,100 Water Treatment Plant $458,850 Well Pump, Controls & Motor at Well - Co. Road 345 $7,875 Water Standpipe & Controls - Route P $152,201 Water Standpipe & Controls $180,718 Water Standpipe & Controls - Boonsboro Co. Road 316 $390,000

Total $1,538,032

Vehicles (1) - Current estimated value $13,000 Source: Howard Co. CPWSD#1 Personnel and Insurance Statement


Future Development Plans Howard Co. Consolidated Public Water Supply District #1 has joined with the Cities of Fayette and New Franklin to form the Howard Co. Regional Water Commission. When the regional water system becomes operational, projected to be around the year 2016, the CPWSD #1 wells and water treatment plant will no longer be used. CPWSD #1 will purchase water from the Howard Co. Regional Water Commission but will continue to take care of its own lines, tanks, and other infrastructure. CPWSD#1 would like to relocate the district offices, boardroom and warehouse out of the floodplain. A mitigation action to that effect has been included in this plan.

Howard Co. Regional Water Commission In 2008, Fayette, New Franklin and Howard Co. Consolidated Public Water Supply District #1 joined together to form the Howard Co. Regional Water Commission. Discussions on the possibility of a regional water commission in Howard County began in 2006. New, and more stringent, regulations from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the MO Department of Natural Resources (MoDNR) spurred the discussion. The new requirements concerning sources and distribution of water were going to necessitate costly upgrades to a number of the existing treatment plants in the county. Information from the EPA indicated that grants and low-interest loans would be more readily available to groups taking a regional approach to water supply and distribution. In 2007, MECO Engineering conducted a Water Regionalization Study, funded by the City of Fayette, to explore viable options. Initial discussions on a regionalization plan included the Cities of Fayette, Glasgow, New Franklin, Howard Co. Consolidated Public Water Supply Districts #1 and #2, Prime Water and Thomas Hill Public Water Supply District #1 (located in Randolph County). Glasgow had recently completed an upgrade of its water treatment plant and chose not to join the commission; likewise, PWSD #2, Prime Water and Thomas Hill PWSD #1 did not join. Thomas Hill is interested in establishing an agreement for emergency access to the regional water supply and a representative attends meetings of the commission; Thomas Hill also made a monetary contribution to the effort. The Commission has a three member Board of Directors which meets monthly. To date, the Commission has received the following grant and loan funding or assurances of future funding:

• $10,000 grant (MoDNR) for an update the Water Regionalization Study of 2007 • $60,000 grant (MoDNR) for the facility plan • $5,000,000 grant (USDA Rural Development) once the facility plan is approved • $5,000,000 loan (USDA Rural Development) once the facility plan is approved

In addition, in the summer of 2009 the Commission issued $980,000 in bonds for interim financing. In 2010, the Commission purchased a 12.49 acre piece of land just north of New Franklin for the water treatment plant site. The projected date for the Regional Water Commission to be operational is around the year 2016. Building Counts and Replacement Costs The Commission has no building or equipment assets as of the fall of 2011. Hazard vulnerabilities for the Howard Co. Regional Water Commission have been assessed based on the known plans for the future and general knowledge regarding water infrastructure.


Future Development Plans As of the fall of 2011, work is underway to obtain a well site (which will probably be located somewhere in the Missouri River floodplain) and easements for the transmission mains. An elevated storage tank will be located somewhere between New Franklin and Fayette but the exact location has not been determined. The Commission has contracted with MECO Engineering to complete the facility plan once the sites are established. Each member of the Commission will be applying for a Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) in 2012. It is projected that the Howard Co. Regional Water Commission system will be operational sometime around 2016.

Section 3: Risk Assessment

3.1 Introduction and Methodology Risk assessment is a process of estimating the potential for injury, death, property damage, or economic loss which may result from a hazard. A risk assessment is only as valuable as the thoroughness and accuracy of the information on which it is based. The Risk Assessment for the Planning Area is comprised of the following:

• Identification of Hazards • Profiling of Hazards • Assessment of Vulnerability • Inventory of Assets

Identification of Hazards

Requirement §201.6(c)(2)(i): [The risk assessment shall include a] description of the type…of all

natural hazards than can affect the jurisdiction.

The following natural hazards have been identified as posing potential risk in the Planning Area:

• Dam Failure • Drought • Earthquake • Extreme Heat • Flood (includes riverine flooding, flash flooding, and storm water flooding) • Levee Failure • Land Subsidence/Sinkhole • Severe Winter Weather (Snow, Ice, and Extreme Cold) • Wildfire • Windstorm • Tornado • Hailstorm

The Missouri State Hazard Mitigation Plan (2010) indicates that expansive soils, landslides, and rockfalls are recognized as hazards in Missouri but occur infrequently and with minimal impact. For this reason, those hazards were not profiled in the State Plan nor will they be profiled in the Howard County Plan. There are certain other natural hazards which FEMA requires to be addressed in Hazard Mitigation Plans if they are applicable to the Planning Area. Avalanches and volcanoes have not


been included in this plan as they do not pose a threat due to Howard County’s topography and geology. Coastal erosion, coastal storms, hurricanes, and tsunamis do not pose a threat to the county due to its inland location. Profiling of Hazards

Requirement §201.6(c)(2)(i):

[The risk assessment shall include a] description of the…location and extent of all natural hazards that can affect the jurisdiction. The plan shall include information on previous occurrences of hazard events and on the probability of future hazard events.

Each of the natural hazards identified as posing a risk to the Planning Area has been studied and analyzed in order to provide the information required in the plan. The extent of each natural hazard has been described through a Measure of Severity (a measure of the strength or magnitude of a hazard event). The information has been organized in the following way for each hazard profile in Section 3.2:

• Description of Hazard • Geographic location • Previous occurrences • Measures of Probability and Severity

The definitions of the Measures of Probability and Severity included in each profile were slightly modified those in the Missouri State Hazard Mitigation Plan (2010) and are as follows: Probability – The likelihood that the hazard will occur.

• Low – The hazard has little or no chance of happening (less than 1 percent chance of occurrence in any given year)

• Moderate – The hazard has a reasonable probability of occurring (between 1 and 10 percent chance of occurrence in any given year).

• High – The probability is considered sufficiently high to assume that the event will occur (between 10 and 100 percent chance of occurrence in any given year).

Severity – The deaths, injuries, or damage (property or environmental) that could result from the hazard.

• Low – Few or minor damage or injuries are likely.

• Moderate – Injuries to personnel and damage to property and the environment is expected.

• High – Deaths/major injuries and/or major damage will likely occur.

Assessment of Vulnerability

Requirement §201.6(c)(2)(ii):

[The risk assessment shall include a] description of the jurisdiction's vulnerability to the hazards described in paragraph (c)(2)(i) of this section. This description shall include an overall summary of each hazard and its impact on the community.

Requirement §201.6(c)(2)(iii):

For multi-jurisdictional plans, the risk assessment must assess each jurisdiction's risks where they vary from the risks facing the entire planning area.

A community’s vulnerability to a hazard is linked to the probability that a hazard event will occur (Measure of Probability) and to the extent of that event (Measure of Severity). For each identified hazard, a Vulnerability Rating was determined for each participating jurisdiction and for the Planning Area as a whole. This was done by considering the geographic location, historical record, and Measures of Probability and Severity for each hazard in relation to the particulars of each jurisdiction. In many cases, the potential severity of the hazard event contributes the greatest weight to the Vulnerability Rating. In some cases, however, a low severity event with high frequency can cause economic strain which translates into a higher vulnerability. A Vulnerability Overview follows each hazard profile in Section 3.2. The overview includes the Vulnerability Ratings for the hazard and the rationale behind the ratings. Also included are brief descriptions of any mitigation strategies currently in place for the hazard under discussion.


A summary of the Vulnerability Ratings for the Planning Area and each of the participating jurisdictions, by hazard, is shown in Figure 3.1.2. A complete chart showing Measures of Probability and Severity and Vulnerability Ratings for each jurisdiction is included in Appendix E.

Figure 3.1.2

Plan

ning

Are

a

How

ard

Co.

(u

ninc

orpo

rate

d)

Arm

stro

ng

Faye

tte

Gla

sgow

New

Fra

nklin

New

Fra

nklin

R-I

Scho

ol D

istr

ict

How

ard

Co.

R-II

Sc

hool

Dis

tric

t

Faye

tte R

-III S

choo

l D

istr

ict

Cen

tral

Met

hodi

st

Uni

vers

ity

How

ard

Co.

Con

s.

PWSD

#1

How

ard

Co.

Reg

. W

ater

Com

mis

sion

Dam Failure L L na L na na na na na na L na

Drought M M L L L L L L L L na na

Earthquake M M M M M M M M M M M M

Extreme Heat M M M M M M M M M M M M

Flood H H M H H H M M H M H H

Land Subsidence/Sinkhole L L L L L L L L L L L L

Levee Failure H H na na na H na na na na H H*

Severe Winter Weather M M M M M M M M M M L L

Wildfire M/H M/H L M/H L M/H L L L L L L

Windstorm M M M M M M M M M M L L

Tornado H H H H H H H H H H H H

Hailstorm H H H H H H H H H H L L

Hazard Vulnerability

Key: L = Low Vulnerability, M = Moderate Vulnerability, H = High Vulnerability, na = Not applicable

* Based on location of future infrastructure

Inventory of Assets

Requirement §201.6(c)(2)(ii) (A):

The plan should describe vulnerability in terms of the types and numbers of existing and future buildings, infrastructure, and critical facilities located in the identified hazard area….

Requirement §201.6(c)(2)(ii) (B):

[The plan should describe vulnerability in terms of an] estimate of the potential dollar losses to vulnerable structures identified in paragraph (c)(2)(11)(A) of this section and a description of the methodology used to prepare the estimate…

Requirement §201.6(c)(2)(ii) (C):

[The plan should describe vulnerability in terms of] providing a general description of land uses and development trends within the community so that mitigation options can be considered in future land use decisions.

An overall inventory of the assets in the Planning Area is included in Section 2.10. An assessment of structures, equipment, and populations in the Planning Area which are vulnerable to a specific hazard is included after each hazard profile in Section 3.2. As prescribed by FEMA guidelines, critical structures, building counts, and assessed values are included. All people, structures, and equipment are vulnerable to one or more hazards in the Planning Area. This assessment can be used to identify potential areas where mitigation activities are needed. The impact of future development is only generally addressed with some hazards because of their unpredictable nature.


3.2 Hazard Profiles and Vulnerability Overviews This section contains a profile of each hazard followed by a general overview of the Planning Area’s vulnerability to that hazard. More information on the Vulnerability to each hazard in each participating jurisdiction is covered in Section 3.3 (Vulnerability Assessment by Participating Jurisdiction). 3.2.1 Dam Failure Description of Hazard A dam is defined by the National Dam Safety Act as an artificial barrier which impounds or diverts water and: (1) is more than 6 feet high and stores 50 acre feet or more, or (2) is 25 feet or higher and stores more than 15 acre feet. Based on this definition, there are over 80,000 dams in the United States. Over 95% are non-federal, with most being owned by state governments, municipalities, watershed districts, industries, lake associations, land developers, and private citizens. Dam construction varies widely throughout Missouri. A majority of dams are of earthen construction. Missouri's mining industry has produced numerous tailing dams for the surface disposal of mine waste. These dams are made from mining material deposited in slurry form in an impoundment. Other types of earthen dams are reinforced with a core of concrete and/or asphalt. The largest dams in the state, hydroelectric dams, are built of reinforced concrete. Dams can fail for many reasons. The most common are:

• Piping: internal erosion caused by embankment leakage, foundation leakage and deterioration of pertinent structures appended to the dam

• Erosion: inadequate spillway capacity causing overtopping of the dam, flow erosion, and inadequate slope protection

• Structural Failure: caused by an earthquake, slope instability or faulty construction. These failures are often interrelated. For example, erosion, either surface or internal, may weaken the dam and lead to structural failure. Similarly a structural failure may shorten the seepage path and lead to a piping failure. Dam owners have the primary responsibility for the safe design, operation and maintenance of dams. They also have responsibility for providing early warning of problems, for developing effective emergency action plans, and for coordinating plans with local officials. The State has ultimate responsibility for public safety. Many states regulate construction, modification, maintenance, and operation of dams and support dam safety programs. Dam Regulation in Missouri

The first dam regulation in Missouri took place in 1889 with the passage of the Dam, Mills, and Electric Power Law. This bill addressed damage from the construction of dams and lake

formation; it did not address engineering concerns or potential downstream damage from dam failure. In the late 1970’s, legislation was introduced into the state legislature to further dam regulation. This was in response to indications from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers inspection program that Missouri had more unsafe dams than any other state in the nation. The Dam and Reservoir Safety Law passed and became effective September 1979 as Sections 236.400 - 236.500 of the Revised Statutes of Missouri (RSMo). Under the law, Missouri regulates dams which are 35 feet and higher. The law exempts from state regulation any dam less than 35 feet in height, those licensed under the Federal Power Act, agricultural dams, and dams regulated by other agencies with standards as stringent as the Missouri law. State regulation makes a dam subject to permit and inspection requirements. The inspection cycle is dictated by the state classification system for dams. The state classification system is based upon the type and number of structures downstream from a dam. An inventory of all the dams of the state was done in the late 1970s and early 1980s, according to Glenn Lloyd, Civil Engineer and Dam Safety Inspector with the Dam Safety Program of the MO Department of Natural Resources (DNR). All of the known dams were classified at that time. According to the Association of State Dam Safety Officials, only 653 of the 5206 classified dams fall into the regulated category. There is also a federal classification system. The federal classification system is based upon the probable loss of human life and the impact on economic, environmental and lifeline interests from dam failure. It should be noted that there is always the possibility of loss of human life when a dam fails; this classification system does not account for the possibility of people occasionally passing through an inundation area which is usually unoccupied (e.g. occasional recreational users, daytime user of downstream lands, etc.) A summary of the federal and state classification systems, how the two systems relate to each other, and inspection requirements for state regulated dams is shown in Figure 3.2.1A.


Figure 3.2.1 A

Dam Hazard Classification Systems

Federal Classification Federal Criterion

State of Missouri

Classification Downstream Environment

Inspection Requirement

(State Regulated

Dams)

High Hazard Probable loss of human life

Class 1 10 or more permanent

dwellings; or any public building

Every 2 years

Class 2

1-9 permanent dwellings; or 1 or

more campgrounds with permanent water, sewer and

electrical services; or one or more

industrial buildings

Every 3 years

Significant Hazard

No probable loss of human life but potential

economic loss, environmental damage,

disruption of lifeline facilities or other impact

of concern Class 3 Everything else Every 5 years

Low Hazard

No probable loss of human life; low economic

and/or environmental loss; loss principally

limited to owner's property

Sources: Federal Guidelines for Dam Safety, Hazard Potential Classification System for Dams, April 2004, http://www.fema.gov/library/viewRecord.do?id=1830; http://www.sos.mo.gov/adrules/csr/current/10csr/10c22-2.pdf; Glenn Lloyd, Civil Engineer/Dam Safety Inspector, MO DNR, Water Resources Center, Dam Safety Program

Classification is a dynamic system. Development can change the downstream situation and thus the hazard potential of a dam. The inspection cycle for state regulated dams allows for a regulated dam’s classification to be updated when appropriate; a regulated dam would have its classification appraised at least once every 5 years. However, by their very definition, unregulated dams are not routinely inspected by the state. There is no system in place to routinely evaluate the classification of these unregulated dams. One must, therefore, use caution in assuming the classifications of unregulated dams is currently accurate. It is very probable that, for most of the unregulated dams, the classification does not take into account almost 30 years of development and change in Howard County.

In addition, the DNR database of dams in Missouri reflects only the known dams; a dam less than 35 feet in height which was built since the inventory was taken some 30 years ago may not appear in the database. There are 72 dams listed for Howard County in the DNR database (see Figure 3.2.1B). Only 6 of these are regulated. It should be noted that 6 of the 8 dams classified as High Hazard (probable loss of human life were failure to occur) are under 35 feet in height and thus not regulated by the State. Four of these unregulated high hazard dams are State Class #1, indicating the following downstream environment at the time of the survey:

• 10 or more permanent buildings; or any public building Two of these unregulated high hazard dams are State Class #2, indicating the following downstream environment at the time of the survey:

• 1-9 permanent dwellings; or 1 or more campgrounds with permanent water, sewer and electrical services; or one of more industrial buildings

Downstream environments may have been altered since the survey in the late 1970’s/early 1980’s raising the possibility that there are even more high hazard and significant hazard dams in the County than shown in the database.

Figure 3.2.1B Hazard Categories of Howard County Dams

Federal Hazard Category Dams Percentage of

Total Dams State

Regulated Unregulated

High 8 11% 2 6

Significant 1 1% 1 0

Low 63 88% 3 60

Total Dams 72 100% 6 66 Source: http://www.dnr.mo.gov/env/wrc/damsft/Crystal_Reports/howard_dams.pdf

Recent dam failures in other parts of the State have brought attention both to the general problem of dam failure and to the potential threat posed by unregulated dams. Inundation studies are now being conducted on regulated dams in the state beginning with the high hazard dams. (For a full discussion of this topic, see “Existing Mitigation Strategies” at the end of this section.)


Geographic Location The locations of the dams in the DNR database for Howard County are shown in Figure 3.2.1 C. Specific information for the 6 regulated dams and the 66 unregulated dams is given in the accompanying map key (Figure 3.2.1 D). It must be remembered that, according to information from Missouri DNR, much of this data, perhaps most of it, for the unregulated dams has not been updated since the dam survey was first conducted in the late 1970s and early 1980s. The heights of the unregulated dams may be, in some cases, the only currently reliable information. Figure 3.2.1 C

Figure 3.2.1 D

Map ID # Name Year

Built Ht (feet)Reservoir

Area (Acres)

Drainage Area

(Acres)

Federal Class

State Class

32 DAVID PEELER DAM 1999 47 0 5 S 32 DAVIS LAKE DAM 1962 35 54 361 L 333 LAKE VIEW ACRES DAM NA 47 23 96 H 231 MONITEAU CREEK WTRSHD A-3A DAM 1990 53 48 95200 L 36 ROGERS LAKE DAM 1970 45 184 2510 H 130 SUNSET LAKE DAM 1990 47 22 90 L 3

18 ARMSTRONG RESERVOIR DAM 1960 30 9 330 L 39 BANKHEAD LAKE DAM 1962 22 5 29 L 328 CAMPBELL LAKE DAM 1977 30 4 15 L 310 COLLINS LAKE DAM 1950 25 12 210 L 325 DAVIS LAKE DAM 1950 25 4 43 L 321 DAVIS LAKE DAM 1977 30 5 35 L 33 FAYETTE NEW CITY LAKE DAM 1961 33 107 895 H 14 FAYETTE OLD CITY LAKE DAM 1909 30 12 117 H 17 HEYEN LAKE DAM 1973 24 19 390 H 226 HOWELL LAKE DAM 1935 25 4 45 L 38 JOHNMEYER LAKE DAM 1952 32 6 32 H 227 LIPPOLD LAKE DAM NA 21 14 290 L 340 MECHLIN 1999 33 3 0 L NA35 MONITEAU CREEK WS DAM H- 7 1996 16 7 0 L NA34 MONITEAU CREEK WS DAM H- 8 1996 22 6 0 L NA64 MONITEAU CREEK WS DAM H- 10 2004 28 6 0 L NA66 MONITEAU CREEK WS DAM H- 14 2004 30 8 0 L NA41 MONITEAU CREEK WS DAM H- 16 2000 26 3 0 L NA55 MONITEAU CREEK WS DAM H- 18 2002 23 5 0 L NA56 MONITEAU CREEK WS DAM H- 19 2002 27 8 0 L NA57 MONITEAU CREEK WS DAM H- 20 2002 25 9 0 L NA42 MONITEAU CREEK WS DAM H- 21 2000 30 6 0 L NA63 MONITEAU CREEK WS DAM H- 24 2003 28 5 0 L NA37 MONITEAU CREEK WS DAM L- 2 1996 24 6 0 L NA38 MONITEAU CREEK WS DAM L- 3 1996 28 7 0 L NA36 MONITEAU CREEK WS DAM L- 5 1996 27 8 0 L NA65 MONITEAU CREEK WS DAM L- 9 2003 29 8 0 L NA43 MONITEAU CREEK WS DAM L- 11 2000 25 5 0 L NA52 MONITEAU CREEK WS DAM L- 17 1998 25 5 0 L NA53 MONITEAU CREEK WS DAM L- 18 1998 29 5 0 L NA54 MONITEAU CREEK WS DAM L- 19 1998 26 4 0 L NA

REGULATED Howard County Dams

UNREGULATED Howard County Dams


Map ID # Name Year

Built Ht (feet)Reservoir

Area (Acres)

Drainage Area

(Acres)

Federal Class

State Class

44 MONITEAU CREEK WS DAM M- 17 1999 28 6 0 L NA50 MONITEAU CREEK WS DAM M- 18 1998 29 7 0 L NA70 MONITEAU CREEK WS DAM M- 25 2004 30 8 0 L NA45 MONITEAU CREEK WS DAM M- 26 1999 22 6 0 L NA46 MONITEAU CREEK WS DAM M- 30 1999 25 8 0 L NA51 MONITEAU CREEK WS DAM M- 33 1998 24 7 0 L NA47 MONITEAU CREEK WS DAM M- 34 1999 27 9 0 L NA68 MONITEAU CREEK WS DAM M- 35 2004 26 4 0 L NA71 MONITEAU CREEK WS DAM M- 37 2005 31 6 0 L NA69 MONITEAU CREEK WS DAM M- 41 2004 26 5 0 L NA48 MONITEAU CREEK WS DAM M- 43 1999 24 5 0 L NA67 MONITEAU CREEK WS DAM M- 44 2004 26 7 0 L NA49 MONITEAU CREEK WS DAM M- 46 1999 29 6 0 L NA58 MONITEAU CREEK WS DAM M- 51 2002 24 6 0 L NA59 MONITEAU CREEK WS DAM M- 68 2002 28 6 0 L NA12 MONONAME 121 1923 15 3 57 L 323 MUELLER LAKE DAM 1977 30 4 32 L 313 NEW HORTICULTURE FARM DAM 1956 26 8 86 H 116 PALMER LAKE DAM 1971 25 6 42 L 314 PETERSEN LAKE DAM 1972 31 7 60 L 329 POND 4-011 NA 28 15 80 L 30 RESERVOIR DAM 1954 23 32 1403 H 119 ROBERTSON FARMS INC DAM 1965 25 9 125 L 315 ROSS LAKE DAM 1964 29 12 55 L 360 RUTH BRILL DAM 2000 28 2 0 L NA62 SAM STROUPE DAM 2000 28 4 0 L NA39 SNODDY 1999 28 3 0 L NA11 STRODTMAN LAKE DAM 1965 25 8 185 L 320 STROUPE LAKE DAM 1977 25 5 180 L 35 TAYLOR LAKE DAM LOWER 1955 25 18 700 L 324 TAYLOR LAKE DAM UPPER 1915 25 8 480 L 31 WEST TOWN LAKE DAM 1966 24 11 120 L 361 WESTHUES FAMILY TRUST DAM 2000 30 2 0 L NA22 WIEBERG LAKE DAM 1977 30 5 65 L 317 WIES LAKE DAM 1977 25 7 65 L 3

Source: http://www.dnr.mo.gov/env/wrc/damsft/Crystal_Reports/howard_dams.pdf

UNREGULATED Howard County DamsFigure 3.2.1 D (cont.)

The following dams not included in the DNR database were identified by the Planning Committee:

• Dam northeast of Franklin, with a reservoir of 6.7 acres • Meadow View Lake Dam located 6-7 miles south of Fayette near Highway 240 with an

estimated reservoir of 2-3 acre • Twin Lakes dams located south of Fayette (west of Highway 240 and north of Route P ),

with an estimated upper reservoir of 7-8 acres • Dam west of Twin Lakes dams

Previous Occurrences While there have been no dam failures in Howard County, the issue was highlighted in the mid-Missouri region by a dam failure in neighboring Boone County in 2008 and a near failure in Cole County in 2009. The Moon Valley Lake Dam in Columbia (Boone County) failed in March 2008. This 18-foot high unregulated dam had been built in 1964; it drained 2,100 acres and had a 13-acre reservoir, according to the DNR database. Moon Valley Lake Dam was classified as high hazard, but there was no loss of life with the dam failure. This may be partially attributable to the fact that Moon Valley Lake was silted in and the main release from the dam failure was silt which went down the Hominy Branch into the Hinkson Creek. The added silt has caused greater flooding problems on the Hinkson Creek since the time of the dam failure. The City of Columbia estimated the cost of removing the sediment and stabilizing about 2,000 feet of the stream bank to be in the vicinity of $400,000.

Failure of the Renn’s Lake Dam in Jefferson City (Cole County) was averted in late October/early November 2009 through the work of emergency crews and volunteers who relieved pressure on the earthen dam by pumping thousands of gallons of water from 7-acre Renn’s Lake. The 30-foot high unregulated dam, built in 1950, had been weakened by the growth of trees; heavy rainfall caused a 15-foot section to erode. Renn’s Lake is located immediately to the west of U.S. Highway 54 and the failure of the dam would have threatened the highway. The deed to Renn Lake was subsequently transferred to Cole County with plans to breach the dam and drain the lake.

Boone and Cole Counties are not the only counties in Missouri to experience dam failures. According to the Missouri State Hazard Mitigation Plan (2007), Missouri has the largest number of manmade dams in any state. The Stanford University’s National Performance of Dams Program documented 16 dam failures in Missouri between 1975 and 2001.

More recently, there was a huge dam failure which destroyed Johnson Shut-Ins State Park in Reynolds County. On December 14, 2005, the AmerenUE’s Taum Sauk reservoir dam at their hydroelectric complex failed; 1.5 billion gallons of water were released into the park in 10 minutes. There was no loss of life, even though the superintendent’s family was swept out of their home. However, if this failure had occurred during the summer when the popular park has many visitors, it could have resulted in a catastrophic loss of life.

All of these dam failures indicated that this is a serious problem which needs attention. Many of Missouri’s smaller dams are becoming a greater hazard as they continue to age and deteriorate.


While hundreds of them need to be rehabilitated, lack of available funding and often questions of ownership loom as obstacles difficult to overcome. Measures of Probability and Severity Probability: Low Severity: Low Nine dams in Howard County are considered to pose high or significant hazard should there be a dam break, according to their federal classification. Of these dams, six are not regulated by the state and thus not subject to inspection requirements. The Planning Committee, however, disputed the classification of many of these high hazard dams as, in many cases, there are no buildings within the downstream distance of these dams which could reasonably be considered to be impacted by a dam failure. Knowledge of the Planning Area’s topography and a thorough inspection of the maps included in this plan led the Planning Committee to determine that the severity of a dam failure in the Planning Area should be considered low. Dam Failure Vulnerability Overview Vulnerable Jurisdictions: Howard County (unincorporated), Fayette, Howard Co. Public Water Supply District #1

Vulnerability Rating: Low There are eight dams in the Planning Area federally classified as High Hazard; only two of these are regulated by the State of Missouri and inspected on a regular basis. There is one dam federally classified as Significant Hazard which is regulated by the State; the other 63 dams in the Planning Area are federally classified as Low Hazard. As mentioned previously, this classification was established more about 40 years ago and most probably has not been reviewed since.

The Planning Committee disputed the accuracy of the classification of many of these High Hazard dams due to the current lack of any buildings within the downstream distance which could reasonably be considered to be impacted by a dam failure.

The total damage sustained by a dam failure would depend on many varying factors such as the size and location of the dam, advance warning of the possibility of a break, the amount of water released, time and season of the break, presence/absence of debris carried by the water, structures downstream, and the presence/absence of people in the downstream area.

It was the assessment of the Planning Committee, after inspection and discussion of the dam location maps, that the Vulnerability Rating for Dam Failure in the Planning Area should be Low.

Potential Impact on Existing Structures Most of the dams in the Planning Area are located in unincorporated Howard County. The cities of Fayette and New Franklin have dams inside, or within a mile upstream of, their city limits (see Figure 3.2.1 E.) The Planning Committee determined that New Franklin is not at risk from failure of the dam located near its western boundary because of the topography of the land and the resulting direction of water flow. Figure 3.2.1 E


The Planning Committee assessed that there is some infrastructure in the Planning Area which is possibly threatened by dam failure in the Planning Area.

• The City of Fayette has a carbon treatment shed downstream from the Roger’s Lake Dam which would probably be impacted should that dam fail.

• Howard Co. Public Water Supply District #1 Rural Water District has its water treatment plant/office, warehouse, and two tanks located in the City of Franklin. These structures could possibly be affected by failures of the New Horticulture Farm Dam or the Reservoir Dam. The Reservoir Dam lake, however, has silted in a lot and does not hold as much water as its size would indicate. (Note: The City of Franklin itself is not a participating jurisdiction in this plan.) It should be noted that the water treatment plan/office and warehouse are only accessible by boat on a fairly regularly basis due to flooding. More information on this can be found under “Howard Co. Public Water Supply District #1” in the Flood Section (3.2.5).

• A failure at John Meyer Lake Dam could possibly damage a bridge on Highway W.

Without specific inundation studies, it is difficult to know the exact areas which would be impacted by the failure of these dams. The Dam and Reservoir Safety Program of the MO DNR is currently leading a program to conduct inundation studies on state regulated dams throughout Missouri. Studies are initially being conducted on the high hazard dams (State Classes 1 and 2). This is discussed further on in this section under “Existing Mitigation Strategies”.

The downstream areas, and parcels within a half mile of the dams, for dams near the City of Fayette are shown in Figure 3.2.1 F. Roger’s Lake Dam is a state regulated High Hazard dam; its failure would probably impact a carbon treatment shed owned by the City. The Fayette Old City Lake Dam is an unregulated High Hazard dam. Davis Lake Dam is classified as Low Hazard. Inundation information is not available for these dams so, at the present time, it is not possible to know the extent of the area that would likely be impacted by the failure of one of these dams. Figure 3.2.1 F


The downstream areas, and parcels within a half mile of the dams, for dams near the Cities of New Franklin and Franklin are shown in Figure 3.2.1 G. Both the Reservoir Dam and the New Horticulture Farm Dam are unregulated High Hazard dams. Inundation information is not available for these dams so, at the present time, it is not possible to know the extent of the area that would likely be impacted by the failure of one of these dams. The Planning Committee assessed that structures of the Howard Co. Public Water Supply District #1 would possibly be affected by failure at either of these dams. Figure 3.2.1 G

The downstream areas and parcels within a half mile of the other high hazard dams in the Planning Area are shown in Figures 3.2.1 H-I. Inundation information is not available for these dams so, at the present time, it is not possible to know the extent of the area that would likely be impacted by the failure of one of these dams. However, the Planning Committee assessed that a failure at John Meyer Lake Dam (known locally as Lake Irene) could possibly damage a bridge on Highway W.

Figure 3.2.1 H


Figure 3.2.1 I

Potential Impact of Future Development It would be wise to consider the potential threat of Dam Failure when development is under consideration in the Planning Area. If development occurs without knowledge of potential problems presented by dams upstream, structures and lives can be put in jeopardy.

There are currently no planning and zoning regulations in Howard County; public sentiment indicates that this will be true for the foreseeable future. Therefore, there is no legal means to control development to lessen the threat of flooding from Dam Failure in the unincorporated areas of Howard County. The City of Fayette and Howard Co. Public Water Supply District #1 are both possibly vulnerable to the effects of dam failure. Fayette does have zoning regulations and could restrict development in any dam inundation areas which might exist within its city limits. However, inundation areas are not known at this time and may not even include area within the city limits. Howard Co. Public Water Supply District #1 would like to move its office and warehouse which are possibly vulnerable to dam failure because of other regular problems with flooding. (The Water Treatment Plant will no longer be used once the Howard Co. Regional Water Commission becomes operational.) More information on this can be found under “Howard Co. Public Water Supply District #1” in the Flood section (3.2.5). Where the legal power is lacking, public education can be used to help raise awareness of the issue so that is taken into consideration when purchasing or developing property. The inundation studies and development of EAPs for the two state regulated high hazard dams in the Planning Area will provide information helpful for making informed decision in the area of those dams, if this information is readily available and the public is aware of its existence. Eventually, it is hoped that inundation studies will be completed on all of the state regulated dams; this would provide inundation information on four more dams in the Planning Area. Existing Mitigation Strategies County

Evacuation - Centrally located and easily accessible staging areas have been identified by Howard County Emergency Management in the event that an evacuation is ordered (Howard County LEOP, Appendix 3 to Annex J). Transportation will be provided from the staging areas to designated safe areas for those persons who do not have their own transportation. In addition, the staging areas can be used as drop-off and pick-up sites for resources and supplies. The identified staging areas are:

• Central Methodist Baseball and Football Field (Fayette) • Fayette R-III Schools (Fayette) • Howard County R-II Schools (Glasgow) • New Franklin R-I (New Franklin)

The specific staging area(s) to be used would depend upon the event.


State

Inspection - State regulated dams are inspected every 2 to 5 years, based on classification, through the Dam Safety Program of the DNR.

Inundation Maps and Emergency Action Plans (EAPs) (While these inundation maps and EAPs have not yet been completed for Howard County, they are discussed in this section because they are a mitigation strategy which is currently underway statewide.)

All owners of state regulated dams in Missouri are required to complete an Emergency Action Plan (EAP). However, according to the Missouri State Hazard Mitigation Plan (2010), “…inundation maps and emergency action plans are not available for most of the State-regulated dams at this time.”

To address this issue, inundation studies are currently underway on state regulated dams, beginning with the high hazard dams (State Classes 1 and 2). In 2009, the State hired an outside firm to develop the inundation maps. They are being completed on a county by county basis, beginning with the counties with the greatest number of regulated high hazard dams.

In conjunction with the inundation mapping, Emergency Action Plans (EAPs) will be developed for state regulated dams under the lead of the Dam and Reservoir Safety Program of the MO DNR, working in conjunction with the dam owners, County Emergency Management Directors, and other state and federal officials.

The Missouri Dam and Reservoir Safety Program provides the following information about the importance and content of EAPS on their website:

Completion of Emergency Action Plans can help save lives and reduce property damage during a dam safety emergency. Plans increase preparedness by organizing emergency contact information and evacuation procedures into an official document and by providing enhanced communications between dam owners and local emergency management officials.

Emergency Action Plans will contain the following information:

• Guidance for evaluating emergency situations occurring at a dam. • Notification charts and emergency contact information. • A list of residents, businesses and entities within the downstream inundation zone. • A list of resources available for responding to a dam emergency. • An inundation zone map (estimated boundary of the maximum water elevation

resulting from a dam breach. • Basic physical and geographical data for the regulated dam.

3.2.2 Drought Description of Hazard The National Weather Service defines a drought as “a period of abnormally dry weather which persists long enough to produce a serious hydrologic imbalance (for example crop damage, water supply shortage, etc.) The severity of the drought depends upon the degree of moisture deficiency, and the duration and the size of the affected area.” Droughts occur either through a lack of precipitation (supply droughts) or overuse of water (water use droughts). Supply droughts are natural phenomenon associated with lower than normal precipitation. Water use droughts are when the uses of water by humans outpace what the surrounding environment can naturally support. Water use droughts can theoretically happen anywhere but are generally seen in arid climates, not humid places such as Missouri. At the present time, Missouri is most vulnerable to supply droughts brought on by a lack of precipitation. The period of lack of precipitation needed to produce a supply drought will vary between regions and the particular manifestations of a drought are influenced by many factors. As an aid to analysis and discussion, the research literature has defined different categories of drought (see Figure 3.2.2 A).

Figure 3.2.2 A Drought Categories

Agricultural drought Defined by soil moisture deficiencies

Hydrological drought Defined by declining surface and groundwater supplies

Meteorological drought Defined by precipitation deficiencies

Hydrological drought and land use Defined as meteorological drought in one area that has hydrological impacts in another area

Socioeconomic drought Defined as drought impacting supply and demand of some economic commodity

Source: “Missouri Drought Plan,” Missouri Department of Natural Resources – Geological Survey and Resource Assessment, Water Resources Report No. 69, 2002

The most common type of drought in Mid-Missouri is the agricultural drought which happens on average every five years. Widespread crop damage, particularly to corn, is associated with agricultural drought in Missouri. The socioeconomic consequences of a drought can reach far beyond those immediately damaged.


Measuring Drought

Droughts vary in severity. Numerous indices have been developed to measure drought severity; each tool has its strengths and weaknesses. One of the oldest and most widely used indices is the Palmer Drought Severity Index (PDSI, see Figure 3.2.2 B), which is published jointly by NOAA and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). The PDSI measures the difference between water supply (precipitation and soil moisture) and water demand (amount needed to replenish soil moisture and keep larger bodies of water at normal levels.)

Figure 3.2.2 B Palmer Drought Severity Index (PDSI) Score Characteristics

Greater than 4 Extreme moist spell 3.0 to 3.9 Very moist spell 2.0 to 2.9 Unusual moist spell 1.0 to 1.9 Moist spell .5 to .9 Incipient moist spell .4 to -.4 Near normal conditions -.5 to -.9 Incipient drought -1 to –1.9 Mild drought -2 to –2.9 Moderate drought -3 to –3.9 Severe drought Below -4 Extreme drought

Missouri is divided into six regions of similar climactic conditions for PDSI reporting; Howard County is located in the Northwest Region.

The Missouri Department of Natural Resource’s drought response system is based on the PDSI and has four phases of increasing severity:

• Phase 1: Advisory Phase - Water monitoring analysis indicates anticipated drought. • Phase 2: Drought Alert - PDSI reads -1 to -2; and stream flow, reservoir levels and

groundwater levels are below normal over a period of several months. • Phase 3: Conservation Phase - PDSI reads between -2 to -4; stream flow, reservoir levels

and groundwater levels continue to decline; and forecasts indicate an extended period of below-normal precipitation.

• Phase 4: Drought Emergency - PSDI reads lower than -4.

A newer index which is currently being used by The National Drought Mitigation Center (NDMC) is the Standardized Precipitation Index (SPI). This index is based on the probability of precipitation; the time scale used in the probability estimates can be varied and makes the tool very flexible. The SPI is able to identify emerging droughts months sooner than is possible with the PDSI.

Geographic Location The entire Planning Area is potentially at risk for drought. However, the problem of drought in Missouri is primarily an issue of rural water supply, according to the Missouri State Hazard Mitigation Plan (2010). Since most droughts in central Missouri are agricultural droughts, the jurisdiction most at risk is the unincorporated area of Howard County. In the rural agricultural areas, farmers are at risk for crop failure and would suffer the most immediate and severe economic loss. This economic loss can spread out into an entire region, however, and the more prolonged the drought, the greater the economic ripple effect. There is also an increased chance of wildfire during periods of drought, just when water resources are at a premium for all needs. Wildfire is addressed in Section 3.2.9. In terms of participating jurisdictions, Howard Co. Consolidated Public Water Supply District #1 and Howard Co. Regional Water Commission have been evaluated as not vulnerable to Drought for reasons which will be explained in the Drought Vulnerability Overview. Previous Occurrences Even though Howard County averages about 37” of precipitation per year, it has been subject to droughts in the past. Historical information concerning droughts prior to the 20th Century is difficult to find. However, tree-ring research at the University of Missouri, chronicling the years 912 to 2004, indicates a regular 18.6 year cycle of drought in the Midwest. More information is available for droughts in the 20th and current centuries:

• 1930’s and early 1940s - Missouri suffered drought along with most of the central United States. These were the Dust Bowl years in the southern plains.

• 1953-1957 - These were actually drier years in Missouri than the Dust Bowl years.

Missouri was specifically hit in 1954 and 1956 by an extreme decrease in precipitation. Crop yields were down by as much as 50%, leading to negative impacts on the agricultural and regional economies of the region.

• 1980’s - he last major nationwide drought was in the late 1980’s. The Northern Great

Plains and Northern Midwest were hit particularly hard. Missouri suffered economic losses due to decreased barge traffic and low water in the Missouri and Mississippi Rivers. Some Missouri municipalities suffered from very low water resources and in some instances exhausted all of their normal water sources, according to the Missouri Hazard Analysis (SEMA, August 1997).

• 1999-2000 - Most of Missouri was in a drought condition during the last half of 1999,

according to the Missouri State Hazard Mitigation Plan (2010). In September, the governor declared an agricultural emergency for the entire state. In October, all counties


were declared agricultural disaster areas by the U.S. Secretary of Agriculture. The period July- November averaged only 9.38 inches of rain and was the driest recorded since 1895. By May of 2000, the entire state was under a Phase 2 Drought Alert. The drought continued through the summer of 2000 in various parts of the state.

• 2002-2004 - Another drought hit western and northwestern Missouri; many crop and

livestock producers suffered great financial hardship during this time. In July 2003, Howard County was in a Phase 1 Drought Advisory; by January 2004 this advisory was no longer in effect in the county.

• 2005-2006 - Howard County was one of 30 Missouri counties in Phase 3 Conservation in July 2005. In August, all 114 Missouri counties and the City of St. Louis were designated as natural disasters for physical and/or production loss loan assistance from the Farm Service Agency (FSA); conditions began to improve in late August/September 2005. By September of 2006, however, the county was in a Phase 1 Drought Advisory; this was changed to Phase 2 Drought Alert by November 2006. In October, Howard County was one of 85 Missouri counties designated by the USDA as primary natural disaster areas due to losses from the drought conditions of 2006. Conditions began to improve with a large snowstorm in late November/early December.

There have been no serious droughts reported in Missouri since 2006, according to the Missouri State Hazard Mitigation Plan (2010) However, Howard County was in a Phase 1 Drought Advisory in 2007, along with many other counties in the state. Measures of Probability and Severity Probability:

High – Howard Co. (unincorporated)

Low – Armstrong, Fayette, New Franklin, Glasgow, New Franklin R-I School District, Howard County R-II School District, Fayette R-III School District, Central Methodist University

Severity:

Moderate – Howard Co. (unincorporated)

Low - Armstrong, Fayette, New Franklin, Glasgow, New Franklin R-I School District, Howard County R-II School District, Fayette R-III School District, Central Methodist University

The Missouri Department of Natural Resources has defined different regions of drought susceptibility in the Missouri Drought Plan (2002). A map of the different regions is shown in Figure 3.3.2 C. Figure 3.3.2 C

Most of Howard County lies in Region C which is defined as having “…severe surface and groundwater supply drought vulnerability. Surface water sources usually become inadequate during extended drought. Groundwater resources are naturally of poor quality and typically only supply enough water for domestic needs. Irrigation is generally not feasible. When irrigation is practical, groundwater withdrawal may affect other users. Surface water sources are used to supplement irrigation supplied by groundwater sources.” The land bordering the Missouri River lies in Region A which is defined as having “…minor surface and groundwater supply drought susceptibility. It is a region underlain by saturated sands and gravels (alluvial deposits). Surface and groundwater resources are generally adequate for domestic, municipal, and agricultural needs.”


Drought Vulnerability Overview Vulnerable Jurisdictions: Howard County (unincorporated), Armstrong, Fayette, New Franklin, Glasgow, New Franklin R-I School District, Howard County R-II School District, Fayette R-III School District, Central Methodist University Vulnerability Rating:

Moderate – Howard Co. (unincorporated)

Low – Armstrong, Fayette, New Franklin, Glasgow, New Franklin R-I School District, Howard County R-II School District, Fayette R-III School District, Central Methodist University

Howard Co. Consolidated Public Water Supply District #1 has been evaluated as not vulnerable to Drought because the source of its water, the alluvial water of the Missouri River, is abundant and is pumped from wells 90-100 feet deep. The Chief Water Operator of the District noted that water supply has never been a problem nor, due to the abundance of alluvial water, can he imagine a situation when it ever would be. (See Region A in Figure 3.3.2C.)

As of Fall 2011, the Howard Co. Regional Water Commission does not have any infrastructure. The Commission plans to locate its wells in the Missouri River floodplain also, so it is not being considered vulnerable to Drought.

The unincorporated agricultural areas of Howard County are most vulnerable to the immediate threat of inadequate water and resultant crop loss. In addition to damage to crops, produce, livestock, and soil, and the resulting economic consequences, the arid conditions created by drought pose an increased risk of fire. While the Missouri Drought Plan (2002) indicates that Howard County is in an area which is highly susceptible to drought, the Missouri State Hazard Mitigation Plan (2010) found that the County had a low vulnerability to crop loss from drought for the period assessed in the plan (1998-2008). Information on claims paid for crop damage to drought during this period is shown in Figure 3.2.2D.

Figure 3.2.2D

Crops and Drought Insurance - Howard County (1998-2008)

Total Insurance Claims Paid for

Drought Damage

Annualized Claims for Drought Damage

Crop Exposure (2007 Census of Agriculture)

Annual Crop

Claims Ratio

$963,831 $87,621 $34,407,000 0.255% Source: Missouri State Hazard Mitigation Plan (2010)

Taking both plans’ information into account, the Planning Committee assessed a Vulnerability Rating of Moderate for the unincorporated area of the County. Drought can have far reaching economic consequences when it results in reduced crop harvest or crop failure. The losses incurred impact not only the producers themselves but also businesses connected to the agricultural sector and eventually the wider community. For this reason, all other participating jurisdictions (with the exception of the Water District and Water Commission) are assessed as having a Low Vulnerability to Drought through its cascading effects. Potential Impact on Existing Structures Structural impact in regard to this hazard is minimal. Drought can play a role in road and street damage when periods of drought are followed by heavy rains. Potential Impact of Future Development Drought is primarily an issue of water supply for the rural and agricultural parts of the Planning Area. Good land management techniques and the interconnection of water supplies are crucial in mitigating future impacts. The jurisdictions of the Planning Area are planning for the future through such actions as the formation of the Howard Co. Regional Water Commission and continuing discussions of other interconnections arrangements and agreements. Existing Mitigation Strategies Local

Drought Insurance Data from the USDA Risk Management Agency indicates that 79.4% of crops in Missouri were insured for drought damage in 2009. Data from the same agency indicates that $963,831 was paid in Howard County on claims for crop losses due to drought in the period 1998-2008.

State The Revised Statutes of Missouri (RSMo 640.415) requires that the MoDNR “…ensure that the quality and quantity of the water resources of the state are maintained at the highest level practicable to support present and future beneficial uses. The department shall inventory, monitor and protect the available water resources in order to maintain water quality, protect the public health, safety and general and economic welfare.” The Missouri Department of Natural Resources (MoDNR) publishes a weekly map from The Drought Monitor on their website at: http://www.dnr.mo.gov/env/wrc/drought/nationalcondition.htm. (The Drought Monitor is a comprehensive drought monitoring effort involving numerous federal agencies, state climatologists, and the National Drought Mitigation Center. It is located at the National Drought Mitigation Center in Lincoln, Nebraska. The new Drought Monitor Map, based on analysis of data collected, is released weekly on Thursday at 8:30 a.m. Eastern Time. The map focuses on


broad-scale conditions and is linked to the data sets analyzed.) The University of Missouri Extension has a number of publications for both farmers and homeowners to help mitigate the effects of drought. They are available at: http://extension.missouri.edu/main/DisplayCategory.aspx?C=257

National

The National Drought Mitigation Center (NDMC) is located at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln. The following is a description of their activities from their website (http://drought.unl.edu/):

“The National Drought Mitigation Center (NDMC) helps people and institutions develop and implement measures to reduce societal vulnerability to drought, stressing preparedness and risk management rather than crisis management. Most of the NDMC’s services are directed to state, federal, regional, and tribal governments that are involved in drought and water supply planning….The NDMC’s activities include maintaining an information clearinghouse and drought portal; drought monitoring, including participation in the preparation of the U.S. Drought Monitor and maintenance of the web site (drought.unl.edu/dm); drought planning and mitigation; drought policy; advising policy makers; collaborative research; K-12 outreach; workshops for federal, state, and foreign governments and international organizations; organizing and conducting seminars, workshops, and conferences; and providing data to and answering questions for the media and the general public.”

3.2.3 Earthquake

Description of Hazard

The United States Geological Society (USGS) describes an earthquake as “a sudden movement of the earth's crust caused by the release of stress accumulated along geologic faults or by volcanic activity.” Earthquakes can be one of the most destructive forces of nature causing death, destruction of property, and billions of dollars of damage. The New Madrid Seismic Zone (NMSZ), which runs through southeastern Missouri, is the most active seismic zone east of the Rocky Mountains. Any hazard mitigation planning in Missouri must, of necessity, take possible earthquakes into account. Missouri and much of the Midwest can feel earthquakes from very far away because the geology of the area is more amenable to ground shaking than the California geology. New Madrid earthquakes can cover up to twenty times the area of typical California earthquakes because of this differing geology. Measuring Earthquake Magnitude and Intensity

In any discussion of earthquakes, it is important to distinguish between two measurements: magnitude and intensity. The magnitude of an earthquake is a measurement of the actual energy released by the quake at its epicenter. In the U.S., it is commonly measured by the Richter Scale denoted with an Arabic numeral (e.g. 6.0). The intensity of an earthquake refers to the potentially damaging effects of a quake at any particular site. Intensity is measured by the Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale (MMI) and expressed by a Roman numeral (e.g. VI). A single earthquake will thus have one magnitude but different intensities depending on a location’s distance from the epicenter of the quake, intervening soil type, and other factors. Geographic Location The entire Planning Area is at risk for the effects of an earthquake along the New Madrid Seismic Zone. Areas close to the Missouri River may be particularly vulnerable. The soil, or alluvium, along river channels is especially vulnerable to liquefaction from earthquake waves; river alluvium also tends to amplify the waves. Previous Occurrences Historical quakes along the New Madrid Seismic Zone in southeastern Missouri have been some of the largest in U.S. history since European settlement. The Great New Madrid Earthquake of 1811-1812 was a series of over 2000 quakes which caused destruction over a very large area. According to information from Missouri SEMA’s Earthquake Program, some of the quakes measured at least 7.6 in magnitude and five of them measured 8.0 or more.


The 1811-1812 quakes changed the course of the Mississippi River. Some of the shocks were felt as far away as Washington D.C. and Boston. The first federal disaster relief act was a result of the Great New Madrid Earthquake of 1811-1812. President James Madison signed an act into law which issued “New Madrid Certificates” for government lands in other territories to residents of New Madrid County who wanted to leave the area. Measures of Probability and Severity How likely are earthquakes along the New Madrid Seismic Zone? According to the Missouri State Hazard Mitigation Plan 2010:

“Small earthquakes occur often in Missouri. About 200 are detected every year in the New Madrid Seismic Zone. Most can only be detected by sensitive instruments, but southeast Missouri experiences an earthquake once or twice every 18 months that is strong enough to crack plaster in buildings.”

In 2002, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) released the following expectations for earthquakes in the zone in following 50 years:

• 25-40% percent chance of a magnitude 6.0 and greater earthquake. • 7 -10% chance of a magnitude 7.5 - 8.0 quake (magnitudes similar to those in 1811-

1812) The State Emergency Management Agency (SEMA) has made projections of the highest earthquake intensities which would be experienced throughout the state of Missouri should various magnitude quakes occur along the New Madrid Seismic Zone (see Figure 3.2.3B), as measured by the Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale (see Figure 3.2.3C). The pertinent information for Howard County is summarized in Figure 3.2.3A.

Figure 3.2.3A Projected Earthquake Hazard for Planning Area

Magnitude at NMSZ*

Probability of Occurrence (2002-2052)

Intensity in Planning Area

(MMI**) MMI**

Descriptor Expected Damage

6.7 25-40% VI "Strong"

Felt by all; many frightened and run outdoors, walk unsteadily. Windows, dishes, glassware broken; books fall off shelves; some heavy furniture moved or overturned; a few instances of fallen plaster. Damage slight.

7.6 7-10% VII "Very Strong"

Difficult to stand; furniture broken; damage negligible in building of good design and construction; slight to moderate in well-built ordinary structures; considerable damage in poorly built or badly designed structures; some chimneys broken. Noticed by people driving motor cars.

* New Madrid Seismic Zone; ** Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale

According to the USGS, Howard County is one of the 47 counties in Missouri that would be severely impacted by a 7.6 magnitude earthquake with an epicenter on or near the New Madrid Seismic Zone. As noted above, the probability of an earthquake of this magnitude was between 7 and 10% over a 50 year period. This translates into a low probability for an earthquake of such magnitude impacting the Planning Area. However, should an earthquake of this magnitude occur, the consequences would be significant in the Planning Area, particularly for poorly constructed structures. There is a 25-40% probability of the occurrence of an earthquake with “Strong” effects felt in the Planning Area. The damages to structures from such a quake would be minimal but the psychological effects of having the earth move under one’s feet should not be underestimated.

Probability: Low to Moderate Severity: Moderate to High


Figure 3.2.3B Highest Projected Modified Mercalli Intensities by County

Figure 3.2.3C Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale

I. Instrumental Not felt by many people unless in favorable conditions.

II. Feeble Felt only by a few people at best, especially on the upper floors of buildings. Delicately suspended objects may swing.

III. Slight Felt quite noticeably by people indoors, especially on the upper floors of buildings. Many do not recognize it as an earthquake. Standing motor cars may rock slightly. Vibration similar to the passing of a truck. Duration estimated.

IV. Moderate Felt indoors by many people, outdoors by few people during the day. At night, some awakened. Dishes, windows, doors disturbed; walls make cracking sound. Sensation like heavy truck striking building. Standing motor cars rock noticeably. Dishes and windows rattle alarmingly.

V. Rather Strong Felt outside by most, may not be felt by some outside in non-favorable conditions. Dishes and windows may break and large bells will ring. Vibrations like large train passing close to house.

VI. Strong Felt by all; many frightened and run outdoors, walk unsteadily. Windows, dishes, glassware broken; books fall off shelves; some heavy furniture moved or overturned; a few instances of fallen plaster. Damage slight.

VII. Very Strong Difficult to stand; furniture broken; damage negligible in building of good design and construction; slight to moderate in well-built ordinary structures; considerable damage in poorly built or badly designed structures; some chimneys broken. Noticed by people driving motor cars.

VIII. Destructive Damage slight in specially designed structures; considerable in ordinary substantial buildings with partial collapse. Damage great in poorly built structures. Fall of chimneys, factory stacks, columns, monuments, walls. Heavy furniture moved.

IX. Ruinous General panic; damage considerable in specially designed structures, well designed frame structures thrown out of plumb. Damage great in substantial buildings, with partial collapse. Buildings shifted off foundations.

X. Disastrous Some well built wooden structures destroyed; most masonry and frame structures destroyed with foundation. Rails bent.

XI. Very Disastrous Few, if any masonry structures remain standing. Bridges destroyed. Rails bent greatly.

XII. Catastrophic Total damage - Almost everything is destroyed. Lines of sight and level distorted. Objects thrown into the air. The ground moves in waves or ripples. Large amounts of rock may move position.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercalli_intensity_scale


Earthquake Vulnerability Overview Vulnerable Jurisdictions: Entire Planning Area

Vulnerability Rating: Moderate

As discussed previously, the USGS in 2002 projected a fairly high chance of an earthquake in the New Madrid Seismic Zone in the following 50 years which, according to SEMA, would cause “Strong” (6.7 quake along NMSZ) or “Very Strong” (7.6 quake along NMSZ) effects in the Planning Area. “Strong” effects would feel frightening to many in the population and walking would be unsteady. Damage would be minimal but would increase to effects like moved/overturned furniture and possibly fallen plaster. “Very Strong” effects would make it difficult to stand and would cause slight to moderate damage in well-built ordinary structures and considerable damage in poorly built or designed structures. One question raised during Hazard Mitigation Planning meetings was whether a specific earthquake vulnerability existed for the Fayette Elementary and Middle Schools because of their location downhill from the Fayette Park Road Water Tower. Communication between the City of Fayette and MECO Engineering, a firm which works with the city, confirmed that the tank was designed to AWWA (American Water Works Association) standards “..including Seismic Use Group III that is recommended for Howard County by AWWA.” It should also be reiterated that the “Very Strong” effects which are projected for Howard County from a 7.6 quake along the NMSZ would cause only slight to moderate damage in “well-built structures”; the water tower is above and beyond “well built” in that it was constructed to appropriate seismic standards. A significant earthquake event in the NMSZ which does not cause great damage in Howard County could still very possibly show cascading economic effects in the county. There is the very real potential for disruption of roads and rail traffic to the eastern part of the state which includes the metropolitan area of St. Louis. Other regions of the state would very possibly be called upon for emergency and recovery assistance. In addition, the potential for “emotional aftershocks” exists with any earthquake event. Major earthquake events require mental health services for people dealing with loss, stress, anxiety, fear, and other difficult emotions. Even a smaller quake, however, has the potential for emotional repercussions; the sudden movement of something experienced as stable for one’s entire life (the earth itself) can be very traumatic. The following concern regarding earthquake was raised by a citizen at the first Public Presentation of the update of the Howard County Hazard Mitigation Plan: How does the hazard mitigation plan address the possible release of nuclear material due to earthquake damage at Callaway Nuclear Power Plant to the east? While this is a legitimate concern, the scope of this plan is the mitigation of natural hazard events and not emergency response to disasters such as nuclear releases. Emergency response to this scenario would be covered in the Local Emergency Response Plan (LEOP). As a side note, it

should be stated that only the eastern quarter of Howard County is in what is considered the Emergency Planning Zone for an event at the Callaway County Nuclear Power Plant.

Potential Impact on Existing Structures The vulnerability to earthquakes across the state of Missouri was analyzed in the Missouri State Hazard Mitigation Plan (2010) using HAZUS-MH MR4, modeling software used by FEMA to compare relative risk from earthquakes and other natural hazards. The analysis used the default inventory data associated with the August 2009 release of HAZUS-MH which includes building valuations from 2006. Two types of analysis were done: an Annualized Loss Scenario and a 2% Probability of Exceedance in 50 Years Scenario.

Annualized Loss Scenario

The State Hazard Mitigation Plan explains the annualized loss scenario that was run as follows:

HAZUS defines annualized loss as the expected value of loss in any one year. The software develops annualized loss estimates by aggregating the losses and their exceedance probabilities from the eight return periods. (Editors note: 100, 200, 500, 750, 1000, 1500, 2000, and 2500 years.) Annualized loss is the maximum potential annual dollar loss resulting from various return periods averaged on a ‘per year’ basis. It is the summation of all HAZUS-supplied return periods multiplied by the return period probability (as a weighted calculation).

The results of the modeling for Howard County are shown in Figure 3.2.3D.

Figure 3.2.3D HAZUS-MH Earthquake Loss Estimation

Annualized Loss Scenario for Howard County

Building Loss Total Loss Ratio %* Income Loss Total Total Loss Loss Ratio Rank**

$19,000 0.003 $8,000 $27,000 70

* Loss ratio equals the sum of structural and nonstructural damage divided by the entire building inventory value within the county.

** Out of 115 (114 counties and the City of St. Louis)

Source: MO State Hazard Mitigation Plan (2010)

The loss ratio gives an indication of the potential economic impacts of an earthquake and the difficulty of recovery in the county. To put the estimated loss ratio for Howard County in perspective, the highest loss ratio in Missouri was 0.116% in New Madrid County which lies directly over the New Madrid Fault. The lowest loss ratio was 0.000% in Worth County in northwest Missouri.

In the map created from this Annualized Loss Scenario data, Howard County lies adjacent to, but outside of, the delineation of “critical counties”.


2% Probability of Exceedance in 50 Years Scenario

This analysis models a worst case scenario using a level of ground shaking recognized in earthquake design. The Missouri State Hazard Mitigation Plan (2010) gives the following explanation of the modeling:

The methodology is based on probabilistic seismic hazard shaking grids developed by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) for the National Seismic Hazard Maps that are included with HAZUS-MH. The USGS maps provide estimates of peak ground acceleration and spectral acceleration at periods of 0.3 second and 1.0 second, respectively, that have a 2% probability of exceedance in the next 50 years. The International Building Code uses this level of ground shaking for building design in seismic areas. This scenario used a 7.7 driving magnitude in HAZUS-MH, which is the magnitude used for typical New Madrid fault planning scenarios in Missouri. While the 2% probability of exceedance in the next 50 years ground motion maps incorporate the shaking potential from all faults with earthquake potential in and around Missouri, the most severe shaking is predominately generated by the New Madrid Fault.

The results of the modeling for Howard County are shown in Figure 3.2.3E.

Figure 3.2.3E HAZUS-MH Earthquake Loss Estimation

2% Probability of Exceedance in 50 Years Scenario for Howard County

Structural Damage

Non-Structural Damage

Contents Damage and Inventory Loss

Loss Ratio*

Income Loss

Total Economic

Loss**

Loss Ratio

Rank***

$3,234,000 $6,945,000 $2,304,000 1.74 $4,515,000 $16,997,000 69

* Loss ratio equals the sum of structural and nonstructural damage divided by the entire building inventory value within the county.

** Total economic loss includes inventory loss, relocation loss, capital-related loss, wages loss, and rental income loss

*** Out of 115 (114 counties and the City of St. Louis)


To put the estimated loss ratio for Howard County for this scenario in perspective, the highest loss ratio in Missouri was 68.06% in New Madrid County which lies directly over the New Madrid Fault. The lowest loss ratio was 0.37% in Worth County in northwest Missouri.

In the map created from this 2% Probability of Exceedance in 50 Years Scenario data, Howard County also lies adjacent to, but outside of, the delineation of “critical counties”. However, the USGS included Howard County as one of the 47 counties that would be severely impacted by a 7.6 earthquake in the NMSZ as discussed earlier in this section. The 2% Probability model assumed a higher magnitude (7.7) and still did not include Howard County in the “critical counties”. Caution indicates that mitigation and preparedness be focused on the most conservative estimates (in this case, those which predict greater injury and damage) unless these have been shown to be incorrect.

Social impacts have also been modeled through HAZUS-MH for this 2% Probability of Exceedance in 50 Years (Worst Case) Scenario. The modeling was done for displacement of households, sheltering needs, and the following four levels of casualty severity:

• Level 1 – Injuries will require medical attention but hospitalization is not needed • Level 2 – Injuries will require hospitalization but are not considered life-threatening • Level 3 – Injuries will require hospitalization and can become life threatening if not

promptly treated. • Level 4 – Victims are killed by the earthquake.

The data in Figure 3.2.3F shows the estimated social impact in Howard County of an earthquake occurring at 2 a.m. when most people would be in their homes. Figure 3.2.3F

Social Impact Estimates (HAZUS-MH Modeling) 2% Probability of Exceedance in 50 Years Scenario for Howard County

2 a.m. Time of Occurrence

Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Displaced Households Short-Term Shelter Needs

8 1 0 0 9 7


Potential Impact of Future Development The standards followed in new construction will impact vulnerability to earthquake damage. Building new structures according to more stringent earthquake resistant codes will lessen the potential damage should an earthquake occur, just as poor construction will increase vulnerability. Building codes exist in the cities of Fayette, Glasgow, and New Franklin so there is a mechanism for mandating standards in these communities. However, standards of construction will be a matter of choice when new development occurs in unincorporated Howard County, Armstrong, and Franklin due to the lack of building regulations. Movement toward building codes in those jurisdictions is not expected in the near future.


Existing Mitigation Strategies Participation in National Level Exercise – May 18, 2011

Howard County participated in the National Level Exercise on Earthquakes on May 18, 2011. This exercise was carried out in eight states along the New Madrid Seismic Zone.

Howard County Emergency Management sent an invitation to this event to jurisdictions in the Planning Area (see Appendix F.) Almost 30 representatives from jurisdictions and agencies throughout Howard County took part in the tabletop exercise and discussed/developed appropriate responses to changing local scenarios stemming from an imagined earthquake along the NMSZ.

Public Information

• The Howard County LEOP (Appendix 1 To Annex K - In-Place Shelter Guidance) sets down the following guidelines and language for public information brochures prior to an event:

Since earthquakes happen with no warning, residents should be prepared to take in-place shelter in their homes for the first 72 hours following a seismic event. (See Attachment B to Appendix 5 of the Basic Plan.) These in-place protective actions should be relayed to the public:

WHEN THE SHAKING STARTS, STAY WHERE YOU ARE -- IF INDOORS, STAY INDOORS; IF OUTSIDE, STAY OUTSIDE. IF YOU ARE INDOORS, GET UNDER A DESK, BED, OR OTHER HEAVY PIECE OF FURNITURE. STAY AWAY FROM GLASS AND WINDOWS. IF YOU ARE OUTSIDE, GET AWAY FROM BUILDINGS AND UTILITY WIRES UNTIL THE SHAKING STOPS.

The Howard County LEOP (Appendix 7 to Annex C ) contains the following sample news releases for an earthquake incident affecting Howard County:

(SAMPLE MEDIA MESSAGE)

NO INFORMATION AVAILABLE

This is __________________ at the _________________. An earthquake of undetermined magnitude

has just been felt in the ________________ area.

At this time, we have no confirmed reports of injuries or damage. Police and fire units are responding to the area. We will keep you informed as reports come in. Meanwhile, be prepared for after shocks. If shaking begins again, quickly seek shelter under a sturdy piece of furniture or in a supporting doorway. If your house has been damaged and you smell gas, shut off the main gas valve. Switch off electrical power if you suspect damage to the wiring. Do not use your telephone unless you need emergency help

(SAMPLE MEDIA MESSAGE)

UPDATE ON EARTHQUAKE

This is ___________________ at the _________________. The magnitude of the earthquake, which

struck the ___________________ area at (time) today, has been determined to be _____ on the

Richter scale. The epicenter has been fixed at _______________ by (scientific authority).

This office has received reports of _____ deaths, _____ injuries, and _____ homes damaged. No dollar figure is yet available. Police and fire units are on the scene to assist residents. (Continue with summary of the situation.) After shocks continue to be felt in the area. If you feel shaking, quickly seek shelter under a sturdy piece of furniture or in a supporting doorway. Do not use your telephone unless you need emergency help.


Evacuation

Centrally located and easily accessible staging areas have been identified by Howard County Emergency Management in the event that an evacuation is ordered (Howard County LEOP, Appendix 3 to Annex J). Transportation will be provided from the staging areas to designated safe areas for those persons who do not have their own transportation. In addition, the staging areas can be used as drop-off and pick-up sites for resources and supplies. The identified staging areas are:


The specific staging area(s) to be used would depend upon the event. School Districts

By law all schools in Howard County must provide training and exercises to students in preparation for a large earthquake in accordance with the Revised Statues of Missouri:

The governing body of each school district which can be expected to experience an intensity of ground shaking equivalent to a Modified Mercalli of VII or above from an earthquake occurring along the New Madrid Fault with a potential magnitude of 7.6 on the Richter Scale shall establish an earthquake emergency procedure system in every school building under its jurisdiction. (RSMo 160.451) This earthquake emergency system shall include 1) A school building disaster plan; 2) An emergency exercise to be held at least twice each school year; 3) Protective measures to be taken before, during, and following an earthquake; and 4) A program to ensure that the students and certified and noncertified employees of the school district are aware of, and properly trained in, the earthquake emergency procedure system. (RSMo 160.453) At the beginning of each school year, each school district shall distribute to each student materials that have been prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, SEMA, or by agencies that are authorities in the area of earthquake safety and that provide the following objectives: 1) Developing public awareness regarding the causes of earthquakes, the forces and effects of earthquakes, and the need for school and community action in coping with earthquake hazards; 2) Promoting understanding of the impact of earthquakes on natural features and manmade structures; and 3) Explaining what safety measures should be taken by individuals and households prior to, during and following an earthquake. (RSMo 160.455)

Training and exercises are carried out in all three public school districts in the Planning Area.

3.2.4 Extreme Heat Description of Hazard Extreme Heat is the number one weather-related killer in the United States, according to National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). In contrast to the visible, destructive, and violent nature of floods, hurricanes, and tornadoes, Extreme Heat is a silent killer. Heat kills by overloading the human body’s capacity to cool itself. According to information from NOAA, more than 1500 people die on average from excessive heat each year in the United States. Air temperature is not the only factor to consider when assessing the likely effects of Extreme Heat. High humidity often accompanies heat in Missouri and increases the danger. The human body cools itself by perspiring; the evaporation of perspiration carries excess heat from the body. High humidity makes it difficult for perspiration to evaporate and thus interferes with this natural cooling mechanism. Hyperthermia, an acute and serious condition, results when the body takes in more heat than it can dissipate. The Heat Index devised by the NWS takes into account both air temperature and relative humidity (see Figure 3.2.4A). The Heat Index is a measure of how hot it really feels and more accurately measures the danger posed by the combination of temperature and humidity. The color coding in the Heat Index Chart indicates the level of danger at the various heat index readings. Figure 3.2.4 A


The National Weather Service has put together information that correlates heat index temperatures with the effects on the human body (see Figure 3.2.4 B).

Figure 3.2.4B Effects of Extreme Heat on the Human Body

Heat Index Heat Disorder

80 - 89º F Fatigue possible with prolonged exposure or physical activity.

90 - 104º F Sunstroke, heat cramps, and heat exhaustion possible with prolonged exposure or physical activity.

105 - 129º F Sunstroke, heat cramps, and heat exhaustion likely, and heat stroke possible with prolonged exposure or physical activity.

130º F and higher Heat stroke or sunstroke likely with continued exposure.

Source: National Weather Service

Residents of both urban and rural areas are vulnerable to excessive heat. Some of the factors which increase the level of risk are:

• Advancing age • Underlying medical conditions • Physical activity or employment outdoors • Lack of access to air conditioning, water, and shade • Substance abuse • Lack of access to public communication regarding heat hazards and protective

measures

The elderly in particular are susceptible to complications from excessive and/or prolonged heat. According to the American Community Survey (2005-2009) the Planning Area has an estimated population of 1,541 citizens who are 65 years and older. Geographic Location The entire Planning Area is at risk from Extreme Heat events. Previous Occurrences Howard County has had many periods of Extreme Heat in the last two decades (see Figure 3.2.4C). The data indicates that Extreme Heat usually occurs in July and August. When examining the data in Figure 3.2.4C, it is important to take into consideration that the deaths, injuries, and economic losses represent all counties in Missouri affected by the period of Extreme Heat. In addition, the heat index indicated for any particular Extreme Heat event is the range for all counties in Missouri affected by the event. None of the deaths recorded in the data occurred in Howard County. The majority of deaths from Extreme Heat in the state of Missouri occur in the two major metropolitan areas of St. Louis and Kansas City but these also hold a majority of the population.

Data from the MO Department of Health and Senior Services (DHSS) indicates that 39% of the 214 deaths from Extreme Heat in the years 2000-2009 occurred outside of the counties of the two major metropolitan areas. This percentage correlates fairly closely with the percentage of the population residing outside the two major metropolitan areas, according to the 2010 U.S. Census. It cannot be said that Extreme Heat is a concern only for major cities. The DHSS data also indicates that, for the years 2007-2009, underlying medical conditions and physical activity were known contributing factors for many of the deaths occurring outside the major metropolitan areas.

Figure 3.2.4C Periods of Extreme Heat in Howard County, (6/12/1994-8/31/2011)

Date Heat Index

Duration (days)

Deaths (MO)

Injuries (MO)

Property Damage

(MO)

Crop Damage

(MO)

06/12/94 100+ 12 4 55 0 50K 07/18/99 100-115 14 22 0 0 0 08/28/00 105-110 4 0 0 0 0 09/01/00 100+ 3 3 0 0 0 07/06/01 115 3 2 0 0 0 07/17/01 NA 8 2 0 0 0 08/01/01 105-113 5 4 0 0 0 08/09/01 105-110 1 1 0 0 0 07/04/03 105 2 1 0 0 0 07/21/05 105-110 5 0 0 0 0 07/16/06 105-115 5 4 0 0 0 07/29/06 105-115 3 0 0 0 0 08/01/06 105-115 2 2 0 0 0 08/06/07 105-115 12 0 0 0 0

TOTALS 45 55 0 50K Source: http://www4.ncdc.noaa.gov/cgi-win/wwcgi.dll?wwevent~storms

Measures of Probability and Severity Probability: High Severity: Low


Extreme Heat Vulnerability Overview

Vulnerable Jurisdictions: Entire Planning Area

Vulnerability Rating: Moderate

All jurisdictions are vulnerable to the effects of Extreme Heat. Given the High Probability of an Extreme Heat event (and despite the Low Severity rating), the Planning Committee decided on a Moderate Vulnerability rating for the hazard. Extreme Heat is a very serious natural hazard which threatens human life and deserves thoughtful mitigation measures; without existing mitigation measures such as established cooling centers, the severity rating of this hazard might be greater in the Planning Area. Heat stroke and loss of life is the most significant consequence of Extreme Heat. The elderly are one of the segments of the population most susceptible to complications from excessive and/or prolonged. According to the 2010 Census, the Planning Area has an estimated population of 1,609 citizens who are 65 years and older. While heat-related illness and death can occur due to exposure to intense heat in just one afternoon, heat stress on the body has a cumulative effect. The persistence of a heat wave increases the danger. In addition to the human toll, the Midwestern Climate Center, in a paper on the 1999 heat wave, points out other possible impacts such as electrical infrastructure damage and failure, highway damage, crop damage, water shortages, livestock deaths, fish kills, and lost productivity among outdoor-oriented businesses. Drought in conjunction with Extreme Heat exacerbates the situation. Crop claims totaling $1,980 were paid in Howard County in the period 1998-2008 for losses due to heat, according to data from the USDA Risk Management Agency. This is separate from the $963,831 paid in that period for losses due to drought. Potential Impact on Existing Structures While illness and loss of life are of the most concern with Extreme Heat, structural impacts may also occur. Structural impacts depend on the length of the period of Extreme Heat and exacerbating factors such as concurrent Drought. Road damage and electrical infrastructure damage may occur with intense and prolonged heat. Potential Impact of Future Development Thoughtful future development has the potential to include mitigation for Extreme Heat into its design. This is true on all levels ranging from actions by individual homeowners to larger redevelopment projects planned by cities. Properly placed shade trees can contribute greatly to lowering inside temperatures and the load placed on cooling systems.

In addition, developers would be wise to minimize the amount of earth that is paved over with concrete or asphalt when planning any new development. Surface material significantly affects the ambient air temperature above it. The inclusion of naturally vegetated areas for relaxation and cooling are not only pleasurable but contribute to mitigation for both Extreme Heat and stormwater problems.

Existing Mitigation Activities Cooling Centers

The following locations serve as cooling centers in the Planning Area: • Fayette Senior Center, 600 S. Cleveland St., Fayette • Glasgow Senior Center, 603 2nd St., Glasgow • New Franklin Senior Center, 108 East Broadway, New Franklin • There is an agreement with the New Franklin R-I School District to use the high school

gym as a cooling center, if needed; the gym has generator backup. The Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services (DHSS) maintains a searchable online map/database of cooling centers throughout the state at: http://gis.dhss.mo.gov/Website/coolingCenter/coolingCenter.html# Hyperthermia Surveillance Program

Missouri is the only state in the nation with on-going statewide surveillance for illnesses and death connected to Extreme Heat. Health care workers are required to report cases of hyperthermia to MHSS. In addition, citizens can call the state's toll-free abuse and neglect hotline at 1-800-392-0210 to report senior citizens or adults with disabilities suffering from the heat and needing assistance. The hotline operates 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. seven days a week.

The surveillance program was started in 1980 and the data is maintained at MHSS. Warnings and Alerts The following departments, agencies, and organizations all are involved in educating the public about the dangers of extremely hot weather and/ or issuing alerts when the threat of Extreme Heat is imminent: Local media publishes and broadcasts alerts and information about dangerously hot weather. The Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services (DHSS) announces statewide hot weather health alerts according to the following criteria:

• Hot Weather Health Alert – Heat indices of 105°F in a large portion of the state are first reached (or predicted)

• Hot Weather Health Warning – Heat indices have been 105°F or more for two days in a large portion of the state, or weather forecasts call for continued heat stress conditions for at least 24 to 48 hours over a large portion of the state.


• Hot Weather Health Emergency – When extensive areas of the state meet all of the following criteria: High sustained level of heat stress (Heat Index of 105°F for 3 days) Increased numbers of heat-related illnesses and deaths statewide The NWS predicts hot, humid temperatures for the next several days for a large

portion of the state. The Missouri State High School Activities Association (MSHSAA) provides coaches with educational pamphlets on the dangers of excessive heat. The National Weather Service (NWS) has devised a method to warn of advancing heat waves up to seven days in advance. The new Mean Heat Index is a measure of how hot the temperatures actually feel to a person over the course of a full 24 hours. It differs from the traditional Heat Index in that it is an average of the Heat Index from the hottest and coldest times of each day. The NWS initiates alert procedures when the Heat Index is expected to exceed 105°- 110°F for at least two consecutive days. (The exact Heat Index temperature used depends on specifics of the local climate.) The following are released to the media and over NOAA All-Hazard Weather Radio:

• Heat Index values are included in zone and city forecasts. • Special Weather Statements and/or Public Information Statements are issued which

present a detailed discussion of the Heat Index Values, who is most at risk, and safety rules for reducing risk.

• In severe heat waves, State and local health officials are assisted in preparing Civil Emergency Messages which include Special Weather Statements and more detailed medical information, advice, and names and telephone numbers of health officials.

Weather Forecast Offices of the National Weather Service (NWS) can issue the following warnings about excessive heat:

• Excessive Heat Outlook - Potential exists for an excessive heat event in the next 3 to 7 days. An outlook is used to indicate that a heat event may develop. It is intended to provide information to those who need considerable lead time to prepare for the event, such as public utilities, emergency management and public health officials.

• Excessive Heat Watch - Conditions are favorable for an excessive heat event in the next 12 to 48 hours. A watch is used when the risk of a heat wave has increased, but its occurrence and timing is still uncertain. It is intended to provide enough lead time so those who need to set their plans in motion can do so, such as established individual city excessive heat event mitigation plans.

Excessive Heat Warning/Advisory - An excessive heat event is expected in the next 36 hours. The warning is used for conditions posing a threat to life or property. An advisory is for less serious conditions that cause significant discomfort or inconvenience and, if caution is not taken, could lead to a threat to life and/or property.

3.2.5 Flood Description of Hazard Howard County and its jurisdictions are at great risk for flooding because the southwestern and southern border of the County is situated on the bank of the Missouri River, the longest river in the United States. The Missouri River drains approximately one-sixth of the area of the continental United States, according to the USGS. It drains over half the state of Missouri as it flows eastward to join the Mississippi River at St. Louis. Since Howard County is located less than 200 miles upstream from the mouth of this 2,540 mile river, it is obvious that flooding is a major concern for the county. There are also numerous creeks throughout the county with year-round water flows draining into the Missouri River. Flooding is defined as partial or complete inundation of usually dry areas. Riverine flooding refers to when a river or creek overflows its normal boundaries. A rapid accumulation or runoff of surface waters may impact smaller rivers and creeks and cause flash flooding. Flash flooding can also occur as a result of dams being breached or overtopped. Flash floods can develop in just a matter of hours and are responsible for more flood related deaths than any other type of flooding. The areas adjacent to rivers and stream banks that serve to carry excess floodwater during rapid runoff are called floodplains. A floodplain is defined as the lowland and relatively flat areas adjoining rivers and streams. The term base flood, or 100-year flood, is the area in the floodplain that is subject to a one percent or greater chance of flooding in any given year, based upon historical records. In some cases, however, flooding may not be directly attributable to a river, stream or lake overflowing its banks. It may simply be the combination of excessive rainfall and/or snowmelt, saturated ground, and inadequate drainage. With no place else to go, water will find the lowest elevations, areas that are often not in a floodplain. This type of flooding, often referred to as sheet flooding, is becoming increasingly prevalent as development outstrips the ability of the drainage infrastructure to properly carry and disburse the water flow. Local storm water flooding can result when tremendous flow of water occurs due to large rain events. Local flooding can create public safety issues due to flooded roadways and drainage structures. Most flooding in Howard County occurs in spring and summer but floods can occur in any season.


Geographic Location The entire Planning Area is at risk from some type of flooding. Franklin, Glasgow, New Franklin and Howard County (unincorporated areas near the Missouri River) are at higher risk of riverine flooding than the rest of the Planning Area (see Figure 3.2.5 A).

Low Water Crossings and Flash Flooding

There are five low water crossings in the Planning Area and numerous places where flash flooding necessitates the closure of roads (see Figure 3.2.5A). Two of the low water crossings are in the Howard County Road District, two are in the Glasgow Special Road District and one is in the Armstrong Road District. The two low water crossings and flash flooding areas in the County Road District are posted with signs indicating “Flash Flood Area”. When flash flooding occurs, “Road Closed” signs are put up and traffic is rerouted. According to the County Road and Bridge Department, the flooding from rains of around 3” will recede in a couple of hours. It may take 8 hours for the flooding from rains of 4-6” to recede. The two low water crossings in the Glasgow Special Road District will temporarily flood with rainfalls of 2-3” of rain but the crossings never really become impassable. The locations are not sign posted. On May 13, 2011 four inches of rain fell in one-half hour and swept away a bridge on County Road 431 on the southeastern edge of the County. Nobody was hurt in the incident. The “lost” bridge and two others in the area are going to be replaced in a project with total engineering and construction costs estimated at close to $500,000. Construction bids will be opened in December 2011.

Figure 3.2.5 A


Previous Occurrences The floods of 1993 and 1995 were the worst repetitive flood events in Missouri history, according to the Missouri State Hazard Mitigation Plan (2010). All levees in Howard County were overtopped during the Flood of 1993. (Levee Failure is discussed in Section 3.2.7.) There was one death in the County during 1993 Flood. Franklin, Glasgow, New Franklin and the unincorporated areas near the Missouri River experienced elevated loss statistics during the Missouri River floods of 1993 and 1995 as compared with damages in the remainder of the county. The extent of the 1993 flood is shown in Figure 3.2.5B. Figure 3.2.5B

Howard County was included in Presidential Disaster Declarations for both the 1993 and 1995 floods: #995 (July 9, 1993) and #1054 (June 2, 1995). Howard County and its jurisdictions were eligible for both Public Assistance (PA) and Individual Assistance (IA) from each of these disaster declarations. In addition to the river floods of 1993 and 1995, data from NOAA and SEMA indicates numerous other flooding events in Howard County since 1993 (see Figure 3.2.5C). It is important to note that the total losses shown in the chart include the statewide losses from the events listed. The Missouri River flood in April 1994 caused $5 million in property damage and $5 million in crop damage across 79 Missouri counties; the portion of this reported loss which occurred in Howard County is not indicated in the NOAA data. The death reported from the flooding in June 1999 did not occur in Howard County. Flash flooding can be particularly hazardous in that there may be very little warning for travelers. The NOAA data contains specific information about such an incident in Howard County. A water rescue was needed on Rte Z SE of Petersburg on March 17, 2008; there were no injuries associated with this rescue. Howard County was included in Presidential Disaster Declarations for flooding in both 2010 and 2011:

• 2010 - Disaster Declaration #1934 - PA (Categories A-G) was made available to Howard County jurisdictions. Flooding in the City of Glasgow resulted in damage to the riverbank along Water Street and approximately 2,000 tons of silt and sand deposited in the city lagoon. More information on the lagoon can be found under the City of Glasgow in this flooding section.

• 2011 - Disaster Declaration #4012 – PA (Categories A-G) was made available to Howard

County jurisdictions. One of the more costly effects of this flood of the Missouri River was the large pumping costs incurred by the levee districts. (More information on this can be found in Section 3.2.7 Levee Failure.) Howard County itself had expenses associated with damage on county roads near the Missouri River.


Figure 3.2.5C

Location Date Type Deaths* Injuries* Property Damage*

Crop Damage*

79 counties and City of St. Louis 4/11-4/19/1994 River 0 0 5.0M 5.0MFranklin, New Franklin, so. county 4/11/1994 Flash 0 0 0 032 counties 5/7/-5/31/1995 River 0 0 2.8M 2.0MW of New Franklin 5/17/1995 Flash 0 0 0 016 counties 6/6-6/30/1995 River 0 0 700K 2.0M16 counties 7/4- 7/22/1995 River 0 0 0 016 counties 8/2-8/10/1995 River 0 0 0 0Glasgow and county 5/9-5/15/1996 Flood 0 0 0 0Glasgow and county 5/25-5/31/1996 Flood 0 0 0 0Fayette, county (Moniteau River) 5/27-5/28/1996 Flood 0 0 0 0Glasgow and county 6/1-6/11/1996 Flood 0 0 0 0Glasgow and county 6/18-6/20/1996 Flood 0 0 0 0Glasgow and county 6/25-6/29/1996 Flood 0 0 0 0Glasgow and county 7/21-7/24/1996 Flood 0 0 0 013 counties 2/21-2/28/1997 Flood 0 0 0 06 counties 4/5- 4/30/1997 Flood 0 0 0 013 counties 4/11-4/20/1997 Flood 0 0 0 06 counties 5/1-5/31/1997 Flood 0 0 0 07 counties 3/8-3/13/1998 Flood 0 0 0 014 counties 3/28-3/31/1998 Flood 0 0 0 012 counties 4/1- 4/6/1998 Flood 0 0 0 010 counties 4/8-4/18/1998 Flood 0 0 0 06 counties 6/10-6/25/1998 Flood 0 0 0 06 counties 6/14-6/19/1998 Flood 0 0 0 010 counties 6/20-6/26/1998 Flood 0 0 0 04 counties 7/4-7/11/1998 Flood 0 0 0 015 counties 10/1-10/11/1998 Flood 0 0 0 09 counties 10/17-10/23/1998 Flood 0 0 0 014 counties 11/1-11/15/1998 Flood 0 0 0 03 counties (Moniteau Creek at Fayette)

1/22-1/23/1999 Flood 0 0 0 0

5 counties (Moniteau Creek at Fayette, Lamine River at Otterville)

2/7-2/8/1999 Flood 0 0 0 0


3/8-3/12/1999 Flood 0 0 0 0

16 counties (Mo River at Glasgow, Moniteau Creek at Fayette, Lamine River at Otterville)

4/14-4/22/1999 Flood 0 0 0 0

12 counties (Mo River at Glasgow, Moniteau Creek at Fayette)

4/22-4/30/1999 Flood 0 0 0 2.5M

6 counties (Mo River at Glasgow) 5/1-5/2/1999 Flood 0 0 0 012 counties (Mo River at Glasgow, Moniteau Creek near Fayette, Lamine River near Otterville)

5/4-5/10/1999 Flood 0 0 0 0

9 counties (Mo River at Glasgow) 5/16-5/30/1999 Flood 0 0 0 02 counties (Mo River at Glasgow) 5/23-5/25/1999 Flood 0 0 0 0

Flood Events in Howard County (4/11/1994-8/31/2011)

Figure 3.2.5C (cont.)


Crop Damage*

NE County (Hungry Mother Creek north of Bunker Hill)

6/8/1999 Urban/Small Stream Fld

0 0 0 0

12 counties (Mo River at Glasgow, Lamine River at Otterville)

6/27-6/30/1999 Flood 1 0 0 750K

8 counties (Mo River at Glasgow, Moniteau Creek at Fayette)

7/1-7/14/1999 Flood 0 0 0 0


1/29-1/30/2001 Flood 0 0 0 0

11 counties 2/9-2/11/2001 Flood 0 0 0 016 counties 2/24-2/28/2001 Flood 0 0 0 011 counties 3/13-3/20/2001 Flood 0 0 0 06 counties (Moniteau Creek at Fayette)

4/10-4/17/2001 Flood 0 0 0 0

14 counties 6/3-6/12/2001 Flood 0 0 0 016 counties 6/20-6/26/2001 Flood 0 0 0 02 counties (Moniteau Creek near Fayette)

4/21-4/22/2002 Flood 0 0 0 0

13 counties 5/6-5/17/2002 Flood 0 0 0 013 counties 5/11-5/17/2002 Flood 0 0 40K 04 counties (Moniteau Creek near Fayette)

6/12-6/14/2002 Flood 0 0 0 0

Moniteau Creek near Fayette 5/8-5/9/2003 Flood 0 0 0 0County roads near Fayette 5/10/2003 Flash 0 0 0 06 counties (Moniteau Creek near Fayette)

5/10-5/12/2003 Flood 0 0 0 0

2 counties (Moniteau Creek near Fayette)

6/12-6/13/2003 Flood 0 0 0 0

County NE of Fayette 6/12-6/13/2003 Flash 0 0 0 03 counties (Moniteau Creek near Fayette)

9/1-9/2/2003 Flood 0 0 0 0


12/10-2/12/2003 Flood 0 0 0 0


3/4-3/5/2004 Flood 0 0 0 0

2 counties (countywide) 3/26/2004 Flood 0 0 0 0Highway 5 S of Fayette 3/26/2004 Flash 0 0 0 0Moniteau Creek near Fayette 3/26-3/27/2004 Flood 0 0 0 011 counties (Moniteau Creek near Fayette)

5/19-5/23/2004 Flood 0 0 0 0

Co. Rd. 433 NE of New Franklin 6/14/2004 Flash 0 0 0 0Moniteau Creek near Fayette 7/6/2004 Flood 0 0 0 0Route Z W/NW of Franklin 7/6/2004 Flash 0 0 0 0Moniteau Creek near Fayette 8/4/2004 Flood 0 0 0 0Route Z W/NW of Franklin 8/4/2004 Flash 0 0 0 0Moniteau Creek near Fayette 8/28/2004 Flood 0 0 0 02 counties (Moniteau Creek near Fayette)

11/1/2004 Flood 0 0 0 0



Measures of Probability and Severity Probability: High Severity: Varies widely in Planning Area

High - Glasgow, New Franklin, Howard Co. Consolidated PWSD#1, Howard Co. Regional Water Commission

Moderate - Planning Area as a whole, Howard Co. (unincorporated), Fayette, Fayette R-III School District Low - Armstrong, New Franklin R-I School District, Howard Co. R-II School District, Central Methodist University

Figure 3.2.5C (cont.)


Crop Damage*

Moniteau Creek near Fayette 11/27/2004 Flood 0 0 0 0Moniteau Creek near Fayette 1/3/2005 Flood 0 0 0 0Highway 5 and Co. Rd 320 S/SW of Fayette

1/4-1/5/2005 Flash 0 0 0 0

Moniteau Creek near Fayette 1/4-1/5/2005 Flood 0 0 0 0Route H and Highway 124 E/SE of Fayette

1/12-1/13/2005 Flash 0 0 0 0

Moniteau Creek near Fayette 2/13-2/14/2005 Flood 0 0 0 0Mo River at Glasgow 6/13-6/15/2005 Flood 0 0 0 0County roads NE of Fayette 7/4/2006 Flash 0 0 0 0Moniteau Creek near Fayette 11/30/2006 Flood 0 0 0 0Moniteau Creek near Fayette 2/24-2/25/2007 Flood 0 0 0 0Moniteau Creek near Fayette 3/30/2007 Flood 0 0 0 0Moniteau Creek near Fayette 4/26/2007 Flood 0 0 0 0Moniteau Creek near Fayette 5/6-5/7/2007 Flood 0 0 0 0Moniteau Creek near Fayette 2/5- 2/6/2008 Flood 0 0 0 0Moniteau Creek near Fayette 2/17/2008 Flood 0 0 0 0W of Franklin (Rte Z at Bartlett Creek) to SE of Petersburg (Rte Z)

3/17/2008 Flood 0 0 0 0

Moniteau Creek near Fayette 3/17-3/18/2008 Flood 0 0 0 0Moniteau Creek near Fayette 4/10-4/11/2008 Flood 0 0 0 0Moniteau Creek near Fayette 12/27-12/28/2008 Flood 0 0 0 0SE of Fayette 4/24-4/25/2010 Flash 0 0 0 0Rte H near Highway O, NE of Fayette

4/24-4/25/2010 Flash 0 0 0 0

37 Counties - Federal Disaster Declaration #1934

6/12-7/31/2010 River na na na na

11 Counties - Federal Disaster Declaration #4012

6/1/2011-8/1/2011 River na na na na

TOTALS*: 1 0 8.540M 12.250M* Reported death, injury and damage data is for all locations in Missouri affected by the hazard event.


Source: http://www4.ncdc.noaa.gov/cgi-win/wwcgi.dll?wwevent~storms

Flood Vulnerability Overview


Vulnerability Rating:

High - Howard Co. (unincorporated), Fayette, Glasgow, New Franklin, Fayette R-III School District, Howard Co. Consolidated PWSD #1, Howard Co. Regional Water Commission Moderate - Armstrong, New Franklin R-I School District, Howard Co. R-II School District, Central Methodist University

Flooding is a frequent occurrence in the Planning Area but the type and severity of flooding varies widely. Some jurisdictions must contend with the high flood waters of the Missouri River or its branches throughout the County. Others deal mostly with flash flooding of streets during periods of heavy rains. Some school districts are primarily concerned with the rerouting of buses due to road closures from flooding.

For these reasons, the Planning Committee assessed a Vulnerability rating of either High or Moderate for each jurisdiction in the Planning Area. More specific information on the situation in each jurisdiction follows.

Potential Impact on Existing Structures An estimate of the number of structures situated in the 100-year floodplain was developed from comparing aerial imagery with the flood map of the Planning Area. The estimates for each participating jurisdiction are shown in Figure 3.2.5D. For those jurisdictions where NFIP policies are in place, this information is included. An NFIP policy does not necessarily equate to location in the 100-year floodplain.

Figure 3.2.5D Estimate of Structures in 100-year Floodplain

Jurisdiction # of

Structures (Estimate*)

Number of NFIP

Policies Amount Insured

Howard County 226 11 $1,724,800 Armstrong 0 0 0 Fayette 5 1 $140,000 Glasgow 14 0 0 New Franklin 77 10 $433,300 New Franklin R-I School District 0 Howard Co. R-II School District 0 Fayette R-III School District 0 Central Methodist University 0 Howard Co. CPWSD #1 6** Howard Co. Regional Water Commission 0 * Estimate developed from comparison of aerial imagery with floodplain map.

** Actual number provided by CPWSD #1.


Specific information about flooding in the participating jurisdictions follows. Jurisdictions with High Vulnerability to flooding are discussed first; those with Moderate Vulnerability follow. Maps of all the participating incorporated communities (Armstrong, Fayette, Glasgow, and New Franklin) and the Howard Co. Consolidated Public Water Supply District #1 showing the 100-year floodplain are included with the discussion (see Figures 3.2.5 E-I). Participating Jurisdictions with High Vulnerability to Flood:

Howard County (unincorporated)

There is extensive 100-year floodplain along branches and creeks throughout Howard County in addition to the floodplain along the Missouri River (see Figure 3.2.5A). There are definitely occupied homes in the floodplain, according to County personnel.

The actual number of occupied residences in the floodplain is not known. While the estimate from aerial imagery put the number of structures at 226, this reflects any and all types of structures within the floodplain – residences, pole barns, sheds, grain bins, etc.

There are 11 NFIP policies in effect in unincorporated Howard County insuring $1,724,800 in property. While all of these policies may not reflect property within the 100-year floodplain, this may give a more realistic view of what is considered at threat from flood.

Fayette

The biggest flooding issue in Fayette is flash flooding in the area of Shield Street in the southwestern part of the city (see Figure 3.2.5E). This area is within the 100-year flood plain. Shield Street is both a city street and a county road. The City would like to do a road buildup and drainage project at Shield Street to mitigate the flash flooding problem.

Other areas within the 100-year flood plain are devoid of structures, other than roads, with the notable exception of the Fayette Waste Water Treatment Plant on the east side of town. The road leading into the treatment plant was formerly subject to flash flooding. The road was built up to mitigate this problem and flash flooding is no longer an issue in that area (see Figure 3.2.5E).

Outside of the 100-year floodplain, the Fayette High School and the Elementary/Middle School are subject to flash flooding from water draining downhill from the City Park. The School District has taken the mitigation action it can in regard to this problem. (More information on this is found later in this section under “Fayette R-III School District”.) The City of Fayette would also like to take some mitigation action to deal with this problem.

Figure 3.2.5E


Glasgow While the Vulnerability rating for flooding in Glasgow is the same as that for the Planning Area as a whole (High), it should be noted that Glasgow also received a High rating for both the Probability and the Severity of flooding. This reflects Glasgow’s location near the Missouri River (see Figure 3.2.5F). There are no people living in residences in the100-year floodplain in Glasgow but signficant parts of the city’s water and wastewater system are in the floodplain.

• The two city wells are located in Chariton County, north of the main part of City of Glasgow; they flood at a river stage of 28 feet (Boonville gage). When flooding threatens, city workers check to make sure everything is working properly at the wells. The wells will function until a river stage of 44 feet, a point at which Glasgow would need to be evacuated anyway. (Note: Digital FIRM data is not available for Chariton County so the 100-year floodplain is not indicated on that part of the map in Figure 3.2.5F.)

• The Waste Water Treatment Facility (lagoons) south of the city floods at a river stage of 32 feet. In the flood of 2010, there were approximately 2,000 tons of sand and silt deposited in the 9 acre Waste Water Treatment Facility Cell #1; the average depth of sludge fill was 18 inches. The City of Glasgow was approved for PA from Disaster Declaration #1934 to dispose of this sludge; the total project cost was estimated to be $633,674. As of fall 2011, this project has not been initiated; the city is working with engineers and the Mid-Missouri Regional Planning Commission to assess various options for the project.

In addition to structures actually in the 100-year floodplain, the following structures and areas of Glasgow experience flashflooding associated with high river and creek levels:

• Both wastewater lift stations are subject to flashflooding. The northern lift station will flood at a river stage of 28 feet; the southern (located on Stump Island) around a river stage 29.5. When the lift stations flood, they are bypassed and sewage goes into the creeks and the Missouri River.

• The Stump Island area in the southwestern part of the city begins to flood at river stage

28 at which time water moves into the center of the island. Around river stage 29.5 the entire island, including the southern lift station, is flooded. Stump Island Park is closed when flooding is severe. Closures in the last decade include 4 months in 2002, all of summer 2010, and most of summer 2011.

Figure 3.2.5F


New Franklin While the Vulnerability rating for flooding in New Franklin is the same as that for the Planning Area as a whole (High), it should be noted that New Franklin received a High rating for both the Probability and the Severity of flooding. (The Severity rating for the Planning Area as a whole was Moderate.) This reflects New Franklin’s location near the Missouri River (see Figure 3.2.5 G). The following significant city infrastructure is located in the 100-year floodplain: the water treatment plant, the wastewater lagoon, the two city wells, the animal control shelter and a maintenance shed. The following mitigation actions have been taken in the past to alleviate issues with flooding:

• An 8 foot wall surrounds the water treatment plant. When flood threatens, a backhoe is used to drop a metal door into the opening in the wall.

• The wastewater lagoon is elevated on a platform to a height above the 500-year floodplain.

• The well which is currently relied upon is located about one mile southwest of the city (in unincorporated Howard County). It is also elevated on a platform above the 500-year floodplain.

When Missouri River stages reach about 25’ (Boonville gage), the city will begin to sandbag around the well located in the city limits. Any animals in the animal shelter are moved to Fayette and the contents of the maintenance shed are moved to storage in the City Park. When significant flooding occurs, the water treatment plant and the lagoon can only be accessed by boat even though they are protected from flooding. There are also homes and an MFA (Missouri Farmers Association) grain elevator complex located in the 100-year floodplain. Private citizens will either sandbag (if sandbags are available) or evacuate their homes when flood threatens. The main building at the MFA complex is elevated. An area of flash flooding from runoff was identified on the western side of the city (see Figure 3.2.5G).

Figure 3.2.5G


Howard Co. Consolidated Public Water Supply District #1 Howard Co. Consolidated Public Water Supply District #1 (CPWSD#1) has three wells, one booster pump station and two buildings (water treatment plant/offices and warehouse) located in the 100-year floodplain. (see Figure 3.2.5H). During the 1993 flood, one of the wells had to be shut down because the controls were under water. The controls on all the wells were subsequently raised onto “crow’s nests” so flooding no longer poses a problem for the wells. The buildings in the floodplain are located in the City of Franklin; one houses the water treatment plant, district offices and boardroom. The other is a warehouse. These buildings can only be accessed by boat during times of flooding. Boat access is necessary long before 100-year flood levels are reached due to a DNR bridge over the Katy Trail which holds water back and causes the town of Franklin to flood. The problem is worse in years when the Missouri River is high. Personnel at the water district estimated that boat access is necessary at least yearly, if not more often; all it takes for boat access to be necessary is a good two and a half inches of rain. Anyone who is familiar with springtime in Missouri knows that this is not uncommon. While both buildings are raised and still functional during flooding, trucks cannot access the warehouse. Limited access to the plant, offices and warehouse is a stressor on the district. It becomes more problematic as the duration of the flooding increases. In addition, the location of two large treatment tanks under the plant building and a backwash basin under the warehouse poses the risk of contamination during periods of flooding. The wells and treatment plant will not used after the Howard Co. Regional Water Commission becomes operational (see more information in Section 2.10 under Howard County Regional Water Commission). CPWSD#1 would like to relocate the offices, boardroom and warehouse out of the floodplain. A mitigation action to that effect has been included in this plan.

Figure 3.2.5H


Howard Co. Regional Water Commission

As of fall 2011, the Commission does not have any structures in the 100-year floodplain. A piece of property just north of the city limits of New Franklin has been purchased for the water treatment plant; it is not located in the 100-year floodplain. The future wells, however, will most likely be located in the 100-year floodplain. For this reason, the jurisdiction was assessed a High Vulnerability Rating for flooding.


Fayette R-III School District is not in the 100-year floodplain but has experienced flash flooding problems in the past at both the High School and Elementary/Middle School.

A signficant amount of money was spent to fix drainage near the High School; flash flooding problems are no longer a problem in this area.

The Elementary and Middle Schools are situated down the hill from the Fayette City Park. Water from the hillside drains down to the area of the schools. This has been a very big problem in the past; there was one occurrence during the past ten years when there was significant water inside the schools during heavy rains.

The School District has taken a number of measures to mitigate this flash flooding. Drainage ditches on school property have been widened, deepened and riprapped. This has helped mitigate the flooding so it is no longer as serious as in the past. However, in times of heavy rain there are still some flash flooding problems in the area.

The School District has taken the actions within its power to mitigate this flooding. Any further mitigation action would need to be taken by the City of Fayette on city property.

Participating Jurisdictions with Moderate Vulnerability to Flood:

Armstrong

Armstrong received a Moderate Vulnerability Rating for Flood because it is while the Measure of Probability for flooding is High for Armstrong, the Measure of Severity is Low.

While Armstrong does have area which lies within the 100-year floodplain, there are no vulnerable structures in these areas. There is one area in the very northeast of the City which experiences flash flooding; the water usually recedes within about 12 hours (see Figure 3.2.5I). City officials indicated that a culvert needs to be installed under a driveway in this area and they plan to encourage the owner to do so.

New Franklin R-I School District and Howard Co. R-II School District

The main effect flooding has on these school district is the necessity of rerouting bus routes during certain periods of flooding.


The main portion of the campus of Central Methodist University is located on a hill. At times there will be minor flooding from a creek near one of the parking lots.

Figure 3.2.5I


National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) Repetitive Loss Properties


[The risk assessment] must also address National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP)insured structures that have been repetitively damaged by floods.

The NFIP defines a Repetitive Loss Property as “any insurable building for which two or more claims of more than $1,000 were paid by the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) within any rolling ten-year period, since 1978. At least two of the claims must be more than 10-days apart.” Repetitive loss property claims paid in the Planning Area during the last three decades are shown in Figure 3.2.5J. The annualized payment for these three properties over the 32 year period of record is $2,581.

Figure 3.2.5J

Howard County Repetitive Loss Properties 1978-2009

# of Properties # of Losses Total Paid Average Payment

3 8 $82,576 $10,322 Source: Missouri State Hazard Mitigation Plan (2010)

A repetitive loss property may or may not currently be insured by the NFIP. A Severe Repetitive Loss (SRL) property is defined as a single family property that is covered under an NFIP flood insurance policy and:

(a) has had at least four NFIP claim payments (including building and contents) over $5,000 each, with the cumulative amount of the claims payments exceeding $20,000; or

(b) for which at least two separate claims payments (building payments only) have been made with the cumulative amount of the building portion of such claims exceeding the market value of the building.

For both (a) and (b) above, at least two of the referenced claims must have occurred within any ten-year period, and must be greater than 10 days apart. The Missouri State Hazard Mitigation Plan (2010) indicates no Severe Repetitive Loss Properties in the Planning Area

Potential Impact of Future Development Howard County and all of its incorporated communities have recognized the hazards posed to their lives and livelihood by the threat of flooding. The County and all the incorporated communities belong the NFIP; adopting floodplain regulations is a requirement for membership in the NFIP. This insures that future development in the floodplain will adhere to standards set forth to minimize the hazard posed by flooding. Planning is currently underway for a project which would involve the location of critical infrastructure in the floodplain. The Howard County Regional Water Commission has been formed to develop a new water system and treatment plant to serve the customers of Fayette, New Franklin, and Consolidated Public Water Supply District #1. Wells for the new water system would be located in the floodplain. The exact locations are not known at this time. While the location of new critical infrastructure in the floodplain will raise the assets vulnerable to flooding in the Planning Area, proper construction according to floodplain regulations will mitigate for this increase in vulnerability. Existing Mitigation Activities

National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) The U.S. Congress established the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) with the passage of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968. The NFIP is a Federal program enabling property owners in participating communities to purchase insurance as a protection against flood losses in exchange for State and community floodplain management regulations that reduce future flood damages. Participation in the NFIP is based on an agreement between communities and the Federal Government. If a community adopts and enforces a floodplain management ordinance to reduce future flood risk to new construction in floodplains, the Federal Government will make flood insurance available within the community as a financial protection against flood losses. This insurance is designed to provide an insurance alternative to disaster assistance to reduce the escalating costs of repairing damage to buildings and their contents caused by floods. Participation in the National Flood Insurance Program is a critical aspect of hazard mitigation planning for it provides communities with direct resources that can be used for controlling the potentially devastating impacts of floods. Furthermore, participation in the program helps communities more easily recover from flood impacts.


All jurisdictions in Howard County participate in the NFIP. Detailed information on NFIP participation is shown in Figure 3.2.5K.

Figure 3.2.5K Howard County Jurisdictions Participating in NFIP

Jurisdiction Entry into Program Date of Current FIRM Howard County 1/5/1989 10/16/2009 Armstrong 8/3/1984 10/16/2009 (M) Fayette 1/19/1983 10/16/2009 Franklin 3/2/1983 10/16/2009 Glasgow 8/2/1982 10/16/2009 New Franklin 1/19/1983 10/16/2009 * (M) indicates that no elevation was determined

Source: http://www.fema.gov/fema/csb.shtm

A summary of the NFIP insurance policies in the county is shown in Figure 3.2.5L.

Figure 3.2.5L

NFIP Policies in Howard County as of 12/31/2009

Community Number of Policies

Amount Insured ($)

Total Premium ($)

Howard County 11 1,724,800 7,443 Armstrong 0 0 0 Fayette 1 140,000 287 Franklin 6 257,900 1,679 Glasgow 0 0 0 New Franklin 10 433,400 3,382 Source: http://bsa.nfipstat.com/reports/1011.htm

Alerts

The National Weather Service issues flooding hazard alerts according to three response levels (See Figure 3.2.5M). These alerts are broadcast through local media.

Figure 3.2.5M Flood Response Levels Response level Description

Flood Watch Flash flooding or flooding is possible within a designated area Flood Warning Flash flooding or flooding has been reported or is imminent Flood Advisory

Flooding of small streams, streets, and low lying areas, such as railroad underpasses and some urban drains is occurring

Maps Floodplain maps for the county are kept on file at the County Emergency Operations Center. Evacuation The Howard County LEOP (Appendix 5 To Annex J) contains a well-defined procedure to be followed in case flood evacuation is necessary. In addition, centrally located and easily accessible staging areas have been identified by Howard County Emergency Management in the event that an evacuation is ordered (Howard County LEOP, Appendix 3 to Annex J). Transportation will be provided from the staging areas to designated safe areas for those persons who do not have their own transportation. In addition, the staging areas can be used as drop-off and pick-up sites for resources and supplies. The identified staging areas are:


The specific staging area(s) to be used would depend upon the event. The Howard County LEOP (Appendix 7 to Annex C ) also contains the following sample news release for flood evacuation:

FLOOD EVACUATION ORDERED

This is ______________________________________. The flooding situation continues in parts of

__________________ (county/city) and may worsen.

For your safety, I am asking that you leave the ___________________ area as soon as possible (give

boundaries of local area, evacuation routes).

Be sure to take essential items -- medicine, special foods, personal items, baby supplies, clothing, money, and valuable papers -- but do not overload your car. Secure your home before you leave. Be sure to check on any neighbors who may need assistance. If you cannot stay with relatives or friends outside of the evacuation area, go to (one of) the Red

Cross shelter(s) at _____________________.

Pets will not be allowed in Red Cross shelters. If you cannot make arrangements for someone

outside the evacuation area to take care of your pet, (give instructions). Do not allow your pet

to run loose. If you cannot make arrangements for your large animals, (give instructions).


3.2.6 Land Subsidence/Sinkhole Description of Hazard The Missouri State Hazard Mitigation Plan (2010) gives the following information about land subsidence: “Land subsidence is sinking of the earth’s surface due to the movement of earth materials below the surface….In Missouri, subsidence is primarily associated with sinkholes but they can also occur from void space left by mining, and natural caves.” Sinkholes are common in areas of the country with carbonate bedrock, such as is found in many parts of Missouri. Carbonate bedrock is commonly fractured; fractures provide a passageway for water which dissolves the rock and can lead to sinkholes (see Figure 3.2.6A).

According to the Missouri Department of Natural Resources (DNR), sinkholes can occur due to human activities such as construction excavation, well drilling, or mining operations. These activities can cause shifts in buoyancy and/or disturb subsurface voids. Sinkholes vary in size and can potentially cause damage to roads, water/sewer lines, buildings, and lagoons.

Figure 3.2.6A

Formation of collapse—Soil bridges gap where sediment has been washing into a solution enlarged fracture, A. Over time, the void migrates upward through the soil, B. After the bridge thins, a sudden collapse, C, often plugs the drain and erosion will, after many years, transform the collapse into a more bowl-shaped sinkhole, D. -By James E. Kaufmann Source: US Geological Survey

Geographic Location Information in the Missouri State Hazard Mitigation Plan (2010) indicates twelve known sinkholes in the Planning Area (see Figure 3.2.6B). All of the known sinkholes are located in unincorporated Howard County. It is important to note that future sinkhole development has the potential to occur near these areas and also in other areas that have no developed sinkholes. Gradual or sudden land subsidence is a key sign of sinkhole formation. Figure 3.2.6B


Previous Occurrences There have been no recorded occurrences of recent sinkhole collapse in Howard County. This does not necessarily mean that none have occurred. Measures of Probability and Severity Probability: Low Severity: Low Land Subsidence/Sinkhole Vulnerability Overview Vulnerable Jurisdictions: Planning Area; greater risk in Howard County (unincorporated) Vulnerability Rating: Low Given the low number of known sinkholes in the Planning Area, their location in the unincorporated area, and no known history of sinkhole collapse in the area, the Vulnerability Rating for this hazard was assessed as Low. Potential Impact on Existing Structures It is difficult to determine the potential impact of land subsidence and sinkholes on existing structures for a number of reasons:

• There is a lack of data on historic damages caused by land subsidence and sinkhole collapse in Missouri.

• Even with the mapping of known and possible sinkhole locations, it is difficult to predict where a sinkhole will collapse and if the collapse will be significant enough to damage any structures in the vicinity.

There are few structures near the known sinkholes in the Planning Area.

According to the Missouri State Hazard Mitigation Plan (2010), the MO DNR examined more than 160 sinkhole collapses reported by the public between 1970 and 2007. The vast majority of the collapses were small, less than 10 feet in diameter and 10 feet deep. While larger collapses due occur in Missouri, they are not common events. Potential Impact of Future Development It could be generally supposed that greater development in areas where sinkholes are known or presumed to occur would increase the probability of damages from sinkhole collapse. However, sinkhole collapse is very hard to predict so it is difficult to predict the impact of future development. To err on the side of caution, development which avoids known and probable sinkhole areas would be the wise course of action.

3.2.7 Levee Failure Description of Hazard A levee is defined by the National Flood Insurance Program “a man-made structure, usually an earthen embankment, designed and constructed in accordance with sound engineering practices to contain, control, or divert the flow of water so as to provide protection from temporary flooding.” Levee failure, according to FEMA, can occur by the following means:

• Overtopping-When a large flood occurs, water can flow over a levee. Called overtopping, the stress exerted by flowing water can cause rapid erosion.

• Piping-Levees are often built over old stream beds. Flood waters will follow these sub

grade channels causing a levee to erode internally thereby allowing flood waters to rupture the levee structure.

• Seepage and Saturation-If flood waters sit up against a levee for a long period, the levee

may become saturated and eventually collapse.

• Erosion-Most levees are constructed of sand or soil which erodes easily under high-velocity flood waters.

• Structural Failures-Lack of regular maintenance is a key reason levees fail at gates,

walls or closure sites. Federally authorized levees are typically designed and built by the US Army Corps of Engineers in cooperation with a local sponsor then turned over to the local sponsor to operate and maintain. Non-federal levees are designed, built, and managed by a non-federal entity. There is no single agency with responsibility for levee oversight. The Corps of Engineers has specific and limited responsibilities for approximately 2,000 levees nationwide through their Levee Program. The responsibilities of local levee owners or sponsors are broad and may include levee safety; land use planning and development; building codes; and operations, maintenance, repair, rehabilitation and/or replacement of the levee. The certification of levees for FEMA’s National Flood Insurance Program is the responsibility of the local levee owner or sponsor. Federally authorized and some non-federal levees may be eligible for Corps of Engineers rehabilitation assistance funding.


Geographic Location The major levees in the Planning Area are located along the Missouri River in the southwestern and southern part of Howard County (see Figure 3.2.7A). Vulnerability is being assessed for failure of these main levees which are managed by six separate levee and drainage districts. Other privately owned levees exist in the Planning Area but official data on their locations is not available. Vulnerability assessments are not being completed for these private levees due to the lack of official data on their locations. The lack of information and condition of these private levees is an area for concern.

“Operations and Maintenance is important to levee safety, but it is not the only factor that affects risk and reliability of a levee, and should not be represented as such. It is important to note, there is still a large universe of private and other non Corps levees that have not been inventoried or inspected/assessed. We don’t know the size of this universe, where the levees are located, their condition, or the consequences of failure, loss of life being of paramount concern.”

– US Army Corps of Engineers

The levees managed by the levee districts are agricultural levees and part of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Rehabilitation Program. They are currently eligible for levee rehabilitation assistance should they receive damage during a flood event.

Figure 3.2.7A


Previous Occurrences All levees in the Planning Area were overtopped in the flood of 1993. Levee District #4’s levee was overtopped again in the flood of 1995; subsequently, there were major updates made to the levee which has allowed it to hold higher floodwater than the 1995 floodwater. In 1997, water came close to the top of Levee District #4’s levee but it was not overtopped. The floodwaters causing the most problem for flooding of levees in the Planning Area are those entering the Missouri River from the Grand River and Chariton River. These rivers enter the Missouri in neighboring Chariton County to the north, approximately 23 miles and 12 miles respectively upstream from where the Missouri River reaches the Howard County border at the City of Glasgow. There was extensive flooding on the Missouri River in 2011. While the levees in the Planning Area were not overtopped in 2011, there was a large problem with seepage and water that could not be drained from fields due to the high river levels. Some of the levee districts incurred high costs for pumping during the prolonged period of elevated river waters. Howard County was included in Disaster Declaration #4012 for flooding between June 1 and August 1 of 2011. Most of the damage in Howard County was connected to pumping expenses associated with flooding in the levee districts; total pumping costs in three levee districts (#2, #3 and Bonne Femme #1) and one drainage district (#7) totaled around $152,000. Measures of Probability and Severity Probability: Moderate Severity: High The levees in the Planning Area have been built considerably higher since the Flood of 1993. While this has protected areas from flooding in the short run, higher levees mean a greater volume of water will be released if the levees are topped. It was the considered opinion of levee district and emergency management personnel that a flood of the magnitude of 1993 would have devastating effects in the Planning Area at this point, partially due to the higher levees.

157

Levee Failure Vulnerability Jurisdictions: Howard County (unincorporated areas near the Missouri River), New Franklin, Howard Co. PWSD #1, Howard Co. Regional Water Commission

(Howard Co. Regional Water Commission as of fall 2011 does not have any infrastructure vulnerable to Levee Failure; however, the Commission plans to locate wells in the 100-year floodplain of the Missouri River, so there is a good chance that in the future they will have assets vulnerable to Levee Failure. ) New Franklin R-I School District, Howard County R-II School District and Fayette R-III School District are not vulnerable to Levee Failure. Vulnerability Rating: High The levees in the Planning Area have been built higher since the devastating Flood of 1993; an overtopping of these higher levees would release greater volumes of water into the protected areas in a shorter period of time than previously occurred. Even without overtopping, high river levels are a challenge for the levee districts due to seepage and lack of ability to drain fields into the river. Breaches of the levees can cause major damage to agricultural fields through the deposit of large quantities of sand. For all of these reasons, the Planning Committee assessed Vulnerability to Levee Failure as High. Potential Impact on Existing Structures Each levee district protects various assets. A closer view of each levee district is presented in this section; information is included on land and structures protected. The districts are presented in the order one would encounter them if traveling downstream on the Missouri River.


Howard County Levee District #6

Figure 3.27B

Source: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers National Levee Database

Figure 3.2.7C Howard County Levee District #6

Embankment Data General location: Left descending bank of Missouri River, river mile 222.5 to 222.0; right descending bank of Richland Creek Levee designed gage function reading/station: 33.0' Glasgow Gage Level of protection provided: Exceeds a 5-year event Average height of levee: 4' to 12' Average crown width: 10' to 14' Average side slope: Landside ranges from 1 on 3 to 1 on 6, riverside ranges from 1 on 3 to 1 on 6 Annual maintenance costs: $500 Protected Features Total acres protected: 417 Agricultural production acres protected: 417 Roads: Approximately 2 miles of gravel surfaced County road, approximately 0.5 miles of unimproved farm to market road Sponsorship and Contact Information Sponsor: Howard County Commission Contact for information on levee: William Lay (Secretary) 660-728-0125 Sources: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Inspection Report (March 2, 2010)

In 2011, approximately two-thirds of the crops in the levee district were lost due to seepage from the Missouri River. The district does not have any pumping stations.

159

Howard County Drainage District #3 (Sections 1 and 2), Howard County Levee District #7, and Howard County Levee District #2

These three districts comprise one flood control unit along almost 14 miles of the Missouri River (see Figure 3.2.7D). The districts have discussed the possibility of merging into one district.

Figure 3.2.7D


The features protected by the flood control unit as a whole are shown in Figure 3.2.7E; specific information on each district is shown in Figures 3.2.7F-I.

All three districts applied for Public Assistance (PA) available through Disaster Declaration #4012 for pumping costs associated with flooding in 2011.


Figure 3.2.7E

Protected Features of Flood Control Unit - River Mile 211.7 to 198.0 Districts Comprising Flood Control Unit Howard County Drainage District #3, Section 2 (river mile 211.7 to 209.0) Howard County Drainage District #7 (river mile 209.0 to 204.5) Howard County Levee District #2 (river mile 204.5 to 198.0) Protected Features Total acres protected: 13,861 Agricultural production acres protected: 13,400 Towns: Community of Petersburg, City of Franklin Residences: 2 Roads: Approximately 4 miles of State Highway Route Z, approximately 30 miles of gravel surfaced County roads, approximately 21 miles of unimproved farm to market roads Utilities: Numerous miles of overhead power lines Barns: 31 Machine Sheds: 2 Irrigation Systems: 14 Grain Bins: 49 Other facilities: Panhandle Eastern Pipeline Sources: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Inspection Report (Feb./March 2005); Eric Colvin, Director, Howard County Drainage District #3

Figure 3.2.7F Howard County Drainage District #3 - Section 1

Embankment Data General location: Left descending bank of the Missouri River, river mile 212.3 to 211.7 and the right descending bank of Salt Creek Levee designed gage function reading/station: 35.0' Boonville Gage Level of protection provided: Exceeds a 10-yr. flood event Average height of levee: 6' to 12' Average crown width: 10' to 12' Average side slope: Landside and riverside slopes 1 on 3 Annual maintenance costs: $300 Protected Features Total acres protected: 100 Agricultural production acres protected: 100 Roads: Approximately 0.5 mile of gravel surfaced County Road 319 and approximately 0.3 mile of unimproved farm to market road. Sponsorship and Contact Information Sponsor: Howard County Circuit Court Contact for information on levee: Eric Colvin, Secretary, 660-338-2678 Sources: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Inspection Report (March 3, 2005); Eric Colvin, Drainage District Secretary

161

Figure 3.2.7G Howard County Drainage District #3 - Section 2

Embankment Data General location: Left descending bank of the Missouri River, river mile 211.7 to 209.0 and the right descending bank of Salt Creek Levee designed gage function reading/station: 35.0' Boonville Gage Level of protection provided: Exceeds a 10-yr. flood event Average height of levee: 8' to 12' Average crown width: 8' to 12' Average side slope: Landside ranges from 1 on 3 to 1 on 6; riverside ranges from 1 on 3 to 1 on 4 Annual maintenance costs: $600 Protected Features* Total acres protected: 2,420 Agricultural production acres protected: 2,230 * In addition to the specific acreage listed here as protected, this levee protects numerous features in conjunction with other levees in the complete flood control unit (see Figure 3.2.7I). Sponsorship and Inspection Sponsor: Howard County Circuit Court Contact for information on levee: Eric Colvin, Secretary, 660-338-2678 Sources: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Inspection Report (March 3, 2005); Eric Colvin, Drainage District Secretary

Figure 3.2.7H Howard County Drainage District #7

Embankment Data General location: Left descending bank of the Missouri River, river mile 209.0 to 204.5 Levee designed gage function reading/station: 35.0' Boonville Gage Level of protection provided: Exceeds a 10-yr. flood event Average height of levee: 10' to 16' Average crown width: 8' to 14' Average side slope: Landside ranges from 1 on 3 to 1 on 4; riverside ranges from 1on 3 to 1 on 5 Annual maintenance costs: $3500 (estimate from Drainage District President) Protected Features* Total acres protected: 3,000 Agricultural production acres protected: 2,700 * In addition to the specific acreage listed here as protected, this levee protects numerous features in conjunction with other levees in the complete flood control unit (see Figure 3.2.7I). Sponsorship and Contact Information Sponsor: Howard County Circuit Court

Contact for information on levee: Robert Seltsam, President, 573-445-0321 Sources: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Inspection Report (Feb. 28, 2005); Robert Seltsam, Drainage District President

The landowners in Howard County Drainage District #7 inspect the levee on a regular basis. In addition to these inspections, an engineer is paid to inspect it each year.


Figure 3.2.7I Howard County Levee District #2

Embankment Data Location: Left descending bank of the Missouri River, river mile 204.5 to 198.0 and the right descending bank of Dortlett Creek Levee designed gage function reading/station: 35.0' Boonville Gage Level of protection provided: Exceeds a 10-yr. flood event Average height of levee: 6' to 16' Average crown width: 10' to 16' Average side slope: Landside ranges from 1 on 3 to 1 on 6; riverside ranges from 1 on 2 to 1 on 5 Annual maintenance costs: $2,000 Protected Features* Total acres protected: 8,441 Agricultural production acres protected: 8,300 * In addition to the specific acreage listed here as protected, this levee protects numerous features in conjunction with other levees in the complete flood control unit (see Figure 3.2.7I). Sponsorship and Inspection Sponsor: Howard County Commission Contact for information on levee: Larry Wilmsmeyer, Secretary, 660-848-2051 Sources: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Inspection Report (March 1, 2005)

The levee in Levee District #2 is very wide and made mostly of black dirt, according to Larry Wilmsmeyer, Secretary of the District. The levee hasn’t overtopped since the 1993 flood; the levee was heavily sandbagged for the flood of 1995.

163

Howard County Levee District #4

Figure 3.2.7J

Source: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers National Levee Database Howard Co. Levee District #4 has a problem with one of its protected fields flooding and sustaining a total crop loss each year, according to the President of the Levee District. High levels of the Missouri River keep the drainage gates to the river closed much of the time; the flooded field receives drainage from all the other land protected by the levee. The district plans to put in a second levee with a drainage pipe and pump to drain this field into a wetlands.


Figure 3.2.7K Howard County Levee District #4

Embankment Data General location: Left descending bank of Missouri River, river mile 198.0 to 194.3; left descending bank of Dorlett Creek; right descending banks of Bonne Femme and Sulphur Creeks Levee designed gage function reading/station: 35.0' Boonville Gage Level of protection provided: Exceeds a 50-year event Average height of levee: 25' Average crown width: 10' Average side slope: Landside ranges from 1 on 3 to 1 on 4, riverside ranges from 1 on 2.5 to 1 on 4 Annual maintenance costs: $20,000+ (estimate from District President) Protected Features Total acres protected: 6,000 Agricultural production acres protected: 5000+ Towns: Portions of Franklin and New Franklin Businesses: 15 Residences: 4 Roads: Approximately 4 miles of State Highway Route 87, approximately 6 miles of U.S. Highway Route 40 (detour route in case of road block on I-70 at Rocheport Bridge), approximately 2 miles of State Highway Route 5, approximately 12 miles of gravel surfaced County roads, approximately 15 miles of unimproved farm to market roads Utilities: Approximately 14 miles of 18 and 24 inch Panhandle Eastern Pipeline natural gas lines, approximately 20 miles of overhead power lines, approximately 8 miles of fiber optic lines, approximately 20 miles of phone lines, approximately 15 miles of Howard County Consolidated Public Water Supply District #1 water lines, approximately 2 miles of Cities Utilities 6 inch natural gas line Barns: 4 Machine Sheds: 5 Irrigation Systems: 2

Other facilities: Approximately 3 miles of Katy Trail State Park; Franklin Island Conservation Area. Water supply systems: Howard County Consolidated Public Water Supply District #1 3-phase electric water wells (3 wells at 200 gallons per minute each - 680 water meters served and approximately 0.5 miles of 6 inch water transmission lines for wells). The City of New Franklin municipal 3-phase electric water well (1 well at 200 gallons per minute - 442 water meters served for 512 lining units and approximately 0.85 miles of 6 inch water transmission lines for well). NOTE: For the level of flood protection provided by the District, the levee system "deflects" Missouri River floodwaters from flowing against and into the treatment plants for these two potable water supply systems and the City's 3-cell wastewater treatment lagoon system. This provides access and continued operation of these facilities. Sponsorship and Contact Information Sponsor: Howard County Commission Contact for information on levee: Kendall Kircher (President) 660-621-1985 Other officers of Levee District: Dick Rohlfing (Vice-President); Dennis Grotjan (Secretary) Sources: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Inspection Report (March 2, 2005); Kendall Kircher, Levee District President

165

Bonne Femme Levee District #1 Figure 3.2.7L


Figure 3.2.7M Bonne Femme Levee District #1

Embankment Data General location: Left descending bank of Missouri River, river mile 192.0 to 187.5; left descending bank of Bonne Femme Creek and right descending bank of Salt Creek Levee designed gage function reading/station: 35.0' Boonville Gage Level of protection provided: Exceeds a 25-year flood event Average height of levee: 8' to 16' above landside natural ground surface Average crown width: 8' to 16' Average side slope: Landside ranges from 1 on 3 to 1 on 5, riverside ranges from 1 on 3 to 1 on 5 Annual maintenance costs: $2,200 Protected Features Total acres protected: 5,165 Agricultural production acres protected: 5,075 Businesses: 1 Residences: 2 (vacant) Roads: Approximately 5 miles of U.S. Highway 40, approximately 10.1 miles of gravel surfaced County roads and numerous miles of unimproved farm to market roads Utilities: Approximately 5 miles of fiber optic lines, approximately 5 miles of Union Electric overhead power lines and approximately 0.25 mile of buried pipeline Barns: 0 Machine Sheds: 3 Irrigation Systems: 9 Grain Bins: 11 Other facilities: Approximately 5 miles of Katy Trail State Park Sponsorship and Contact Information Sponsor: Howard County Commission Contact for information on levee: Randy Kircher (President), 660-848-2325; Gene Sandner (Secretary/Treasurer) 573-698-5111 Sources: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Inspection Report (March 2, 2005); Gene Sandner, Levee District Secretary/Treasurer


According to an officer with the Bonne Femme Levee District #1, when the Missouri River is high, it backs up into the Bonne Femme Creek. The district sandbags and closes the road. In 2011, due to the high levels in the Missouri River, all drainage pipes to the river were closed; the district incurred high costs for pumping both drainage water from higher ground and seepage water from the river. The district applied for Public Assistance (PA) available through Disaster Declaration #4012 to help with these costs. Currently there is a 70% coverage by crop insurance for agriculture in the levee district. The Risk Management Agency (RMA) of the USDA lowered the crop insurance rates for the district farmers because of numerous pumping station the district has installed.

Potential Impact of Future Development Howard County and its vulnerable communities are well aware of the hazard posed to their lives and livelihood by the threat of flooding. The County and all the incorporated communities belong the NFIP; adopting floodplain regulations is a requirement for membership in the NFIP. This insures that future development in the floodplain will adhere to standards set forth to minimize the hazard posed by flooding. The newly formed Howard County Regional Water Commission is looking at sites in the Missouri River floodplain for the location of its wells. The exact locations are not known at this time. Floodplain regulations will apply to the construction in the floodplain. The location of this new critical infrastructure in the floodplain will probably increase the assets in the Planning Area which are vulnerable to Levee Failure. Existing Mitigation Strategies The levee districts have raised the levees since the Flood of 1993 and added pipes for drainage from behind the levees. As previously discussed, the raising of the levees offers greater protection for lower flood levels but puts the areas protected by the levees at greater risk should they be topped.

All of the levees are maintained by the districts and inspected on a regular basis. A significant issue for Drainage District #3 is the erosion of the streambank of Salt Creek which threatens the nearby levee. The bank of Salt Creek has been reinforced with rock near the Missouri River; this mitigation project cost the levee district approximately $10,000.

167

3.2.8 Severe Winter Weather Description of Hazard Howard County generally experiences a winter storm at least every other year; certain years are particularly notable for their storm frequency and/or intensity. Winter storms in central Missouri contain ice, snow, severe cold, sleet, and wind; each of these has the potential to disrupt life in the region by making normal activity difficult and/or dangerous. Winter storms pose a threat to central Missouri by creating disruptions in electricity, telephone, and other critical infrastructures. Employees may be unable to get to work due to icy conditions, unplowed roadways, disruptions in transportation services, or facility damage. A shortage of supplies may ensue with a longer stretch of Severe Winter Weather. Snowstorms do not generally impact the region for long periods of time but ice storms have shut down schools and businesses for extended periods. Ice is also the biggest threat to reliable power and phone service. Geographic Location The entire Planning Area is at risk from Severe Winter Weather. Previous Occurrences Howard County experienced 26 officially recorded winter storms or periods of extreme cold in the period Jan. 14, 1994 – Aug. 31, 2011, according to data from NOAA and FEMA. Figure 3.2.8A summarizes available data for these storms including additional information from SEMA Situation Reports. Severe Winter Weather typically moves through a large area. The number of counties affected by a storm is indicated in Figure 3.2.8 A for those events where deaths, injuries, and/or costs are reported. The deaths, injuries, and estimated costs reflect all counties in Missouri affected by the Severe Winter Weather. The death associated with one of the periods of extreme cold did not occur in Howard County; information on the locations of the injuries was not available. While it can be seen from the data that Severe Winter Weather can result in great financial cost, the exact cost of these storms to Howard County is not available in the data. More cost information is available for storms for which Presidential Disaster Declarations were made. After a Presidential Disaster Declaration, Public Assistance (PA) and/or Individual Assistance (IA) is made available through FEMA. The PA is available in some or all of the following categories dependent on the disaster event:

A – Debris Removal B – Emergency Protective Measures C – Roads & Bridges D – Water Control Facilities E – Public Buildings/Equipment F – Public Utilities G - Other


Details of four periods of Severe Winter Weather in recent years are outlined below:

• January 30, 2002 ice storm: Presidential Disaster Declaration #1403 - Both PA and IA were made available to

Howard County to help with the damage from this storm.

• Nov. 30 – Dec. 1, 2006 winter storm:

The Governor of Missouri declared a State of Emergency in the State which allowed state funds to be used in disaster response.

SEMA Situation Reports contained no reports of problems in Howard County during

this storm.

• December 6-15, 2007 winter storm, including ice storm of December 8:

SEMA activated the State Emergency Operations Center and the Governor of Missouri declared a State Emergency which made state resources available to assist local governments.

Presidential Emergency Declaration #3281 for ice storm of December 8, 2007

included entire state of Missouri. Public Assistance (PA), Categories A and B, was made available from this Emergency Declaration.

SEMA Situation Reports indicated no power outages in Howard County from this

storm; however, roads were slick and two traffic accidents, one serious, were reported.

• January 26, 2009 winter storm:

Presidential Emergency Declaration #3303 included entire state of Missouri. Public

Assistance (PA), Category B, was made available with this declaration.

• Jan. 31 – Feb. 1, 2011 winter storm:

A severe winter storm with blizzard conditions affected much of the state. Wind gusts reached over 40 mph and snow depths of up to 23 inches were recorded; ice and sleet were a problem in many areas. The region was brought to a standstill for many days.

I-70 was closed across most of the state and I-44 was closed from Springfield to the

state of Oklahoma.

Presidential Emergency Declaration #1961 included 62 counties in Missouri. Public Assistance (PA), Categories A-G, were made available with this declaration. A total of $9,553,722 in PA was obligated in the state ($6,956,550 in Categories A and B and $2,597,173 in Categories C-G.)

169

Figure 3.2.8A

Date Storm Type Deaths* Injuries*Estimated

Cost* (Million $)

Presidential Disaster or Emergency

Declaration #

# of Counties

Assistance in Howard

County (IA or PA)

01/14/94 Extreme Cold 0 15 5.0 51 plus City of St. Louis

02/22/94 Glaze/ice Storm 0 15 0 9 plus City of St. Louis

04/05/94 Winter Storm 0 0 0.5 31 plus City of St. Louis

01/18/95 Heavy Snow 0 0 0.2 1309/22/95 Freeze 0 0 011/11/95 Snow/ice 0 0 012/06/95 Snow 0 0 012/08/95 Snow 0 0 001/10/97 Extreme Cold 0 0 001/27/97 Heavy Snow 0 0 001/11/98 Ice Storm 0 0 010/06/00 Extreme Cold 0 0 012/10/00 Extreme Cold 1 0 0 3712/11/00 Ice Storm 0 0 012/13/00 Heavy Snow 0 0 001/28/01 Winter Storm 0 0 002/09/01 Winter Storm 0 0 001/30/02 Ice Storm 0 0 82.5** 1403 43 IA and PA01/25/04 Winter Storm 0 0 011/30/06 Heavy Snow 0 0 012/01/06 Heavy Snow 0 0 001/12/07 Winter Storm 0 0 012/09/07 Ice Storm 0 0 NA 3281 entire state PA (A,B)01/26/09 Winter Storm NA NA NA 3303 entire state PA (B)1/10/2011 Winter Weather 0 0 01/19/2011 Winter Storm 0 0 01/31/2011-2/1/2011 Winter Storm 0 0 12.8** 1961 62 PA (A-G)

TOTAL 1 30 101

Severe Winter Storms in Howard County (1/14/1994-8/31/2011)

Sources: http://www4.ncdc.noaa.gov/cgi-win/wwcgi.dll?wwevent~storms; http://www.fema.gov/news/disasters.fema; SEMA Situation Reports

* Data is total for acounties in Missouri affected by the Severe Winter Weather event.

** This is a minimal estimate calculated from the 75% PA reimbursements received by local governments; the actual cost of the event was undoubtedly higher.


Measures of Probability and Severity Probability: High Severity: Low Severe Winter Weather Vulnerability Overview Vulnerable Jurisdictions: Entire Planning Area

Moderate - All participating jurisdictions with the exception of Howard Co. Consolidated PWSD #1 and Howard Co. Regional Water Commission

Low – Howard Co. Consolidated PWSD #1 and Howard Co. Regional Water Commission

The Missouri State Hazard Mitigation (2010) analyzed data for all counties in the state to develop vulnerability ratings for Severe Winter Weather. The following data was analyzed:

• NOAA storm event data (1993 to July 2009) • U.S. Census Data (2000) • Total building exposure from HAZUS-MR4 • FEMA Public Assistance (PA) funds from Disasters #1672, #1736, #1748 and#1822 • Census of Agriculture 2007 (USDA) • Crop Insurance Claims data (1998-2008) from the Risk Management Agency of the

USDA • Calculated Social Vulnerability Index (SoVI™) for Missouri Counties from the Hazards

and Vulnerability Research Institute of the Geography Department at the University of South Carolina

Each factor analyzed was given a vulnerability rating from 1 to 5 with 1 indicating Low Vulnerability and 5 indicating High Vulnerability. (The Social Vulnerability Index ratings also follow this same pattern.) The results for Howard County and its communities as a whole (the Planning Area and the City of Franklin) are shown in Figure 3.2.8B.

Figure 3.2.8B

Total Incidents

Housing Units/

sq. mile

Total Building Exposure ($)

Total Property Loss ($)

2007 Crop Exposure ($)

Total Crop Insurance Paid ($)

Social Vulnerability Index (1-5)

Overall Vulnerability

Rating

Data 18 9.3 $584,320,000 $32,650,000 $34,407,000 $13,963

Vulnerability Rating 1 1 2 5 3 1

Source: Missouri State Hazard Mitigation Plan (2010)

Medium

Impact Assessment - Severe Winter Weather

4

171

It is notable that the Planning Area received a medium-high Social Vulnerability Index. In terms of Severe Winter Weather, the elderly are the population most vulnerable to complications from extended exposure. According to the 2010 Census, the Planning Area (including the City of Franklin) has 1,609 citizens (15.9% of the population) who are 65 years and older. The Planning Committee is well aware of the importance of protecting vulnerable populations. There are ten mitigation actions in this updated hazard mitigation plan under the Objective “Protect vulnerable populations”. Six of these actions help mitigate the effects of Severe Winter Weather. Severe winter storms also pose a general threat to human life. Many deaths from winter storms are a result of traffic accidents caused by a combination of poor driving surfaces and speeds too fast for the conditions. Accidents during winter storms can be particularly devastating because of multiple car involvement. Response times for emergency vehicles may also be slowed by poor road conditions. The Planning Committee assessed the Vulnerability for Severe Winter Weather for most jurisdictions in the Planning Area as Moderate; this is in accord with the assessment in the State Plan. Howard Co. Consolidated PWSD #1 and the Howard Co. Regional Water Commission were assessed a Low Vulnerability rating for Severe Winter Weather. The Chief Water Operator for Howard Co. Consolidated PWSD #1 indicated that winter storms have never been a problem for the continuity of operations in the district. Guidelines from the Missouri Department of Natural Resources (MoDNR) specify that water tanks are sized so as to have one and half days’ backup supply of water. If it would become necessary to generate power, water supply districts are on a priority list for the rental of generators. There are six or seven places where the district could rent a generator. Potential Impact on Existing Structures The Missouri State Hazard Mitigation Plan (2010) analysis determined a Medium-Low Building Exposure Vulnerability Rating ($584,320,000 in total building exposure) but a High Total Property Loss Vulnerability Rating ($32,650,000 in total property loss). This property loss figure represents PA damage in the Planning Area since there are no specific damage losses for Howard County in the NOAA data. The majority of this PA was probably not connected to building damage but to the cost of snow/ice removal and cleanup.

It should be remembered that PA only covers uninsured losses; any individual private losses due to these winter storm events would not be recorded in this data. The cost of these winter storms may well be higher than indicated by the data. As previously mentioned, damage to buildings is not the primary threat posed by winter storms in the Planning Area. Structural damage is more likely to involve the following:

• Power Lines - Ice storms often adversely impact consistent power supplies. Ice buildup on wires can cause them to fall; tree limbs downed by ice can knock out power lines.


When this happens power outages occur that can be dangerous. For instance, if the population relies on electricity for heat, people run the risk of hypothermia. This is a particular concern for more vulnerable populations such as the elderly.

• Water Lines - Winter storms and their associated cold weather lead to the ground

freezing and thawing. As the ground freezes and thaws, pipes in the ground shift and sometimes break causing a lack of potable water. Also, when a pipe breaks, damage to property can be extensive and expensive.

Currently, there is not a reliable or accurate way to estimate all potential costs associated with Severe Winter Weather. Too many variables exist to accurately portray how much damage would be incurred by a winter storm. The type of precipitation (snow versus ice), time of day, and other characteristics all play a role in determining the cost of a winter storm. Potential Impact of Future Development According to the Missouri State Hazard Mitigation Plan (2010), “…future development could potentially increase vulnerability to this hazard by increasing demand on the utilities and increasing the exposure of infrastructure networks.”

While this is true, there is currently not much development occurring in the Planning Area. If this trend should reverse, the assets vulnerable to Severe Winter Weather would probably increase.

Existing Mitigation Activities Howard County Emergency Management Agency (EMA)

The Howard County LEOP contains extensive “in place shelter guidance”.

The EMA has working relationships with many churches throughout the county where sheltering assistance would be provided if requested. In Fayette, the EMA has formal agreements for sheltering in place with the First Baptist and First Christian Churches. In addition, a large, non-denominational church in the city which has a propane supply and the Catholic Church Hall would be made available, if needed.

Howard Co. Family Support (State of MO Social Services) is in charge of opening shelters and works closely with the EMA; all of the personnel of Howard Co. Family Support (currently eight staff members) are mandated volunteers. The Red Cross from neighboring Boone County assists with sheltering needs. City of Fayette

The City of Fayette has agreements with both the Fayette High School and Central Methodist University to use their facilities as shelters. The gymnasium at Fayette High School would be used as a shelter; the Phillip Recreation Center at CMU is a designated Red Cross shelter (see Central Methodist University in Section 2.10).

173

City of New Franklin

The school buildings of the New Franklin R-I School District can be used for sheltering; a kitchen is available for sheltering needs. There are also three churches and a community building available in the city for sheltering.

Utility Companies

Utility companies in Howard County have policies regarding tree trimming and brush removal around power lines. Consistent maintenance of trees and brush around utility lines limits the possibility of power outages during a severe winter storm. Maintenance also makes financial sense because repairing fallen utility lines and poles is costly and dangerous. National Weather Service and Local Media

The Kansas City Office of the National Weather Service at Pleasant Hill coordinates with local jurisdictions and media outlets to disperse information regarding severe winter storm watches and warnings. Early warning allows the public to prepare for a severe storm. Should a storm reach catastrophic proportions and officials need to communicate directly with the public, the Emergency Alert System exists to spread that information. The National Weather Service sets up winter weather warnings in stages of severity. These stages are shown in Figure 3.2.8C.

Figure 3.2.8 C National Weather Service Winter Warnings

Winter Weather Advisory

Winter weather conditions are expected to cause significant inconveniences and may be hazardous. If caution is exercised, these situations should not become life- threatening. The greatest hazard is often to motorists.

Winter Storm Watch Severe winter conditions, such as heavy snow and/or ice, are possible within the next day or two.

Winter Storm Warning Severe winter conditions have begun or are about to begin in your area.

Blizzard Warning Snow and strong winds will combine to produce a blinding snow (near zero visibility), deep drifts, and life-threatening wind chill. Seek refuge immediately.

Frost/Freeze Warning

Below freezing temperatures are expected and may cause significant damage to plants, crops, or fruit trees. In areas unaccustomed to freezing temperatures, people who have homes without heat need to take added precautions.


3.2.9 Wildfire

Description of Hazard Wildfire is defined as an uncontrolled fire that destroys forests and many other types of vegetation, as well as animal species. Forest, grassland, and natural cover fires can and have occurred at any time throughout the year in Missouri. The major causes of wildfires in Missouri are various human activities, according to statistics from the Missouri Department of Conservation (see Figure 3.2.9A). Debris burning is consistently the largest single cause of wildfires in the State of Missouri. Fires caused by lightning are rare despite 50 to 70 thunderstorm days per year.

In Howard County, the majority of the fires and the greatest acreage loss occur during the spring fire season (February 15 - May 10). Spring is the time of the year when rural residents burn garden spots and brush piles. Many landowners also believe it is necessary to burn the woods in the spring to grow more grass, kill ticks, and get rid of brush. These factors, combined with low humidity and high winds, result in higher fire danger at this time of year. The spring fire season abates with the growth of the new season’s grasses and other green vegetation. A lot of acreage in Howard County is in the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) of the USDA. The periodic burning of this land for management purposes was cited by fire personnel as probably the number one cause of wildfires in the Planning Area. In at least one instance, natural cover fires were started from power lines downed during a windstorm (March 1991).

Debris 42%

Misc. 43%

Arson 7%

Equipment 4%

Smoking 2%Campfire 2%

Children 0.6%Railroads 0.1% Lightning 0.3%

Causes of Wildfire in Missouri 2010Figure 3.2.9 A

Source:http://mdc.mo.gov/landwater-care/fire-management/wildfires/missouri-fire-statistics

175

Numerous fires also occur in October and November due to the dryness associated with fall in Missouri. Many rural residents use this time of year to burn leaves and debris thus raising the possibility of a fire which burns out of control. Geographic Location Due to the unpredictability of Wildfire, the entire Planning Area is considered to be at some risk. However, the unincorporated area of Howard County and the Cities of Fayette and New Franklin are most at risk from wildfire due to Wildland Urban Interfaces (WUIs). Wildland Urban Interfaces are those areas where “… structures and other human development meet or intermingle with undeveloped wildland”, according to a 2001 Federal Register report. There is a higher risk scenario for wildfire in these areas because of the proximity of high fuel loads on wildland to urban structures. The specific interface definitions used are:

• Interface Community Structures directly abut wildland fuels. There is a clear line of demarcation between wildland fuels and residential, business, and public structures. Wildland fuels do not generally continue into the developed area. The development density for an interface community is usually three or more structures per acre, with shared municipal services.

• Intermix Community Structures are scattered throughout a wildland area. There is no clear line of demarcation; wildland fuels are continuous outside of and within the developed area. The development density in the intermix ranges from structures very close together to one structure per 40 acres.

• Occluded Community Often found within a city, structures abut an island of wildland fuels (e.g. park or open space). There is a clear line of demarcation between structures and wildland fuels. The development density is usually similar to those found in the interface community, but the occluded area is usually less than 1,000 acres in size.

Data provided by the University of Wisconsin-Madison has been used to map the WUI for the Planning Area (see Figure 3.2.9B).


Figure 3.2.9B

177

The only incorporated community in the Planning Area with significant WUI, according to this data, is the City of Glasgow (see Figure 3.2.9C). However, discussion with local fire agency personnel indicates that the areas mapped in Glasgow for WUI no longer present a problem; the areas have been cleared of brush and, in one instance, the area noted is a park with mowed grass. For this reason, the City of Glasgow is not considered to be a geographic location of particular concern for Wildfire.

Figure 3.2.9C


Fire personnel did note that there are some areas of potential concern for Wildfire in the Cities of Fayette and New Franklin. There is WUI on the west side of the Fayette between Besgrove and Spring Streets and also on the northern border of the City New Franklin. These cities have been included as geographic locations of particular concern for Wildfire. Previous Occurrences The Missouri Department of Conservation maintains a database of wildfires reported within the state. The database indicates 57 wildfire events in Howard County between March 2003 and March 2009 (see Figure 3.2.9 D). That is close to an average of 10 wildfires per year in the Planning Area, although some years are much worse for Wildfire due to the weather conditions. An inspection of the data for Howard County indicates that the largest reported burnt acreage was 400 acres (March 2009); 100 acres burned in the preceding month. There were a total of 11 fires which burned 40 acres or more. The data indicated that no buildings were damaged by these fires.

Date City Region Cause Acres Burnt Response Type Station

03/17/03 Fayette Central Unknown 0.5 Primary Responder Howard Co FPD03/31/03 Fayette Central Smoking 0.5 Primary Responder Howard Co FPD04/01/03 Fayette Central Unknown 5.0 Primary Responder Howard Co FPD04/12/03 Fayette Central Unknown 1.0 Primary Responder Howard Co FPD02/26/05 Fayette Central Debris 40.0 Primary Responder Howard Co FPD03/06/05 Fayette Central Debris 30.0 Primary Responder Howard Co FPD03/06/05 Fayette Central Debris 25.0 Mutual Aid Howard Co FPD03/06/05 Fayette Central Debris 45.0 Primary Responder Howard Co FPD03/18/05 Fayette Central Debris 40.0 Primary Responder Howard Co FPD03/20/05 fayette Central Debris 40.0 Primary Responder Houstonia FD03/28/05 Fayette Central Debris 80.0 Primary Responder Howard Co FPD04/02/05 Fayette Central Debris 40.0 Mutual Aid Howard Co FPD04/03/05 Fayette Central Debris 40.0 Primary Responder Howard Co FPD04/04/05 Fayette Central Debris 5.0 Primary Responder Howard Co FPD04/04/05 Fayette Central Debris 25.0 Primary Responder Howard Co FPD01/06/06 448 Central Debris 0.5 Mutual Aid Howard Co FPD01/07/06 dse Central Debris 1.5 Mutual Aid Howard Co FPD01/08/06 Burton, MO Central Unknown 5.0 Mutual Aid Howard Co FPD01/12/06 302 E. Broadway Central Unknown 0.5 Mutual Aid Howard Co FPD01/12/06 W. Broway Central Unknown 0.5 Mutual Aid Howard Co FPD01/17/06 448 Central Unknown 0.5 Mutual Aid Howard Co FPD01/19/06 St. Rt. O Central Debris 30.0 Aid to MDC response Howard Co FPD01/26/06 County Rd. 123 Central Debris 15.0 Aid to MDC response Howard Co FPD01/26/06 County Rd. 114 Central Debris 25.0 Aid to MDC response Howard Co FPD02/23/06 461 Hwy. 5 Central Unknown 15.0 Aid to MDC response Howard Co FPD

Reported Wildfires in Howard County (2003-2010)Figure 3.2.9D

179

Date City Region Cause Acres Burnt Response Type Station

02/25/06 fdsa Central Debris 20.0 Aid to MDC response Howard Co FPD02/25/06 dfd Central Debris 0.5 Aid to MDC response Howard Co FPD02/26/06 Co. Rd. 304 Central Debris 5.0 Aid to MDC response Howard Co FPD02/26/06 Burton Central Debris 15.0 Aid to MDC response Howard Co FPD02/27/06 St. Rt. A Central Unknown 30.0 Aid to MDC response Howard Co FPD02/28/06 Co. Rd. 132 Central Unknown 15.0 Aid to MDC response Howard Co FPD02/28/06 St. Rt. A Central Unknown 40.0 Aid to MDC response Howard Co FPD03/01/06 1481 Rt. Y Central Miscellaneous 1.0 Aid to MDC response Howard Co FPD04/04/06 St. Rt. A Central Debris 15.0 Aid to MDC response Howard Co FPD09/13/06 unknown Central Equipment 2.0 Primary Responder Howard Co FPD01/14/09 New Franklin Central Miscellaneous 2.0 Primary Responder Howard Co FPD01/19/09 Fayette Central Miscellaneous 0.3 Primary Responder Howard Co FPD01/21/09 Fayette Central Miscellaneous 5.0 Primary Responder Howard Co FPD01/22/09 Fayette Central Unknown 2.0 Primary Responder Howard Co FPD01/30/09 New Franklin Central Unknown 5.0 Primary Responder Howard Co FPD01/31/09 Fayette Central Miscellaneous 5.0 Primary Responder Howard Co FPD02/03/09 Fayette Central Unknown 5.0 Primary Responder Howard Co FPD02/04/09 New Franklin Central Unknown 30.0 Primary Responder Howard Co FPD02/08/09 Fayette Central Miscellaneous 1.0 Primary Responder Howard Co FPD02/10/09 Fayette Central Unknown 20.0 Primary Responder Howard Co FPD02/10/09 New Franklin Central Miscellaneous 1.0 Primary Responder Howard Co FPD02/15/09 Fayette Central Equipment 100.0 Primary Responder Howard Co FPD02/21/09 Fayette Central Unknown 30.0 Primary Responder Howard Co FPD02/21/09 Fayette Central Miscellaneous 10.0 Primary Responder Howard Co FPD02/23/09 Fayette Central Miscellaneous 30.0 Primary Responder Howard Co FPD03/02/09 New Franklin Central Miscellaneous 20.0 Primary Responder Howard Co FPD03/06/09 New Franklin Central Unknown 3.0 Primary Responder Howard Co FPD03/06/09 Fayette Central Miscellaneous 5.0 Primary Responder Howard Co FPD03/06/09 Fayette Central Miscellaneous 10.0 Primary Responder Howard Co FPD03/16/09 Fayette Central Unknown 400.0 Primary Responder Howard Co FPD03/22/09 Fayette Central Miscellaneous 15.0 Primary Responder Howard Co FPD03/23/09 Fayette Central Miscellaneous 50.0 Primary Responder Howard Co FPDSource: MO Department of Conservation: http://mdc4.mdc.mo.gov/applications/FireReporting/Report.aspx

Figure 3.2.9D (cont.)

Reported Wildfires in Howard County (2003-2010)


Measures of Probability and Severity Probability:

Moderate to High – Planning Area, Howard County, Fayette, New Franklin

Low - Armstrong, Fayette, Glasgow, New Franklin R-I School District, Howard County R-II School District, Fayette R-III School District, Central Methodist University, Howard Co. Consolidated Public Water Supply District #1, Howard County Regional Water Commission

Severity:

Moderate - Planning Area, Howard County, Fayette, New Franklin


The Missouri State Hazard Mitigation Plan (2010) points out that the probability of wildfires may increase during conditions of excessive heat, dryness, and drought. The probability is also higher in spring and late fall. Wildfire Vulnerability Overview


Vulnerability Rating:

Moderate to High – Planning Area, Howard County (unincorp.), Fayette, New Franklin


The Missouri State Hazard Mitigation Plan (2010) analyzed vulnerability to Wildfire for all counties in the state using the two factors of “likelihood” and “annualized acres burned” for data from the years 2004-2008. The counties were put in vulnerability ranges based on these factors; Howard County had a Low Rating for both of these factors.

To put this evaluation in perspective, it must be noted that much of southern Missouri is heavily forested and subject to what would be considered “wildfire” in the more common sense of the term. Wildfires in the Planning Area are often natural cover and brush fires which do not have the heavy fuel load of forested areas; they tend to be limited in their spatial extent thus minimizing their impact.

181

Members of the Planning Committee assessed the Vulnerability Rating for Wildfire in Howard County (unincorporated), Fayette and New Franklin as Moderate to High. An important aspect leading to this rating, which was not taken into consideration in the State Plan, is the all-volunteer makeup of the fire departments and districts in the Planning Area. In 2009, there were 22 recorded wildfires in the Planning Area in a little over two months. The Planning Committee noted that there were some weeks when volunteer firefights were missing 2-3 days of their paid employment. This level of volunteer firefighting places an economic stress on the families of the firefighters. This was an important factor in the Moderate to High Vulnerability Rating assessment.

Potential Impact on Existing Structures Data from the MCD would indicate that the potential impact of Wildfire on existing structures in the Planning Area is small. In 6 years, there were no structures damaged in wildfires that burned an estimated 1,421 acres. Currently, there is not a reliable or accurate way to estimate costs associated with a Wildfire event because of the numerous variables involved. Location, time of day, land cover, presence or absence of structures, and other variables all influence the level of damage and ultimate cost in fighting fires. Fire suppression methods will also vary depending on the presence or absence of structures in the area. Some wildfires are allowed to burn themselves out, resulting in minimal cost for suppression.

Potential Impact of Future Development In recent years, Howard County has experienced a decline in population. Should this trend reverse, there is potential for an increase in both the probability of and vulnerability to wildfire. Human activity (especially debris burning) is the largest cause of Wildfire in Missouri. Human activity near wildland fuels can be expected to increase if the population grows; if this does occur, the potential for Wildfire will also increase.


Existing Mitigation Activities Local

• Emergency response systems, well trained fire departments, and numerous county roads improve response times to fire events, thus decreasing the chances of fire spread.

• Ordinances – Both the Armstrong Fire Protection District and the Howard Co. Fire Protection District have passed burn ordinances (see Appendix G.) Glasgow Fire Protection District does not currently have a burn ordinance; a mitigation action to “Encourage all fire districts in the Planning Area to pass burn ordinances” has been added to the 2011 update of the Hazard Mitigation Plan.

State

• A Firewise Communities program has been implemented in Missouri to teach people how to minimize the threat of wildfire.

• The Missouri Department of Conservation holds public education meetings on how to

safely conduct a controlled burn. Fire personnel in the Planning Area consider this program very important in helping to prevent wildfire.

• The Missouri Department of Conservation and the State Fire Marshal have published an

informational booklet entitled “Living with Wildfire” which educates homeowners on assessing a property’s vulnerability to wildfire and making changes to decrease the risk. The publication is available online at: http://mdc4.mdc.mo.gov/Documents/322.pdf

183

3.2.10 Windstorm, Tornado, and Hailstorm Windstorm, tornado, and hailstorm are hazards with potential to cause great damage. They will each be profiled separately but grouped together in this section of the plan as these three hazards are closely associated with severe thunderstorms in Missouri. There will be a general discussion of thunderstorms followed by the profiles of the three hazards (windstorm, tornado, and hailstorm.) Lightning is a hazard which FEMA does not require to be profiled for mitigation purposes; therefore, it is not profiled in this plan. Some Background on Thunderstorm

A thunderstorm is a rainstorm with thunder and lightning present. Warm, humid climates, such as that in mid-Missouri, are favorable for the formation of thunderstorms. The average Missourian is well aware of the potential hazards of the thunderstorm season; these include heavy rains and, potentially, strong winds, tornadoes, hail, and lightning strikes. The effects of heavy rains have been considered in the section on flood (see Section 3.2.5). Thunderstorms can range in complexity from single cell storms through multicell cluster storms, multicell line storms (squall lines), and on to supercell storms. A single cell thunderstorm typically lasts 20-30 minutes but when numerous cells are generated, as in a multicell storm, the thunderstorm can last for hours. Supercell storms include rotation and are responsible for the generation of severe tornadoes. The National Weather Service considers a thunderstorm “severe” when it includes one or more of the following: winds gusting in excess of 57.5 mph, a tornado, or hail at least 0.75 inch in diameter. Howard County is located in a part of the country with a relatively high number of thunderstorms. National Weather Service data indicates that there are on average 50-60 thunderstorm days per year in Missouri (see Figure 3.2.10A). Thunderstorms can occur during any season in Missouri but they are more frequent in the spring and summer. Many of these thunderstorms are severe.


Figure 3.2.10A Average Number of Thunderstorm Days Annually in U.S.

Source: http://www.srh.noaa.gov/jetstream/tstorms/tstorms_intro.htm Existing Mitigation Strategies Local

There are a variety of strategies in place in the Planning Area by which the public can be informed of severe weather conditions resulting from thunderstorms. Warning Systems The following warning systems are used in the county:

• Local television weather reports • Local radio weather reports • NOAA radios – all schools are equipped with these radios; Howard Electric Coop in

Fayette has NOAA radios for sale and also gives away 4-5 to members at their annual Christmas dinner each year (door prizes)

• 911 call center and Public Emergency Broadcast Center • Tornado sirens • 911 call center will page the Fire Department/District in any area which is threatened. • 911 makes phone calls to nursing homes and residential care facilities to notify of threat. • Patrol cars in Fayette are equipped with public address systems; emergency personnel

will drive around and announce that people should seek shelter.

185

Public Information The Howard County LEOP (Annex B - Communications and Warnings) lists as a mitigation action that “…tests and educational programs will be conducted regularly to insure the public understands the various warnings.” The Howard County LEOP (Appendix 1 To Annex K - In-Place Shelter Guidance) sets down the following language to be distributed on public information brochures:

Trained Weather Spotters Personnel in all fire departments/districts, the County Sheriff’s Department, Fayette Police Department and 911 Call Center and the EMAs have all trained as Weather Spotters. This provides for widespread tornado spotting when conditions are threatening.

Codes and Ordinances Codes in New Franklin require tie-downs for homes in mobile home parks. (Approximately 99% of the mobile homes in the city are located in the mobile home parks.) City ordinances in Glasgow require that mobile homes are secured to the ground. (There are two trailer parks in Glasgow located in mobile home zones.)

National

Much research and development has gone into developing impact resistant roofing which will better withstand both hail and high winds. In recent years, this roofing has become more affordable for the general homeowner (see Existing Mitigation Actions under Hailstorm)

If a tornado WARNING is issued and time does not permit residents to travel to public shelters, the best protection during a tornado is to quickly go to the lowest level in the building. The following protective actions should be relayed to the public:

DURING A TORNADO, THE SAFEST PLACE TO BE IS IN THE BASEMENT UNDER SOMETHING STURDY.

IF THERE IS NO BASEMENT, SEEK SHELTER IN A SMALL INTERIOR ROOM IN THE MIDDLE OF THE BUILDING, SUCH AS A CLOSET OR BATHROOM.

STAY AWAY FROM OUTSIDE DOORS AND WINDOWS.

REMAIN IN SHELTER UNTIL THE ALL CLEAR IS GIVEN FROM AUTHORITIES.


Windstorm Description of Hazard Severe and damaging winds in the planning area are usually, but not always, associated with thunderstorms. Thunderstorm winds can reach speeds up to 100 mph and produce damage paths for hundreds of miles. According to NOAA, property and crop damage from thunderstorm winds is more common, and can be more severe, than damage from tornadoes. Thunderstorm wind damage accounts for half of all the NOAA reports of severe weather events in the lower 48 states. Thunderstorm winds are often called "straight-line" winds to distinguish them from tornadoes, which have a rotational element. The following are the distinctions made between different thunderstorm winds:

• Gust front - Gusty winds out ahead of a thunderstorm; characterized by a wind shift and temperature drop.

• Downbursts – A strong downdraft with a width of greater than 2.5 miles which results in an outward burst of damaging winds near the ground; may possibly produce damage similar to that of a strong tornado.

• Microbursts – A small concentrated downburst with a width less than 2.5 miles; generally short-lived, lasting only 5-10 minutes, with maximum wind speeds up to 168 mph.

A derecho is a widespread, massive, and violent thunderstorm wind event producing straight-line winds in excess of 70 mph and moving quickly over large areas. These are not common events but a massive derecho, almost the size of the area of the state of Missouri, caused extensive damage in southern Missouri and Illinois in the spring of 2009. Much of the damage caused by high winds occurs because of falling trees; people, buildings, and vehicles may be damaged by falling trunks and branches. Power lines may be blown or knocked down and people left without electricity. In some cases, roofs are directly blown off buildings and windows are shattered. Geographic location The entire Planning Area is at risk from windstorms. Both urban and rural areas can sustain heavy losses from severe winds; the potential damage to houses and urban trees is obvious but crops and forests can also sustain massive and costly damage from windstorms. Previous occurrences According to NOAA, there have been 45 separate reports of windstorm events in Howard County since 1956 (see Figure 3.2.1B). According to this data, these windstorms resulted in at least $320,000 in property damage in the Planning Area. The largest damages reported were:

• August 2000 - $75,000 damage on several farms northeast of Glasgow. A machine barn was destroyed, along with several outbuildings. A combine, house and pickup truck were

187

also damaged. The combine was damaged because part of the machine barn landed on it. Large trees were downed.

• July 2002 - $200,000 damage in downtown Fayette, including damage to City Hall and a

church. Large power lines and trees were knocked down. The Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee noted that the loss level from windstorms in the Planning Area has greatly exceeded the amount indicated in the NOAA data. In addition, at least one notable storm is missing in the data. In March 1991, straight line winds swept through the county downing power lines and causing other damage. Brush fires were ignited by the downed power lines which subsequently led to barns burning down.

Figure 3.2.1B Windstorm Events in Howard County 7/08/1956 - 8/31/2011

General Location Date Time Type

Magnitude (mph) Deaths Injuries

Property Damage

Crop Damage

County 07/08/56 0:30 Tstm Wind 0 0 0 0 0 County 07/22/61 13:45 Tstm Wind 0 0 0 0 0 County 03/11/62 11:20 Tstm Wind 67 0 0 0 0 County 04/29/63 12:14 Tstm Wind 86 0 0 0 0 County 06/28/63 22:00 Tstm Wind 0 0 0 0 0 County 07/02/63 15:00 Tstm Wind 0 0 0 0 0 County 05/10/70 17:00 Tstm Wind 0 0 0 0 0 County 06/08/82 22:25 Tstm Wind 70 0 0 0 0 County 06/09/82 2:45 Tstm Wind 60 0 0 0 0 County 12/24/82 20:00 Tstm Wind 0 0 0 0 0 County 05/01/83 15:50 Tstm Wind 0 0 0 0 0 County 06/18/83 22:00 Tstm Wind 0 0 0 0 0 County 04/29/84 16:00 Tstm Wind 0 0 0 0 0 County 07/14/86 14:25 Tstm Wind 0 0 0 0 0 County 11/15/88 17:50 Tstm Wind 0 0 0 0 0 County 05/25/89 8:45 Tstm Wind 0 0 0 0 0 County 07/09/91 17:15 Tstm Wind 0 0 0 0 0 County 07/02/92 18:00 Tstm Wind 0 0 0 0 0 County 09/20/92 21:05 Tstm Wind 0 0 0 0 0 E of New Franklin 03/30/93 17:15 Tstm Wind 0 0 0 5K 0 New Franklin 06/25/94 21:00 Tstm Wind 0 0 0 5K 0 New Franklin 05/16/95 18:30 Tstm Wind 0 0 0 0 0 Fayette 06/08/95 4:05 Tstm Wind 0 0 0 5K 0 Fayette 07/08/95 16:02 Tstm Wind 0 0 0 2K 0 E of Glasgow 09/30/95 14:45 Tstm Wind 60 0 0 5K 0 Fayette 05/26/96 23:58 Tstm Wind 0 0 0 0 0


Figure 3.2.1B (cont.) Windstorm Events in Howard County 7/08/1956 - 8/31/2011

General Location Date Time Type

Magnitude (mph) Deaths Injuries

Property Damage

Crop Damage

Armstrong 06/22/98 3:30 Tstm Wind 69 0 0 0 0 Glasgow 02/11/99 11:20 Tstm Wind 81 0 0 0 0 Armstrong 06/25/00 20:45 Tstm Wind 60 0 0 0 0 Fayette 08/04/00 7:35 Tstm Wind 60 0 0 0 0 NE of Glasgow 08/23/00 20:45 Tstm Wind 81 0 0 75K 0 Burton 06/01/01 18:39 Tstm Wind 70 0 0 0 0 E of Burton 06/01/01 18:45 Tstm Wind 81 0 0 10K 0 New Franklin 05/08/02 19:30 Tstm Wind 70 0 0 0 0 Fayette 07/09/02 17:30 Tstm Wind 70 0 0 200K 0 Fayette 07/05/04 6:43 Tstm Wind 60 0 0 2K 0 New Franklin 08/13/05 15:15 Tstm Wind 60 0 0 1K 0 New Franklin 08/13/05 15:30 Tstm Wind 60 0 0 0 0 New Franklin 03/12/06 16:30 Tstm Wind 60 0 0 5K 0 Armstrong 08/18/06 17:15 Tstm Wind 60 0 0 0 0 Roanoke 08/18/06 17:15 Tstm Wind 60 0 0 0 0 Glasgow 08/18/06 17:25 Tstm Wind 66 0 0 5K 0 Burton 08/18/06 17:35 Tstm Wind 60 0 0 0 0 Fayette 06/24/08 18:13 Tstm Wind 60 0 0 0 0 Armstrong 04/03/11 21:55 Tstm Wind 61 0 0 4K 0 TOTALS: 0 0 324K 0 Source: http://www4.ncdc.noaa.gov/cgi-win/wwcgi.dll?wwevent~storms

Measures of Probability and Severity Probability: High Severity: Low Windstorm Vulnerability Overview Vulnerable Jurisdictions: Entire Planning Area Vulnerability Rating:

Moderate - All participating jurisdictions with the exception of Howard Co. Consolidated PWSD #1 and Howard Co. Regional Water Commission

Low – Howard Co. Consolidated PWSD #1 and Howard Co. Regional Water Commission

189

The Missouri State Hazard Mitigation Plan (2010) combined historical loss data from the NOAA database and paid crop insurance claims from USDA’s Risk Management Agency (RMA) to calculate an annualized property loss and crop claims amount for each state in Missouri due to Windstorm. The annualized property loss and crop claims calculated for Howard County was $18,068. The actual figure is definitely higher than this, according to members of the Planning Committee. The Planning Committee rated the Vulnerability to Windstorm as Moderate for most jurisdictions in the Planning Area. The frequent windstorms are not usually of great severity but they do result in financial loss. Howard Co. Consolidated PWSD #1 and the Howard Co. Regional Water Commission were assessed a Low Vulnerability rating due to the lower chance of damage to the steel and concrete block infrastructure. Potential Impact on Existing Structures There is a wide range of possible impact from windstorms. Non-permanent and wood framed structures are very vulnerable to destruction. While high winds are the force behind damage, it is the windblown debris that causes the most damage. Reported property damage in the NOAA database for windstorms between March 1993 and April 2011 was $324,000. This is approximately $18,000 in annualized property damage due to high winds. This is a very low level of damage when compared to the entire building stock of the Planning Area. However, it was the decided opinion of the Planning Committee that the damage data in the NOAA database is not a reliable reflection of true losses in the county. There were numerous storm events in the database showing $0 in damages which members of the Planning Committee remember causing serious damage. (This was true for many hazards besides Windstorm.) There was also at least one damaging windstorm that was not included in the NOAA database. Windstorms can be expected to continue to cause damage to structures in the Planning Area; that much can be said. It is not possible to make any meaningful quantifiable assessment of the probable number of buildings affected or level/cost of damage due to this lack of reliable historical data and the unpredictable nature of the hazard. Potential Impact of Future Development The entire Planning Area is vulnerable to windstorms. While Census figures indicate a slight population decline in Howard County between 2000 and 2010, should this trend reverse and more development and building take place, the structural assets vulnerable to windstorms would also increase.

The type of construction effects vulnerability to high winds and tornadoes. It would be wise to consider mitigation strategies for tornadoes and high wind situations during the planning phase of any new development. Design and construction choices, inclusion of safe rooms in projects, adequate warning sirens and NOAA radios can all save lives.


Tornado Description of Hazard A tornado is a violently rotating column of air which is usually generated by a supercell thunderstorm. The potential destruction posed by a tornado touching ground is well known. The destructive effects of a tornado depend on the strength of the winds, proximity to people and structures, the strength of structures, and how well a person is sheltered. Tornadoes occur most frequently in late afternoon and early evening, but can occur at any time. The seasonal, temporal, and spatial uncertainties surrounding thunderstorms and tornadoes make widespread and year round preparedness essential. Tornadoes can move in any direction, but often move from southwest to northeast. According to NOAA's National Severe Storms Laboratory, “Movement can range from almost stationary to more than 60 mph. A typical tornado travels at around 10-20 miles per hour.” It is currently impossible to measure ground-level wind speeds in strong tornadoes because the winds destroy the instruments needed for measurement. Doppler radar recorded a wind speed of 302 mph above ground level associated with a 1999 tornado in Oklahoma; this is the highest wind speed ever recorded near the earth’s surface. Tornadoes tend to dissipate as fast as they form. Unlike a hurricane, which can last for multiple hours, tornadoes are often in one place for no more than a few minutes. Technological advances such as Doppler radar, computer modeling, and Emergency Warning Systems, have increased the amount of time the general public has to respond to a tornado. Despite these advances, tornadoes can still strike an area with little warning. Often people have no more than a few minutes to get to safety. Being able to quickly get to a safe place is absolutely imperative in order to prevent loss of life. Categorizing Tornadoes

The Fujita Scale (F-Scale) was developed in 1971 by Dr. T. Theodore Fujita. The scale classified tornados into six categories (F0-F5) according to the damage sustained by structures and/or trees. Since wind speed at ground level cannot be directly measured in very high winds, the Fujita Scale estimated wind speeds from the ensuing damage. The Fujita Scale had certain weaknesses: it could not be used if a tornado touched down in an area without structures or trees; it did not take into account differences in construction when assessing damage; it allowed for too much subjectivity in assessing damage; and it overestimated wind speeds in stronger tornadoes. To address some of these concerns, Dr. Fujita suggested modification guidelines for the Fujita Scale in his Memoirs of an Effort to Unlock the Mystery of Severe Storms. This aptly named memoir was published in 1992. An Enhanced Fujita Scale (EF-Scale) was subsequently developed by meteorologists and civil engineers in the years 2000-2004 based on engineering studies of wind effects on 28 different

191

types of structures (buildings, towers, poles, trees). It uses the same ratings as the original Fujita Scale but the wind speeds have been adjusted to reflect current knowledge (see Figure 3.2.10 D).

Figure 3.2.10 D The Enhanced Fujita Scale

EF-Scale

Number Intensity Phrase

Wind Speed* (mph)

Type of Damage Done

F0 Gale tornado 65-85 Some damage to chimneys; breaks branches off trees; pushes over shallow-

rooted trees; damages sign boards.

F1 Moderate tornado 86-110

The lower limit is the beginning of hurricane wind speed; peels surface off roofs; mobile homes pushed off foundations or overturned; moving autos pushed off the roads; attached garages may be destroyed.

F2 Significant tornado 111-135

Considerable damage. Roofs torn off frame houses; mobile homes demolished; boxcars pushed over; large trees snapped or uprooted; light object missiles generated.

F3 Severe tornado 136-165 Roof and some walls torn off well constructed houses; trains overturned;

most trees in forest uprooted

F4 Devastating tornado 166-200 Well-constructed houses leveled; structures with weak foundations blown off

some distance; cars thrown and large missiles generated.

F5 Incredible tornado Over 200

Strong frame houses lifted off foundations and carried considerable distances to disintegrate; automobile sized missiles fly through the air in excess of 100 meters; trees debarked; steel reinforced concrete structures badly damaged.

* 3 second gust

The Enhanced Fujita Scale became the standard for use in the United States beginning in February 2007. The ratings of tornadoes prior to 2007 were not changed in the NOAA database with the adoption of the EF-Scale. The EF-Scale was developed to work with the original F-Scale but give a more realistic estimate of wind speeds for all tornadoes, including these historical ones.

It should be noted that there continue to be limitations inherent with the EF-Scale since the scale continues to be based on sustained damage. As noted on the NOAA website, “…damage rating is (at best) an exercise in educated guessing. Even experienced damage-survey meteorologists and wind engineers can and often do disagree among themselves on a tornado’s strength.”

Geographic Location The entire Planning Area is at risk from tornadoes. While tornadoes can strike anywhere, there is a greater chance of loss of life and destruction of property in population centers. This is especially true of a tornado with a large path.


Previous Occurrences Howard County has experienced nine (9) reported tornadoes, associated with six different storm systems, since 1958, as officially recorded by NOAA (see Figure 3.2.10E). These tornadoes were responsible for one reported injury and $1.025 Million in reported property damages. The reports include an F3 (“severe tornado”) in 2006 with a path 350 yards wide and 20 miles longs. The tornado caused $450,000 in property damage to farmsteads northwest of Fayette. The Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee noted that the loss level from tornadoes in the Planning Area has greatly exceeded the amount indicated in the NOAA data. It was noted that the County Assessor had made estimates that the tornadoes of 3/12/2006 had done close to $20 Million damage in the county. In addition there were two injuries during this storm. The March 2006 weather system which spawned damaging tornadoes traversed across the entire county. The tornadoes completely destroyed numerous houses and lifted off many roofs; they destroyed, grain bins, outbuildings, and killed chickens. Damage was extensive and widespread.

Figure 3.2.10E Tornado Events in Howard County 6/10/1958 - 8/31/2011

General Location Date Time Magnitude

(Fujita rating)

Deaths Injuries Property Damage

Crop Damage

County 6/10/1958 16:55 F0 0 0 0 0 County 9/27/1959 19:23 F2 0 0 25K 0 County 9/27/1959 19:33 F2 0 0 25K 0 County 9/27/1959 19:43 F2 0 0 25K 0 County 5/23/1966 14:45 F0 0 0 0 0 County 4/13/1981 20:40 F1 0 0 250K 0 County 5/18/1983 19:43 F1 0 1 250K 0 SW of Fayette 3/12/2006 16:33 F0 0 0* 0* 0 SW of Glasgow to ESE of Armstrong

3/12/2006 20:46 F3 0 0* 450K* 0

TOTALS: 0 1 1.025M* 0 * Data disputed by Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee - see accompanying text. Source: http://www4.ncdc.noaa.gov/cgi-win/wwcgi.dll?wwevent~storms

Measures of Probability and Severity Probability: Moderate Severity: High

193

Tornado Vulnerability Overview Vulnerable Jurisdictions: Entire Planning Area Vulnerability Rating: High All jurisdictions in the Planning Area are vulnerable to tornadoes; a wide range of impact is possible. High winds affect all structure types differently; non-permanent and wood framed structures are very vulnerable to destruction. In addition to a direct hit on a building by a tornado, damage to trees poses a serious threat. People, buildings, power lines, and vehicles are all at risk from falling branches, uprooted trees and windblown debris. Potential Impact on Existing Structures The historical record of tornadoes in the Planning Area over a 50+ period shows three (3) F0 tornadoes, two (2) F1 tornadoes, three (3) F2 tornadoes and one (1) F3 tornado. An assessment has been developed for the impact of a tornado of each of these magnitudes on the residential housing stock in the County and participating incorporated communities.

The following assumptions have been made in developing these estimates:

• The entire tornado path is within the given jurisdiction. • Only residential housing stock is within the path of the tornado and it is evenly

distributed. • A damage factor of 25% is assumed. Information from FEMA indicates that damage

in the path of an F2 tornado will range from minimal to approximately 50%. From this information, an average damage factor of 25% was assumed. This assumption was applied to all magnitudes of tornadoes in the analysis.

The average length and width of the paths of different magnitude tornadoes have been established from historical data. These lengths and widths have been used to calculate tornado areas (see Figure 3.2.10F).

Figure 3.2.10F

Average Tornado Size EF

Class Length (miles) Width (feet) Width

(miles) Area (square

miles) EF0 0.9 93 0.02 0.02 EF1 2.9 210 0.04 0.12 EF2 6.6 413 0.08 0.53 EF3 14.0 865 0.16 2.24

Source: Benefit-Cost Analysis Tornado Safe Room Course, 06/09 Version 4.5


The estimates of housing structure damage for Howard County and its participating incorporated communities are shown in Figure 3.2.10G.

There are some obvious limitations to this assessment. Some of these are:

• The analysis is based on numerous assumptions and estimates. • The analysis does not take into account the type of construction; this is a major factor

in structure vulnerability. • Housing is not distributed evenly in jurisdictions. • Conversion of the length and width of a tornado path into area will cause an

overestimation of damage in smaller jurisdictions. • Commercial and public buildings, which often have much higher values than

residential properties, are not taken into account in the assessment.

Potential Impact of Future Development The entire Planning Area is vulnerable to tornadoes. While Census figures indicate a slight population decline in Howard County between 2000 and 2010, should this trend reverse and more development and building take place, the structural assets vulnerable to tornadoes would also increase.

The type of construction effects vulnerability to high winds and tornadoes. It would be wise to consider mitigation strategies for tornadoes and high wind situations during the planning phase of any new development. Design and construction choices, inclusion of safe rooms in projects, adequate warning sirens and NOAA radios can all save lives.

JurisdictionArea*

(square miles)

Total Housing Units**

Median Owner-

Occupied Housing Value***

Total Housing

Value (Estimate)

EF0 EF1 EF2 EF3

Howard Co. (unincorp.) 471.530 4,582 $92,300 $422,918,600 $4,485 $26,907 $118,840 $502,268

Armstrong 0.820 137 $36,300 $4,973,100 $30,324 $181,943 $803,580 $3,396,263

Fayette 2.253 1,097 $80,400 $88,198,800 $195,736 $1,174,418 $5,187,013 $21,922,471

Glasgow 1.419 516 $69,400 $35,810,400 $126,182 $757,091 $3,343,818 $8,952,600

New Franklin 1.338 545 $72,900 $39,730,500 $148,470 $890,818 $3,934,448 $9,932,625

Estimated Housing Damage (25% damage factor assumed)

Sources: *U.S. Census Bureau **U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Census ***U.S. Census Bureau, 2005-2009 American Community Survey 5-year estimates

Tornado Vulnerability AnalysisFigure 3.2.10G

Jurisdictional Data

195

Hailstorm Description of Hazard Hail is formed when updrafts in thunderstorms carry raindrops up to very high and cold areas where they freeze into ice. Hail, especially large sized hail, can cause severe damage and presents a threat to automobiles, airplanes, roofs, crops, livestock, and even humans. Geographic Location The entire Planning Area is at risk from Hailstorm. While hail can strike anywhere, population centers are more at risk for injury and/or property damage from hail. Previous Occurrences NOAA lists 81 separate reports of hail (of at least 0.75 inch in diameter) in Howard County since 1958 (see Figure 3.2.10G). These reports were associated with 55 different storm systems. The largest reported hail measure 2.5 inches in diameter (reported in both 1993 and 2006) and there were numerous storms which spawned hail of 1.5 inches diameter or larger. The NOAA data indicates $110,000 in reported property damage from these hail events. The 1993 hailstorm with 2.5 inch diameter hail was responsible for $50,000 in the New Franklin area. During this same storm, it was reported that smaller hail (up to 1 inch diameter) was covering the ground up to 3 inches deep in and east of New Franklin. In April 2006, 2.5 inch diameter hail caused $50,000 property damage in Fayette; this storm caused extensive hail damage across the mid-Missouri region. While hailstorms of such severity do not occur every year, hail is still a costly hazard for the Planning Area. The Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee noted that the loss level from hailstorms in the Planning Area has greatly exceeded the amount indicated in the NOAA data. The hailstorm of April 28, 2003 was specifically noted. This storm covered the town of Fayette in 2-3” of hail which piled to a height of 2-3 feet in some areas. Elderly citizens had to be dug out of their homes because of hail piled up against doors and a patrol car got stuck in hail in the street. The hail was the size of golf balls in some places. Almost all of the houses in Fayette got new roofs because of the storm and there was extensive damage to vehicles. Many trees were killed and some corn in the fields laid flat. The time noted for the storm was also cited as incorrect; there was agreement among the committee members that the hailstorm occurred shortly after the noon hour.


Figure 3.2.10G

General Location Date Time Magnitude (diameter) Deaths Injuries Property

DamageCrop

DamageCounty 04/23/58 20:05 1.00 in. 0 0 0 0County 08/04/62 0:25 1.00 in. 0 0 0 0County 04/29/63 12:14 1.75 in. 0 0 0 0County 07/14/71 1:00 2.00 in. 0 0 0 0County 10/31/77 23:18 1.50 in. 0 0 0 0County 04/12/81 7:42 0.75 in. 0 0 0 0County 06/08/82 22:25 0.75 in. 0 0 0 0County 05/18/83 14:30 0.75 in. 0 0 0 0County 05/18/83 14:51 0.75 in. 0 0 0 0County 05/04/84 15:45 0.75 in. 0 0 0 0County 07/14/86 14:40 0.75 in. 0 0 0 0County 09/23/86 18:12 0.75 in. 0 0 0 0County 05/25/90 20:00 1.75 in. 0 0 0 0County 07/09/91 15:30 0.75 in. 0 0 0 0County 07/02/92 14:00 0.75 in. 0 0 0 0E of New Franklin 03/30/93 17:15 1.00 in. 0 0 5K 0Howard County 3 mi W of Harrisburg

03/30/93 18:05 1.50 in. 0 0 5K 0

S and E of New Franklin 04/13/93 14:00 2.50 in. 0 0 50K 0New Franklin 04/13/93 14;25 1.00 in. 0 0 0 0New Franklin 04/13/93 14:30 0.75 in. 0 0 0 0Armstrong 05/24/94 17:40 0.75 in. 0 0 0 0New Franklin 04/10/95 14:40 0.88 in. 0 0 0 0New Franklin 04/16/95 20:06 1.50 in. 0 0 0 0Bunknowner Hill 06/07/95 10:20 1.75 in. 0 0 0 0Fayette 05/14/96 13:00 0.75 in. 0 0 0 0Fayette 06/02/96 19:22 1.75 in. 0 0 0 0Boonesboro 06/12/96 16:11 0.75 in. 0 0 0 0New Franklin 04/18/97 21:55 0.75 in. 0 0 0 0Fayette 06/08/98 20:08 0.75 in. 0 0 0 0New Franklin 06/10/98 4:05 0.75 in. 0 0 0 0Glasgow 06/19/98 6:30 0.75 in. 0 0 0 0Fayette 06/28/98 17:30 0.88 in. 0 0 0 0Glasgow 04/20/99 21:10 0.88 in. 0 0 0 0Burton 06/08/99 16:30 0.75 in. 0 0 0 0New Franklin 03/26/00 18:15 0.75 in. 0 0 0 0Fayette 05/08/00 18:15 0.88 in. 0 0 0 0Fayette 05/26/00 20:42 0.75 in. 0 0 0 0Glasgow 04/10/01 0:08 0.75 in. 0 0 0 0

Hailstorm Events in Howard County 4/23/1958 - 8/31/2011

197

Figure 3.2.10G (cont.)


DamageCrop

DamageFayette 05/17/01 14:35 1.75 in. 0 0 0 0Fayette 05/17/01 15:06 0.75 in. 0 0 0 0Fayette 09/20/01 18:30 1.00 in. 0 0 0 0Fayette 04/28/03 7:25* 0.88 in. 0 0 0* 0*Fayette 05/08/03 21:50 0.75 in. 0 0 0 0Fayette 05/08/03 11:10 0.75 in. 0 0 0 0Fayette 05/10/03 4:26 1.00 in. 0 0 0 0Fayette 05/30/04 15:01 0.88 in. 0 0 0 0Fayette 05/30/04 16:49 0.88 in. 0 0 0 0Armstrong 06/14/04 14:40 1.00 in. 0 0 0 0Fayette 06/14/04 14:40 1.00 in. 0 0 0 0Fayette 06/14/04 15:40 0.88 in. 0 0 0 0New Franklin 06/14/04 16:17 1.00 in. 0 0 0 0Fayette 05/11/05 13:15 1.00 in. 0 0 0 0Fayette 05/11/05 13:45 1.00 in. 0 0 0 0Estill 05/12/05 20:56 0.88 in. 0 0 0 0Armstrong 06/08/05 14:03 1.00 in. 0 0 0 0Glasgow 06/08/05 14:40 0.88 in. 0 0 0 0New Franklin 06/08/05 15:42 0.75 in. 0 0 0 0New Franklin 06/08/05 15:50 1.25 in. 0 0 0 0New Franklin 06/10/05 13:47 0.75 in. 0 0 0 0Fayette 03/12/06 16:34 1.00 in. 0 0 0 0Fayette 03/30/06 21:21 0.75 in. 0 0 0 0Glasgow 04/18/06 19:07 1.00 in. 0 0 0 0Glasgow 04/18/06 19:15 1.50 in. 0 0 0 0Fayette 04/18/06 19:25 2.50 in. 0 0 50K 0New Franklin 06/10/06 16:13 1.00 in. 0 0 0 0New Franklin 06/10/06 16:30 0.88 in. 0 0 0 0Glasgow 08/18/06 17:28 1.00 in. 0 0 0 0Fayette 01/07/08 20:20 1.00 in. 0 0 0 0Hilldale 06/24/08 17:30 1.00 in. 0 0 0 0Fayette Fld Arpt 06/24/08 17:55 0.88 in. 0 0 0 0Fayette Fld Arpt 06/24/08 18:00 1.00 in. 0 0 0 0Hilldale 06/24/08 18:05 0.88 in. 0 0 0 0Hilldale 06/24/08 18:10 1.00 in. 0 0 0 0Hilldale 06/24/08 18:12 1.25 in. 0 0 0 0Fayette 06/24/08 18:13 1.00 in. 0 0 0 0Burton 06/24/08 18:15 1.00 in. 0 0 0 0


* Data disputed by members of the Planning Committee.


Measures of Probability and Severity Probability: High Severity: Moderate Hailstorm Vulnerability Overview Vulnerable Jurisdictions: Entire Planning Area Vulnerability Rating: High According to damage data available in the NOAA database, there was $110,000 in reported property damage due to Hailstorm between the end of March 1993 and mid-April 2006. The annualized property damage for this period would be $8,462, according to the database information. As previously mentioned, there is good and reliable local information that the property damage due to Hailstorm in the Planning Area is grossly underreported in the NOAA database. There is no crop damage listed in the NOAA database but information from the Risk Management Agency (RMA) of the USDA indicates $19,630 in paid crop insurance claims for the years 1998-2008; this is an annualized claim of $1,785 for that period. The Planning Committee assessed the Vulnerability Rating for Hailstorm to be High due to the high probability of occurrence and the damages sustained by property and crops. Potential Impact on Existing Structures While an annualized property damage of $8,462 can be calculated from data in the NOAA database, this number is much lower than an accurate representation of damage due to Hailstorm in the Planning Area.

Figure 3.2.10G (cont.)


DamageCrop

DamageHilldale 06/24/08 18:15 0.88 in. 0 0 0 0Hilldale 06/24/08 18:20 0.88 in. 0 0 0 0Fayette 05/07/09 21:15 1.00 in. 0 0 0 0Fayette 06/10/09 20:05 1.00 in. 0 0 0 0Fayette 08/03/09 8:55 0.88 in. 0 0 0 0Hilldale 04/04/10 8:44 0.75 in. 0 0 0 0Burton 04/30/10 14:33 0.75 in. 0 0 0 0New Franklin 06/10/11 18:28 1.75 in. 0 0 0 0TOTALS: 0 0 110K 0


Source: http://w w w 4.ncdc.noaa.gov/cgi-w in/w w cgi.dll?w w event~storms

199

As an example, the Hailstorm in April 2003 resulted in roof replacements for “most homes” in the city, according to the Planning Committee. The total housing units documented in Fayette in the 2000 Census was 1,131. If even 25% of these housing units received new roofs at an average of $3,000/roof, that would be $848,250 for new roofs in one city from one hailstorm. This is 100 times the annualized property damage calculated from the NOAA data. A local insurance agent was contacted in an attempt to get better data on hailstorm damage but it was not available in an easily accessible form. Hailstorm will continue to cause damage to structures in the Planning Area. Due to the lack of reliable historical data and unpredictable nature of this hazard, it is not possible to make any meaningful quantifiable assessment of the probable number of buildings affected or level/cost of damage which can be expected in the future. Potential Impact of Future Development The entire Planning Area is vulnerable to hailstorms. While Census figures indicate a slight population decline in Howard County between 2000 and 2010, should this trend reverse and more development and building take place, the structural assets vulnerable to hailstorms would also increase.

It would be wise to consider impact resistant roofing during the planning phase of any new development or building project (see Existing Mitigation Activities).

Existing Mitigation Activities

National

The insurance industry is heavily invested in finding mitigation strategies for hail damage as it is one of the most costly hazards for the industry. The fifth largest payout made by State Farm Insurance ($245 million) was for a 1992 hailstorm in Texas. (The only higher payouts were for Hurricane Andrew in 1992, a 1994 earthquake in Los Angeles, Hurricane Hugo in 1989 and wildfires in Oakland, California in 1991.)

High insurance claims for hail damage, especially in the Midwestern states, are one reason for an increase in insurance premiums. The type of roofing material used in construction can greatly affect vulnerability to hail. In an effort to have a multifaceted approach to the problem of high damages and increasing premiums, the industry has supported research and testing standards in roofing materials.

In 1996, a testing standard (UL2218) was developed to grade the impact resistance of roofing materials. There are four rated classes of resistant materials with Class IV shingles providing the most resistance against both hail and high winds.

In the past, impact resistant roofing (mostly made of aluminum, copper, plastic and resin) was not affordable for most homeowners. Recent research has resulted in “modified asphalt” shingles which are much more affordable; some of these achieve the Class IV rating.

Installing impact resistant roofing can have an added benefit on insurance rates. In Texas, all insurers subject to Texas rate regulations were required in 1998 to begin offering premium


discounts for customers who have installed impact-resistant roofs. In Missouri, some insurers offer these discounts on a voluntary basis.

201

Section 4: Mitigation Strategy

4.1 Hazard Mitigation Goals


[The hazard mitigation strategy shall include a] description of mitigation goals to reduce or avoid long-term vulnerabilities to the identified hazards.

Hazard mitigation goals were developed during the planning process for the original Howard County Hazard Mitigation Plan (2006). For the current update, the goals were reviewed. Only one slight edit was made; the language of Goal 5 was changed from “...as possible by contributing…” to “…as possible, thereby contributing…” The five county hazard mitigation goals for the Howard County Hazard Mitigation Plan (2011) are:

• Goal 1: Mitigate effects of future natural hazards in the county.

• Goal 2: Develop policies that will limit impacts of natural hazards on Howard County.

• Goal 3: Protect the County’s most valuable assets and vulnerable populations through cost effective and feasible mitigation projects whenever financially possible.

• Goal 4: Increase the public awareness of natural hazards in the County in order to make

the public a partner in hazard mitigation.

• Goal 5: Ensure that future development in the County is as “hazard proof” as possible, thereby contributing to the sustainability of the community.


4.2 Update of Mitigation Actions


[The mitigation strategy shall include a] section that identifies and analyzes a comprehensive range of specific mitigation actions and projects being considered to reduce the effects of each hazard, with particular emphasis on new and existing buildings and infrastructure.

The Project Steering Committee which developed the original Howard County Hazard Mitigation Plan (2006) developed a comprehensive range of mitigation actions to promote the agreed upon mitigation goals. Objectives were defined under each goal and mitigation actions were then developed to promote each objective. The following six categories of mitigation were considered in developing the mitigation actions:

• Prevention tools - regulatory methods such as planning and zoning, building regulations, open space planning, land development regulations, and storm water management.

• Property protection measures - acquisition of land, relocation of buildings, modifying at-risk structures, and floodproofing at-risk structures.

• Natural resource protection - erosion and sediment control or wetlands protection.

• Emergency services measures – warning systems, response capacity, critical facilities

protection, and health and safety maintenance.

• Structural mitigation - reservoirs, levees, diversions, channel modifications and storm sewers.

• Public information - providing hazard maps and information, outreach programs, real

estate disclosure, technical assistance and education. No mitigation actions were eliminated from consideration when the original plan was written. The 2006 plan therefore contained a comprehensive list of mitigation actions which served as a starting point for update discussions.

203

Requirement §201.6(d)(3):

A local jurisdiction must review and revise its plan to reflect changes in development, progress in local mitigation efforts, and changes in priorities, and resubmit it for approval within 5 years in order to continue to be eligible for mitigation project grand funding.

The Planning Committee for the update (2011) reviewed and discussed all the mitigation actions from the original plan. This was accomplished by analyzing and discussing each hazard and the actions focused on its mitigation. An individual focus on each hazard allowed for a comprehensive view of the hazard and possibilities for its mitigation. This approach was useful in developing appropriate new actions, when deemed important. A wide and diverse participation in the planning process for the update allowed for a thorough updating of the mitigation actions to make them appropriate for current conditions and capabilities in the Planning Area. The existing mitigation actions for each hazard were put into four categories (completed, retained, modified, deleted); new actions for the update were added when needed. The existing mitigation actions were divided into four categories (completed, retained, modified, deleted). Descriptions of the categories are as follows:

• Completed – Actions have been completed. • Retained – Actions have not been completed but are deemed important and appropriate

for the updated plan OR actions are ongoing mitigation activities.

• Modified – Actions were in original plan but the focus or language has been changed to some degree.

• Deleted – Actions were deemed unrealistic or inappropriate for the jurisdictions

involved.

The assessment of the actions in the original plan, by hazard, is shown in Figures 4.2.1A-H New actions added for a hazard are shown after each assessment. A new action for Levee Failure (which was not profiled in the original plan) and new general mitigation actions which pertain to numerous hazards are listed at the end of these figures.


Figure 4.2.1A Assessment of Mitigation Actions in Original Plan (by Hazard)

Dam Failure Mitigation Actions Assessment for Update

Develop land use regulations for development downstream from dam

Deleted; this has not been done but voters recently rejected a measure to introduce zoning in the County so it is not realistic to think about at this time.

• Encourage risk assessment of structures within current “dam shadow”

Deleted; this would apply to very few structures and there are more pressing matters for limited staff time and money

Develop regulations for road building on dams

Deleted; this has not been done but voters recently rejected a measure to introduce zoning in the County so it is not realistic to think about at this time.

• Overflow from dam should not pass over road surface

Deleted; there is no regulatory power to enforce this.

Develop evacuation procedures for dam Completed and removed from updated plan; this is included in the Howard County LEOP.

• Be able to employ monitoring team for emergency situations

Deleted; there is no money available for this.

Mitigation action for Dam Failure added to the updated plan:

• Maintain file of Emergency Action Plans (EAPs) for state regulated high hazard dams.

Figure 4.2.1B Assessment of Mitigation Actions in Original Plan (by Hazard)

Drought Mitigation Actions Assessment for Update

Identify multiple sources of water in areas currently receiving water from minimal supplies.

Completed; removed from update.

Encourage cooperative agreements between water districts and connect disparate water supplies as much as possible.

Retained for update (ongoing).

Encourage purchase of drought insurance for agricultural community. Retained for update (ongoing).

205

Figure 4.2.1C Assessment of Mitigation Actions in Original Plan (by Hazard)

Heat Wave Mitigation Actions Assessment for Update

· Provide educational materials for outdoor workers and school athletic organizations on the dangers of excessive heat exposure

Deleted; this will be included under the general public education action for all hazards.

Mitigation action added for Heat Wave (called Extreme Heat in updated plan):

• Have plan for cooling centers in all communities.

Figure 4.2.1D Assessment of Mitigation Actions in Original Plan (by Hazard)

Earthquake Mitigation Actions Assessment for Update

Encourage appropriate County staff to continually update their knowledge base regarding earthquake safety.

Modified for update to read: Encourage appropriate County, municipal, special district and educational staff to continually update their knowledge base regarding earthquake safety.

Encourage property owners to purchase earthquake insurance

Deleted for update; this is routinely offered by insurance companies when policies are written.

Brace/reinforce items within critical infrastructure

Deleted; this is partially taken care of through insurance requirements. ● Brace high value equipment

● Brace equipment that could fall causing injury or block evacuation routes Provide backup power to all critical infrastructure (police, fire, hospitals, local government buildings).

Retained for update; this is an ongoing activity which is continually being addressed.

Encourage schools to include earthquake safety programs in with other emergency preparedness training.

Modified for update to read: "Continue to meet the Revised Statutes of Missouri concerning earthquake emergency system and earthquake safety in schools."

Establish educational materials for public regarding potential problems an earthquake in Missouri could cause

Deleted for update; this is included in the general public education action.

Encourage developers to build earthquake resistant structures. Retained for update; ongoing.

● Retrofit structures to new earthquake safety standards when undergoing renovations/improvements.

Retained for update; ongoing.


Figure 4.2.1E Assessment of Mitigation Actions in Original Plan (by Hazard)

Flood Mitigation Actions Assessment for Update

Create, revise and update Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs)

Completed; FEMA flood maps updated in 2009; removed from updated plan.

Complete Community Rating System Application

Modified to read: "Complete Community Rating System (CRS) application of the NFIP."

Set up centralized, coordinated permitting process to ensure compliance with floodplain regulations.

Deleted; the County and all incorporated communities belong to the NFIP and compliance is handled within each jurisdiction.

Develop storm water task force and ensure adequate maintenance of county’s drainage systems

Modified to read : "Ensure adequate maintenance of drainage systems." Removed "Develop storm water task force" because this is not how this issue will be handled.

Create Capital Improvement Plan Deleted; there are no plans to do this. • Develop plan for relocating public infrastructure out of flood prone areas Deleted; there is not public infrastructure which needs to be

relocated. • Establish reserve fund for relocating damaged infrastructure after next disaster • Establish system for evaluation and improvement of critical infrastructure throughout county

Modified to read : "Protect critical infrastructure throughout the county."

Encourage development of Storm Water Master Plan Modified to read: "Develop and maintain stormwater policies."

• Construct storm water retention facilities to mitigate flood control in existing developments (coordinate with federal agencies)

Deleted; there is currently no intention to pursue this.

Encourage participation in Community Rating System of National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). Have all of Howard County Participate

Modified to read: "Complete Community Rating System (CRS) application of the NFIP."

Encourage state to adopt similar standards and regulations as county for state facilities and infrastructure within the County

Deleted; this is not seen as a realistic goal to pursue.

Review and update flood damage prevention ordinance to ensure maximum protection from flood hazard events.

Completed and retained for update as this is ongoing.

• Consider adopting temporary moratorium on building in flood hazard areas until ordinance is revised

Deleted; floodplain regulations are already in place in all jurisdictions because of participation in NFIP.

• Raise minimum flood protection level from the Base Flood Elevation (BFE) to 1’ or 2’ above BFE

Completed; removed from updated plan.

207

Figure 4.2.1E (cont.) Assessment of Mitigation Actions in Original Plan (by Hazard)


· Consider prohibiting construction or significant improvements within 100-year floodplain.

Deleted; floodplain regulations are in place in all jurisdictions and are updated regularly as needed.

· Consider policies concerning repetitive loss and how to minimize those losses.

Deleted; repetitive loss properties are not a big issue at this point.

· Advise/assist property owners in retrofitting their homes and businesses to better respond to floods.

Deleted; lack of staff time and resources.

Pass ordinance to not allow development in mapped floodway.

Completed; removed from update; this is covered in floodplain regulations in all jurisdictions belonging to the NFIP.

Develop cost estimates of protecting a facility vs. buyout Deleted; not applicable to Planning Area.

Evaluate access problems to critical infrastructure in the event of a flood. Retained for update; this is an ongoing action.

Ensure evacuation routes are adequate in the event of a major hazard. If needed, pursue methods for improving capacity.

Deleted; this did not fit the type of mitigation needed for natural hazards in the Planning Area.

Develop public education hazard awareness program.

Retained for update; this is an ongoing action which will include all hazards.

· Request that the real estate Multiple Listing Service be amended to include notice of flood hazard and the requirement to purchase flood insurance

Deleted; this is already regulated.

· Establish flood awareness signs – show elevations of potential floodwaters at low water crossings and other prominent sites. Show flood water levels of 1993 floods

Modified to read: "Maintain flood awareness signs at low water crossings and flash flooding areas."

Review Capital Improvement plan to ensure no public facilities are proposed for flood hazard areas (should be 2’ above 500 year flood elevation)

Deleted; there is no Capital Improvement Plan in the Planning Area.

· Ensure public facilities also have adequate road access in event of a flood. Deleted; access efforts will be focused on critical infrastructure.


Figure 4.2.1E (cont.) Assessment of Mitigation Actions in Original Plan (by Hazard)


Maintain resources for public on retrofitting and protection techniques Deleted; lack of staff time and resources.

Adopt procedures for review of subdivision plans that minimize flood problems

Deleted; little building going on in Planning Area; above and beyond the current agenda.

• Require developer to include adequate storm water retention facilities • Establish lowest floor elevation for new construction

• Evaluate design standards for storm water systems from 15 year event to 50 year event • Revise bridge and culvert standards to prevent debris from clogging waterways

Deleted for update; deemed an irrelevant mitigation action for Planning Area.

• Adopt regulations that preserve riparian corridors in developments

Retained for update.

Acquire properties susceptible to flood damage involuntarily

Deleted; no need to undertake involuntary flood buyouts.

• Create pre-flood partnerships for buyout to meet homeowners needs • Identify properties for public buyout • Prioritize properties for acquisition

• Develop plan for acquired property to become part of recreation land so the area in undeveloped in perpetuity

Target Repetitive Loss Properties for flood buyout

Deleted; only three repetitive loss properties in Planning Area and average payment for flood is low; there are other more pressing issues.

Mitigation actions for Flood added to the updated plan:

• Continue to enforce flood damage prevention/floodplain management ordinances in compliance with NFIP requirements.

• Mitigate the effects of flooding on public infrastructure.

• Stabilize the riverbank along Water Street in the City of Glasgow.

• Relocate buildings out of floodplain.

209

Figure 4.2.1F Assessment of Mitigation Actions in Original Plan (by Hazard)

Severe Winter Weather Mitigation Actions Assessment for Update

Have alternate power supplies for fueling emergency vehicles. Completed in County; retained for update (ongoing).

Encourage Utility companies to maintain right of way for power lines

Deleted; this is well taken care of by the utility companies and it is in their own best interest to do a good job with this.

Encourage cooperative agreements with utility providers to activate energy between utility districts.

Deleted; agreements are in place.

Develop building codes that discourage heavy snow loads on rooftops Deleted; there is a general building code action in the plan.

Ensure that school buses have two way radios on board. Completed; retained for update (ongoing).

Encourage development of formal agreements with shelters that have alternative heating sources

Modified to read: "Encourage shelters to have alternative power and heating sources."

• Identify vulnerable populations needing potential relocation to shelter in event of power outage.

Completed; removed from update.

• Identify potential transportation Modified to read: "Identify potential transportation for vulnerable populations."

Provide public education materials before storm events to inform people of the danger of icy roads.

Completed; retained for update (ongoing).

Encourage safe driving through public education campaigns, websites, community events, etc.


Mitigation action for Severe Winter Weather added to the updated plan:

• Establish a community storm shelter with heat and backup power.


Figure 4.2.1G Assessment of Mitigation Actions in Original Plan (by Hazard)

Wildfire Mitigation Actions Assessment for Update

Remove vegetation and combustible materials around critical infrastructure. Completed; retained for update (ongoing).

Re-roof homes with fire resistant shingles and materials

Deleted; not effective mitigation for the type of brush fires that occur in the Planning Area.

Encourage use of fire resistant utility poles in high risk areas Deleted; this is under the utilities' jurisdiction.

Build fire roads into dense forest areas Deleted; these areas are under state and federal jurisdiction. Provide education to homeowners living near large fuel areas on what they can do to minimize risk

Deleted; this is included in hazard awareness mitigation action with other hazards.

Mitigation actions for Wildfire added to the updated plan:

• Encourage all fire districts in the Planning Area to pass burn ordinances.

• Encourage the MO Dept. of Conservation (MDC) to continue their trainings on controlled burns.

• Provide continuing education for firefighters on fighting wildfires.

Figure 4.2.1H

Assessment of Mitigation Actions in Original Plan (by Hazard) Tornado/High Wind Mitigation

Actions Assessment for Update

Encourage local hotels/motels to provide their customers with high wind/tornado information, such as local shelters, directions to shelters, and information on where to go in the hotel in an emergency.

Retained for update.

Encourage Utility Companies to continue to maintain power line right of way.

Deleted; this is well taken care of by the utility companies and it is in their own best interest to do a good job with this.

● Provide public education regarding the best tree species to plant near utility lines. Deleted; this is being done by the utility companies.

● When possible, utilize underground lines.

Deleted; this is being done by the utility companies when it makes sense.

Adopt and enforce latest model building codes and national engineering standards. Completed in Fayette; retained for update.

Ensure that architectural features are constructed in a way to minimize the creation of wind borne debris

Deleted; will follow standards set by building codes in places where building codes have been adopted.

211

Figure 4.2.1H (cont.) Assessment of Mitigation Actions in Original Plan (by Hazard)

Tornado/High Wind Mitigation Actions Assessment for Update

Brace high value equipment such as above ground tanks, water heaters, and furnaces. Deleted; equipment is already sufficiently protected.

Retrofit public buildings in order to make them more wind resistant Deleted; no money to do this.

Ensure that manufactured homes are secured to ground to maximize their longevity

Completed in Fayette and New Franklin; retained for update.

● Require new mobile home parks to have saferooms on the premises. Merged and modified to read: "Encourage new mobile home parks

to have safe rooms on premises." Require camping and RV facilities to have saferooms on the premises. Establish formal agreements with appropriate shelter locations throughout County.

Partially completed; retained for update.

Ensure reliable warning system and dissemination of information regarding high wind situations throughout county.


● Promote the use of NOAA weather radios. Completed; retained for update (ongoing).

Encourage insurance companies to offer lower premium rates to owners who install manufactured homes on permanent foundations or who anchor homes securely

Deleted; not feasible.

Require new residential construction to meet latest wind resistance standards

Deleted; there is a general building code action in the plan. • Anchor walls and roof to foundation with appropriate brackets. • Require new masonry chimneys above 6’ to have continuous vertical reinforcements to help resist high wind.

• Consider requiring saferooms in houses without basements

Deleted; not feasible.

Encourage retrofitting old homes to adopt similar standards of new homes Deleted; not feasible with staff time available.

• Require new additions and improvements to old homes to meet new building standards

Deleted; there is a general building code action in the plan.

• Encourage replacement of doublewide garage doors with single wide to improve wind resistance

Deleted; not feasible with staff time available. • Provide information to the public on how to retrofit windows to make them more wind resistant


Mitigation action for Tornado/High Wind added to the updated plan:

• Build tornado safe rooms. Mitigation actions for Levee Failure added to the updated plan:

• Encourage levee districts to restrict public access at access points to the levees. Mitigation actions added to the updated plan which apply to multiple hazards:

• Hold annual training on Local Emergency Operations Plan (LEOP) for County and City officials.

• Evaluate and maintain school emergency preparedness plans and incorporate into the County Local Emergency Operations Plan (LEOP).

• Encourage nursing and residential care facilities to have alternate power and heating sources.

• Coordinate with local law enforcement to include scanner frequency in 2-way radios at

schools.

213

4.3 Mitigation Goals, Objectives, and Actions A comprehensive list of the goals, objectives, and mitigation actions for the Howard County Hazard Mitigation Plan (2011) follows. The mitigation actions listed are for the entire Planning Area; participating jurisdictions differ in the specific actions undertaken in their jurisdictions.

Actions which address reducing the effects of hazards on new and/or existing buildings and infrastructure are indicated as such in parentheses following the actions (i.e. New, Existing, Both).

The comprehensive list of goals, objectives and actions is followed by an overview of the mitigation actions with the hazard(s) each action is addressing and the participating jurisdiction(s) to which it applies (Figure 4.3.1). More information on the implementation of the specific mitigation actions for each participating jurisdiction is included in Section 4.4.2 (Implementation and Administration in Participating Jurisdictions). Goal 1: Mitigate effects of future natural hazards in the county. Objective 1.1 Incorporate mitigation planning and procedures into the community. 1.1.1 Continue to enforce flood damage prevention/floodplain management ordinances in

compliance with NFIP requirements. (Both)

1.1.2 Complete Community Rating System Application (NFIP).

1.1.3 Ensure adequate maintenance of drainage systems. (Both)

1.1.4 Develop and maintain stormwater policies. (Both)

1.1.5 Encourage cooperative agreements between water districts and connect disparate water supplies as much as possible.

1.1.6 Provide continuing education for firefighters on fighting wildfires. (Both)

1.1.7 Encourage appropriate County, municipal, special district and educational staff to continually update their knowledge base regarding earthquake safety. (Both)

1.1.8 Continue to meet the Revised Statutes of Missouri concerning earthquake emergency system and earthquake safety in schools.

1.1.9 Evaluate and maintain school emergency preparedness plans and incorporate into the County Local Emergency Operations Plan (LEOP).

1.1.10 Maintain file of Emergency Action Plans (EAPs) for state regulated high hazard dams. 1.1.11 Hold annual training on Local Emergency Operations Plan (LEOP) for County and City

officials.


Objective 1.2 Encourage private involvement in mitigation activities. 1.2.1 Establish formal agreements with appropriate shelter locations throughout the County.

1.2.2 Encourage shelters to have alternative power and heating sources.

1.2.3 Encourage local motels to provide their customers with safety information for high

wind/tornado events.

Goal 2: Develop policies that will limit impacts of natural hazards on Howard County. Objective 2.1 Pass appropriate ordinances for mitigation efforts. 2.1.1 Review and update flood damage prevention ordinance to ensure maximum protection

from flood hazard events. (Both) 2.1.2 Encourage all fire districts in the Planning Area to pass burn ordinances. (Both)

Objective 2.2 Adopt new codes and standards. 2.2.1 Adopt and enforce latest model building codes and national engineering standards.

(Both) 2.2.2 Adopt regulations that preserve riparian corridors in developments.

Goal 3: Protect the County’s most valuable assets and vulnerable populations through cost effective and feasible mitigation projects whenever financially possible. Objective 3.1 Protect buildings and valuable assets.

3.1.1 Protect critical infrastructure. (Both) 3.1.2 Evaluate access problems to critical infrastructure in the event of a flood.

3.1.3 Mitigate the effects of flooding on public infrastructure. (Both)

3.1.4 Provide backup power to all critical infrastructure (police, fire, hospitals, local

government buildings).

3.1.5 Remove vegetation and combustible materials around critical infrastructure. (Both)

3.1.6 Ensure that manufactured homes are secured to ground to maximize their longevity. (Both)

3.1.7 Stabilize the riverbank along Water Street in the City of Glasgow. (Both)

3.1.8 Relocate buildings out of floodplain. (Existing)

215

Objective 3.2 Protect vulnerable populations. 3.2.1 Ensure reliable warning system and dissemination of information regarding high wind

situations throughout county. 3.2.2 Promote the use of NOAA weather radios.

3.2.3 Ensure that school buses have two way radios on board.

3.2.4 Coordinate with local law enforcement to include scanner frequency in 2-way radios at

schools.

3.2.5 Build tornado safe rooms.

3.2.6 Encourage new mobile home parks to have safe rooms on the premises. 3.2.7 Encourage nursing and residential care facilities to have alternate power and heating

sources.

3.2.8 Have plan for cooling centers in all communities.

3.2.9 Identify potential transportation for vulnerable populations.

3.2.10 Establish a community storm shelter with heat and backup power.

Goal 4: Increase the public awareness of natural hazards in the County in order to make the public a partner in hazard mitigation. 4.0.1 Develop public education hazard awareness program.

4.0.2 Maintain flood awareness signs at low water crossings and flash flooding areas.

4.0.3 Encourage safe driving through public education campaigns, websites, community

events, etc.

4.0.4 Encourage the MO Dept. of Conservation (MDC) to continue their trainings on controlled burns. (Both)

4.0.5 Encourage levee districts to restrict public access at access points to the levees. (Both)

Goal 5: Ensure that future development in the County is as “hazard proof” as possible by contributing to the sustainability of the community. 5.0.1 Encourage developers to build earthquake resistant structures. (New)

5.0.2 Retrofit structures to new earthquake safety standards when undergoing

renovations/improvements. (Existing)


Mitigation Actions – Hazards Addressed and Applicable Jurisdictions

Figure 4.3.1

Act

ion

#

Mitigation Action

Dam

Fai

lure

Dro

ught

Eart

hqua

keEx

trem

e H

eat

Floo

dLS

/Sin

khol

eLe

vee

Failu

reSe

v. W

inte

r Wea

ther

Win

dsto

rmTo

rnad

oH

ails

torm

Wild

fire

Cou

nty

Arm

stro

ngFa

yette

Gla

sgow

New

Fra

nklin

New

Fra

nklin

R-I

S. D

.H

owar

d C

o. R

-ii S

.D.

Faye

tte R

-III S

.D.

Cen

tral

Met

hodi

st U

niv.

CPW

SD #

1H

.C. R

eg.W

ater

Com

m.

1.1.1Continue to enforce flood damage prevention/floodplain management ordinances in compliance with NFIP requirements.

x x x x x x x

1.1.2 Complete Community Rating System (CRS) application of the NFIP.

x x x x

1.1.3 Ensure adequate maintenance of drainage systems. x x x x x x1.1.4 Develop and maintain stormwater policies. x x x

1.1.5Encourage cooperative agreements between water districts and connect disparate water supplies as much as possible.

x x x x x

1.1.6 Provide continuing education for firefighters on fighting wildfires.

x x x x x x x x x x x x

1.1.7Encourage appropriate County, municipal, special district and educational staff to continually update their knowledge base regarding earthquake safety.

x x x x x x x x x x

1.1.8Continue to meet the Revised Statutes of Missouri concerning earthquake emergency system and earthquake safety in schools.

x x x x

1.1.9Evaluate and maintain school emergency preparedness plans and incorporate into the County Local Emergency Operations Plan (LEOP).


1.1.10 Maintain file of Emergency Action Plans (EAPs) for state regulated high hazard dams.

x x x

Mitigation Actions - Hazards Addressed and Applicable JurisdictionsHazards Jurisdictions

217

Figure 4.3.1 (cont.)

Act

ion

#

Mitigation Action

Dam

Fai

lure

Dro

ught

Eart

hqua

keEx

trem

e H

eat

Floo

dLS

/Sin

khol

eLe

vee

Failu

reSe

v. W

inte

r Wea

ther

Win

dsto

rmTo

rnad

oH

ails

torm

Wild

fire

Cou

nty

Arm

stro

ngFa

yette

Gla

sgow

New

Fra

nklin

New

Fra

nklin

R-I

S. D

.H

owar

d C

o. R

-ii S

.D.

Faye

tte R

-III S

.D.

Cen

tral

Met

hodi

st U

niv.

CPW

SD #

1H

.C. R

eg.W

ater

Com

m.

1.1.11 Hold annual training on Local Emergency Operations Plan (LEOP) for County and City officials.

x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x

1.2.1Establish formal agreements with appropriate shelter locations through out the County. Encourage shelters to have alternative power and heating sources.

x x x x x x x x x x x

1.2.2 Encourage shelters to have alternative power and heating sources.

x x x x x x x x x x x

1.2.3 Encourage local motels to provide their customers with safety information for high wind/tornado events.

x x x x x

2.1.1Review and update flood damage prevention ordinance to ensure maximum protection from flood hazard events.

x x x x x x x

2.1.2 Encourage all fire districts in the Planning Area to pass burn ordinances.


2.2.1 Adopt and enforce latest model building codes and national engineering standards.

x x x x x x x x

2.2.2 Adopt regulations that preserve riparian corridors in developments.

x x



Figure 4.3.1 (cont.)

Act

ion

#

Mitigation Action

Dam

Fai

lure

Dro

ught

Eart

hqua

keEx

trem

e H

eat

Floo

dLS

/Sin

khol

eLe

vee

Failu

reSe

v. W

inte

r Wea

ther

Win

dsto

rmTo

rnad

oH

ails

torm

Wild

fire

Cou

nty

Arm

stro

ngFa

yette

Gla

sgow

New

Fra

nklin

New

Fra

nklin

R-I

S. D

.H

owar

d C

o. R

-ii S

.D.

Faye

tte R

-III S

.D.

Cen

tral

Met

hodi

st U

niv.

CPW

SD #

1H

.C. R

eg.W

ater

Com

m.

3.1.1 Protect critical infrastructure. x x x x x x x x x x x x x x

3.1.2 Evaluate access problems to critical infrastructure in the event of a flood.

x x x x

3.1.3 Mitigate the effects of flooding on public infrastructure. x x x x x x x x x

3.1.4 Provide backup power to all critical infrastructure (police, fire, hospitals, local government buildings).

x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x

3.1.5 Remove vegetation and combustible materials around critical infrastructure.

x x x x x x x x x

3.1.6 Ensure that manufactured homes are secured to ground to maximize their longevity

x x x x

3.1.7 Stabilize the riverbank along Water Street in the City of Glasgow.

x x

3.1.8 Relocate buildings out of floodplain. x x x

3.2.1Ensure reliable warning system and dissemination of information regarding high wind situations throughout county.

x x x x x x x x x x

3.2.2 Promote the use of NOAA weather radios. x x x x x x x x x

3.2.3 Ensure that school buses have two way radios on board.

x x x x x x x x x x x x x x

3.2.4 Coordinate with local law enforcement to include scanner frequency in 2-way radios at schools.

x x x x x x x x x x x x x x

3.2.5 Build tornado safe rooms. x x x x x x x x


219

Figure 4.3.1 (cont.)A

ctio

n #

Mitigation Action

Dam

Fai

lure

Dro

ught

Eart

hqua

keEx

trem

e H

eat

Floo

dLS

/Sin

khol

eLe

vee

Failu

reSe

v. W

inte

r Wea

ther

Win

dsto

rmTo

rnad

oH

ails

torm

Wild

fire

Cou

nty

Arm

stro

ngFa

yette

Gla

sgow

New

Fra

nklin

New

Fra

nklin

R-I

S. D

.H

owar

d C

o. R

-ii S

.D.

Faye

tte R

-III S

.D.

Cen

tral

Met

hodi

st U

niv.

CPW

SD #

1H

.C. R

eg.W

ater

Com

m.

3.2.6 Encourage new mobile home parks to have saferooms on the premises.

x x x x x x x

3.2.7Encourage nursing and residential care facilities to have alternate power and heating sources. x x x x x x x x x x x x

3.2.8 Have plan for cooling centers in all communities. x x x

3.2.9 Identify potential transportation for vulnerable populations.

x x x x x x

3.2.10 Establish a community storm shelter with heat and backup power.

x x

4.0.1 Develop public education hazard awareness program. x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x

4.0.2 Maintain flood awareness signs at low water crossings and flash flooding areas.

x x

4.0.3 Encourage safe driving through public education campaigns, websites, community events, etc.

x x x x x

4.0.4 Encourage the MO Dept. of Conservation (MDC) to continue their trainings on controlled burns.


4.0.5 Encourage levee districts to restrict access at access points to the levees.

x x x x x

5.0.1 Encourage developers to build earthquake resistant structures.

x x x

5.0.2Retrofit structures to new earthquake safety standards when undergoing renovations/improvements. x x



Mitigation Actions Addressing Compliance with NFIP Requirements


[The mitigation strategy] must also address the jurisdiction's participation in the National Flood Insurance program (NFIP), and continued compliance with NFIP requirements, as appropriate.

Details of NFIP participation and current flood maps have been included in the Flood Profile in Section 3 (see Figure 3.2.5L). Howard County and all the incorporated communities belong to the NFIP, as shown in Figure 4.3.2.

Figure 4.3.2 Jurisdictions Participating in NFIP

Howard County Armstrong

Fayette Franklin* Glasgow

New Franklin * Franklin is not a participating jurisdiction in the Howard County Hazard Mitigation Plan (2011). Sources: Community Status Book, city and county personnel

The following mitigation actions pertain to continued compliance with the NFIP for those participating jurisdictions which are members:

• Continue to enforce flood damage prevention/floodplain management ordinances in compliance with NFIP requirements.

• Review and update flood damage prevention ordinance to ensure maximum protection from flood hazard events.

221

4.4 Prioritization, Implementation, and Administration


[The mitigation strategy section shall include] an action plan describing how the actions identified in section (c)(3)(ii) will be prioritized, implemented, and administered by the local jurisdiction. Prioritization shall include a special emphasis on the extent to which benefits are maximized according to a cost benefit review of the proposed projects and their associated costs.

Requirement §201.6(c)(3)(iv):

For multi-jurisdictional plans, there must be identifiable action items specific to the jurisdiction requesting FEMA approval or credit of the plan.


[The plan shall include a] process by which local governments incorporate the requirements of the mitigation plan into other planning mechanisms such as comprehensive or capital improvement plans, when appropriate.

4.4.1 Prioritization of Actions using STAPLEE and Benefit/Cost Reviews After the comprehensive list of mitigation actions for the entire Planning Area had been developed, members of the Planning Committee carried out a STAPLEE review and Benefit/Cost review on the actions. The following guidelines were used: STAPLEE Review The questions below were used as starting points for evaluating each action according to the STAPLEE criteria. Scoring:

3 = Definitely YES 2 = Maybe YES 1 = Probably NO 0 = Definitely NO

• Social: Is the action socially acceptable to the community?

• Technical: Will the proposed strategy work? Will the action independently solve the problem?

• Administrative: Is there someone to coordinate and lead the effort?

• Political: Is the action politically acceptable? Is there public support both to implement and to maintain the project?

• Legal: Is there legal authority to implement the action?

• Economic: Will the action benefit the area economically? Does the cost seem reasonable for the size of the problem and the likely benefits?

• Environmental: Is the action consistent with local, state, and federal environmental laws and regulations? Will the project have a positive impact on the environment? Will historic structures be saved or protected?


Benefit/Cost Review Benefit Two (2) points were added for each of the following avoided damages (8 points maximum = highest benefit)

• Injuries and/or casualties • Property damages • Loss-of-function/displacement impacts • Emergency management costs/community costs

Cost Points were subtracted according to the following cost scale (-5 points maximum = highest cost)

(-1) = Minimal – little cost to the jurisdiction involved (-3) = Moderate – definite cost involved but could likely be worked into operating budget (-5) = Significant – cost above and beyond most operating budgets; would require extra appropriations to finance or to meet matching funds for a grant

Note: For the Benefit/Cost Review, the benefit and cost of actions which used the word “Encourage” were evaluated as if the action or strategy being encouraged was actually to be carried out. Total Score The scores for the STAPLEE Review and Benefit/Cost Review were added to determine a Total Score for each action. Priority Scale To achieve an understanding of how a Total Score might be translated into a Priority Rating, a sample matrix was filled out for the possible range of ratings an action might receive on both the STAPLEE and Benefit/Cost Review (see Appendix H). The possible ratings tested ranged between:

• A hypothetical action with “Half probably NO and half maybe YES” answers on STAPLEE (i.e. poor STAPLEE score) and Low Benefit/High Cost: Total Score = 7

• A hypothetical action with “All definitely YES” on STAPLEE and High Benefit/Little

Cost: Total Score = 28 An inspection of the possible scores within this range led to the development of the following Priority Scale based on the Total Score in the STAPLEE-Benefit/Cost Review process:

20-28 points = High Priority 14-19 points = Medium Priority 13 points and below = Low Priority

223

It should be noted all of the actions attained either High or Medium priority rating; this is reflective of the fact that many actions which would have scored poorly on the STAPLEE review were deleted for the update during the initial discussion/review of the actions in the original plan (see Section 4.2). Also, many of the actions are ongoing and already in place but remain high priorities in the work plans of the jurisdictions. The STAPLEE Review, Benefit/Cost Review, and Final Priority for each of the mitigation actions is shown in Figure 4.4.1.


Figure 4.4.1xx3=Def YES 1=Prob NOxx2=Maybe YES 0=Def NO

Act

ion

#

MITIGATION ACTIONS S T A P L E E

STA

PLEE

Tot

al

Loss

es A

void

ed

(2

pts

eac

h)

Ben

efit

Cos

tB

/C T

otal

TOTA

L

PRIO

RIT

Y

Goal 1: Mitigate effects of future natural hazards in the county.Objective 1.1 Incorporate mitigation planning and procedures into the community.

1.1.1 Continue to enforce flood damage prevention/floodplain management ordinances in compliance with NFIP requirements. 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 20 PD,LF,

EMCC 6 -1 5 25 H

1.1.2 Complete Community Rating System (CRS) application of the NFIP. 2 3 1 2 3 2 3 16 PD,LF,EMCC 6 -3 3 19 M

1.1.3 Ensure adequate maintenance of drainage systems. 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 20I/C,

PD,LF,EMCC

8 -3 5 25 H

1.1.4 Develop and maintain stormwater policies. 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 17I/C,

PD,LF,EMCC

8 -3 5 22 H

1.1.5 Encourage cooperative agreements between water districts and connect disparate water supplies as much as possible. 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 21

I/C, PD,LF,EMCC

8 -1 7 28 H

1.1.6 Provide continuing education for firefighters on fighting wildfires. 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 21I/C,

PD,LF,EMCC

8 -3 5 26 H

1.1.7 Encourage appropriate County, municipal, special district and educational staff to continually update their knowledge base regarding earthquake safety. 3 2 2 3 3 3 3 19 I/C, PD,

EMCC 6 -1 5 24 H

1.1.8 Continue to meet Revised Statutes of Missouri concerning earthquake emergency system and earthquake safety in schools. 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 21 I/C,

EMCC 4 -1 3 24 H

1.1.9 Evaluate and maintain school emergency preparedness plans and incorporate into the County Local Emergency Operations Plan (LEOP). 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 20 I/C,

EMCC 4 -1 3 23 H

Prioritization of Mitigation Actions

225

Figure 4.4.1 (cont.)xx3=Def YES 1=Prob NOxx2=Maybe YES 0=Def NO

Act

ion

#


STA

PLEE

Tot

al

Loss

es A

void

ed

(2

pts

eac

h)

Ben

efit

Cos

tB

/C T

otal

TOTA

L

PRIO

RIT

Y

Goal 1: Mitigate effects of future natural hazards in the county.Objective 1.1 Incorporate mitigation planning and procedures into the community.

1.1.10 Maintain file of Emergency Action Plans (EAPs) for state regulated high hazard dams. 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 21 I/C, PD,

EMCC 6 -1 5 26 H

1.1.11 Hold annual training on Emergency Operations Plan for County and City officials. 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 21I/C,

PD,LF,EMCC

8 -1 7 28 H

Objective 1.2 Encourage private involvement in mitigation activities.

1.2.1 Establish formal agreements with appropriate shelter locations throughout the County. 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 21 I/C,

EMCC 4 -1 3 24 H

1.2.2 Encourage shelters to have alternative power and heating sources. 3 2 2 3 3 2 3 18 I/C, EMCC 4 -5 -1 17 M

1.2.3 Encourage local motels to provide their customers with safety information for high wind/tornado events. 3 2 1 3 0 2 3 14 I/C,

EMCC 4 -1 3 17 M




Act

ion

#


STA

PLEE

Tot

al

Loss

es A

void

ed

(2

pts

eac

h)

Ben

efit

Cos

tB

/C T

otal

TOTA

L

PRIO

RIT

Y

Goal 2: Develop policies that will limit impacts of natural hazards on Howard County.Objective 2.1 Pass appropriate ordinances for mitigation efforts.

2.1.1 Review and update flood damage prevention ordinance to ensure maximum protection from flood hazard events. 2 3 3 2 3 3 3 19 PD,LF,

EMCC 6 -1 5 24 H

2.1.4 Encourage all fire districts in Planning Area to pass burn ordinances. 2 3 3 2 3 3 3 19I/C,

PD,LF,EMCC

8 -1 7 26 H

2.2.1 Adopt and enforce latest model building codes and national engineering standards. 2 3 3 2 3 3 3 19I/C,

PD,LF,EMCC

8 -3 5 24 H

2.2.2 Adopt regulations that preserve riparian corridors in developments. 2 3 2 2 3 2 3 17 PD, EMCC 4 -3 1 18 M


Objective 2.2 Adopt new codes and standards.

227


Objective 3.1 Protect buildings and valuable assets.

Act

ion

#


STA

PLEE

Tot

al

Loss

es A

void

ed

(2

pts

eac

h)

Ben

efit

Cos

tB

/C T

otal

TOTA

L

PRIO

RIT

Y

3.1.1 Protect critical infrastructure. 3 2 3 2 3 3 3 19I/C,

PD,LF,EMCC

8 -5 3 22 H

3.1.2 Evaluate access problems to critical infrastructure in the event of a flood. 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 20I/C,

PD,LF,EMCC

8 -3 5 25 H

3.1.3 Mitigate the effects of flooding on public infrastructure. 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 20I/C,

PD,LF,EMCC

8 -5 3 23 H

3.1.4 Provide backup power to all critical infrastructure (police, fire, hospitals, local government buildings). 3 2 3 2 3 1 2 16

I/C, PD,LF,EMCC

8 -5 3 19 M

3.1.5 Remove vegetation and combustible materials around critical infrastructure. 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 21I/C,

PD,LF,EMCC

8 -3 5 26 H

3.1.6 Ensure that manufactured homes are secured to ground to maximize their longevity 2 3 3 2 3 3 3 19

I/C, PD,LF,EMCC

8 -3 5 24 H

3.1.7 Stabilize the riverbank along Water Street in the City of Glasgow. 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 20I/C,

PD,LF,EMCC

8 -5 3 23 H

3.1.8 Relocate buildings out of floodplain. 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 20I/C,

PD,LF,EMCC

8 -5 3 23 H

Goal 3: Protect the County's most valuable assets and vulnerable populations through cost effective and feasible mitigation projects whenever Prioritization of Mitigation Actions



Act

ion

#


STA

PLEE

Tot

al

Loss

es A

void

ed

(2

pts

eac

h)

Ben

efit

Cos

tB

/C T

otal

TOTA

L

PRIO

RIT

Y

Objective 3.2 Protect vulnerable populations.

3.2.1 Ensure reliable warning system and dissemination of information regarding severe weather events throughout the county. 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 21 I/C,

EMCC 4 -3 1 22 H

3.2.2 Promote the use of NOAA weather radios. 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 21 I/C, PD, EMCC 6 -1 5 26 H

3.2.3 Ensure that school buses have two way radios on board. 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 21 I/C, EMCC 4 -1 3 24 H

3.2.4 Coordinate with local law enforcement to include scanner frequency in 2-way radios at schools. 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 20 I/C, PD,

EMCC 6 -1 5 25 H

3.2.5 Build tornado safe rooms. 3 3 2 2 3 3 3 19 I/C, EMCC 4 -5 -1 18 M

3.2.6 Encourage new mobile home parks to have saferooms on the premises. 2 3 3 1 3 3 3 18 I/C, EMCC 4 -5 -1 17 M

3.2.7 Εncourage nursing and residential care facilities to have alternate power and heating sources. 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 20 I/C,

EMCC 4 -5 -1 19 M

3.2.8 Have plan for cooling centers in all communities. 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 21 I/C, EMCC 4 -1 3 24 H

3.2.9 Identify potential transportation for vulnerable populations. 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 21 I/C, EMCC 4 -1 3 24 H

3.2.10 Establish a community storm shelter with heat and backup power. 3 3 3 2 3 1 3 18 I/C, EMCC 4 -5 -1 17 M

Goal 3: Protect the County's most valuable assets and vulnerable populations through cost effective and feasible mitigation projects whenever


229


Act

ion

#


STA

PLEE

Tot

al

Loss

es A

void

ed

(2

pts

eac

h)

Ben

efit

Cos

tB

/C T

otal

TOTA

L

PRIO

RIT

Y

4.0.1 Develop public education hazard awareness program. 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 21I/C,

PD,LF,EMCC

8 -1 7 28 H

4.0.2 Maintain flood awareness signs at low water crossings and flash flooding areas. 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 21 I/C, PD, EMCC 6 -3 3 24 H

4.0.3 Encourage safe driving through public education campaigns, websites, community events, etc. 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 21 I/C, PD,

EMCC 6 -1 5 26 H

4.0.4 Encourage the MO Dept. of Conservation (MDC) to continue their trainings on controlled burns. 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 21

I/C, PD,LF,EMCC

8 -1 7 28 H

4.0.5 Encourage levee districts to restrict access at public access points to the levees. 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 20I/C,

PD,LF,EMCC

8 -1 7 27 M


Goal 4: Increase the public awareness of natural hazards in the County in order to make the public a partner in hazard mitigation.



Act

ion

#


STA

PLEE

Tot

al

Loss

es A

void

ed

(2

pts

eac

h)

Ben

efit

Cos

tB

/C T

otal

TOTA

L

PRIO

RIT

Y

5.0.1 Encourage developers to build earthquake resistant structures. 1 3 3 1 2 2 3 15I/C,

PD,LF,EMCC

8 -5 3 18 M

5.0.2 Retrofit structures to new earthquake safety standards when undergoing renovations/improvements. 0 3 2 0 2 2 3 12

I/C, PD,LF,EMCC

8 -5 3 15 M

Goal 5: Ensure that future development in the County is as "hazard proof" as possible, thereby contributing to the sustainability of the community.


231

4.4.2 Implementation and Administration in Participating Jurisdictions Each participating jurisdiction was responsible for providing plans for implementation and administration of actions specific to its jurisdiction. This planning took place after the STAPLEE review, Benefit/Cost review and general prioritization of the actions by members of the Planning Committee. Changes in the prioritization of actions could be made within each specific jurisdiction at this time, if warranted by the particulars of the local situation. The mitigation actions for each participating jurisdiction are shown in the following pages. The implementation and administration of each action is indicated in the section for the jurisdiction which is the lead on the action. A description of the method for integrating the actions in the hazard mitigation plan into other planning processes in the jurisdiction is included after the actions.


Howard County

The following are mitigation actions for which Howard County is the lead. It should be noted that Howard County Emergency Management Agency is the lead for many actions which mitigate for hazards in multiple jurisdictions. In the case of these actions, complete information about the action and its implementation is given in this section.

The charts for the Howard County led actions also indicate for which jurisdictions Howard County is undertaking the action; in some cases the action is undertaken only for the County (unincorporated area) and in other cases the action is applicable to other jurisdictions.

Actions led by the County which are applicable to other jurisdictions are repeated in list form under each participating jurisdiction to which they apply.

The benefits (losses avoided) key for the charts is: I/C=Injuries or Casualties, PD=Property Damages, LF=Loss-of-function/displacement impacts, EMCC=Emergency management/community costs

Action 1.1.1 Continue to enforce flood damage prevention/floodplain management ordinances in compliance with NFIP requirements.

Priority HighPlan for Implementation & Administration

Review permit applications and only approve those in compliance with ordinance.

Lead County ClerkProjected Cost/Funding Minimal/internal fundsProjected Completion OngoingCriterion for Completion Only appropriate permits are issued.Hazards Addressed Flood, Levee FailureApplicable Jurisdictions CountyBenefits (Losses Avoided) PD, LF, EMCC

Action 1.1.3 Ensure adequate maintenance of drainage systems.Priority HighPlan for Implementation & Administration

Clean ditches on a regular basis.

Lead Howard Co. Road & Bridge DepartmentProjected Cost/Funding Minimal/operating budgetProjected Completion OngoingCriterion for Completion Ditches are kept free of obstructions.Hazards Addressed FloodApplicable Jurisdictions CountyBenefits (Losses Avoided) I/C, PD, LF, EMCC

233

Action 1.1.6 Provide continuing education for firefighters on fighting wildfires.Priority HighPlan for Implementation & Administration

Contact fire districts, MDC, and MU Fire & Rescue Training Institute to get trainings set up.

Lead Howard Co. Emergency Management AgencyPartners Fire districts, MDC, MU Fire & Rescue Training InstituteProjected Cost/Funding Minimal/internal fundsProjected Completion OngoingCriterion for Completion Training sessions on fighting wildfire are offered.Hazards Addressed WildfireApplicable Jurisdictions All participating jurisdictionsBenefits (Losses Avoided) I/C, PD, LF, EMCC

Action 1.1.7Encourage appropriate County, municipal, special district and educational staff to continually update their knowledge base regarding earthquake safety.


Continue to make staff aware of SEMA training opportunities.

Lead Howard County Emergency Management AgencyPartners SEMAProjected Cost/Funding Minimal/operating budgetProjected Completion OngoingCriterion for Completion Trainings attended.Hazards Addressed EarthquakeApplicable Jurisdictions County, City of FayetteBenefits (Losses Avoided) I/C, PD, EMCC

Action 1.1.9 Evaluate and maintain school emergency preparedness plans and incorporate into the County Local Emergency Operations Plan (LEOP).


Incorporate school emergency preparedness plans into LEOP after receiving them from the school districts.

Lead School district personnel, Howard Co. Emergency Management AgencyProjected Cost/Funding Minimal/operating budgetProjected Completion Fall 2011Criterion for Completion Plans are incorporated in LEOP.

Hazards Addressed Earthquake, Extreme Heat, Flood, Levee Failure, Severe Winter Weather, Windstorm, Tornado, Hailstorm

Applicable Jurisdictions County and School districtsBenefits (Losses Avoided) I/C, EMCC


Action 1.1.10 Maintain file of Emergency Action Plans (EAPs) for state regulated high hazard dams.

Priority High

Plan for Implementation & Administration

Emergency Action Plans (EAPS) are being written for state regulated high hazard dams in conjunction with inundation studies being carried out; maintain a file of these EAPs in the Emergency Management Agency once they are completed.

Lead Howard Co. Emergency Management Agency Partners DNR, dam owners Projected Cost/Funding Minimal/operating budget Projected Completion Ongoing Criterion for Completion File is maintained. Hazards Addressed Dam Failure Applicable Jurisdictions County, Fayette Benefits (Losses Avoided) I/C, PD, EMCC

Action 1.1.11 Hold annual training on Local Emergency Operations Plan (LEOP) for

County and City officials. Priority High


Personnel is updated annually on changes to the LEOP during the annual meeting of the Local Emergency Planning Committee (LEPC). City officials, fire, police, and emergency responders are all invited to this meeting.

Lead Howard Co. Emergency Management Agency Partners LEPC Projected Cost/Funding Minimal/internal funds Projected Completion Ongoing Criterion for Completion Annual update takes place.

Hazards Addressed Dam Failure, Drought, Earthquake, Extreme Heat, Flood, Land Subsidence/Sinkhole, Levee Failure, Severe Winter Weather, Windstorm, Tornado, Hailstorm, Wildfire

Applicable Jurisdictions County and incorporated communities Benefits (Losses Avoided) I/C, PD, LF, EMCC

235

Action 1.2.1 Establish formal agreements with appropriate shelter locations throughout the County.


Formalize agreements with shelters currently available for use and work to establish new shelter locations.

Lead Howard Co. Emergency Management AgencyPartners Local social service agencies, churches, schoolsProjected Cost/Funding Minimal/operating budgetProjected Completion Ongoing

Criterion for Completion Formal agreements are in place and shelters are available throughout the County.

Hazards Addressed Earthquake, Flood, Levee Failure, Severe Winter Weather, Windstorm, Tornado

Applicable Jurisdictions County and all incorporated communitiesBenefits (Losses Avoided) I/C, EMCC

Action 1.2.2 Encourage shelters to have alternative power and heating sources.Priority MediumPlan for Implementation & Administration

Look for funding opportunities for transfer switches so that more locations throughout the County are available for generator hookup.

Lead Howard Co. Emergency Management AgencyPartners Local social service agencies, churches, schoolsProjected Cost/Funding Significant/grantsProjected Completion OngoingCriterion for Completion More shelters have alternative power and heating sources.

Hazards Addressed Earthquake, Flood, Levee Failure, Severe Winter Weather, Windstorm, Tornado

Applicable Jurisdictions County and all incorporated communitiesBenefits (Losses Avoided) I/C, EMCC

Action 1.2.3 Encourage local motels to provide their customers with safety information for high wind/tornado events.

Priority Medium


Contact Silver Bell Motel in Fayette and East Acres Motel in Glasgow to discuss possibilities for informing customers of safety for high wind/tornado events.

Lead Howard Co. Emergency Management AgencyPartners Local hotels/motelsProjected Cost/Funding Minimal/operating budgetProjected Completion 2012Criterion for Completion Motels have been contacted and issue discussed.Hazards Addressed Windstorm, TornadoApplicable Jurisdictions County, Fayette, GlasgowBenefits (Losses Avoided) I/C, EMCC


Action 2.1.1 Review and update flood damage prevention ordinance to ensure maximum protection from flood hazard events.


Ordinance was updated in 2009 and will be updated as required.

Lead County ClerkPartners SEMAProjected Cost/Funding Minimal/internal fundsProjected Completion OngoingCriterion for Completion Ordinance is updated when needed/required.Hazards Addressed Flood, Levee FailureApplicable Jurisdictions CountyBenefits (Losses Avoided) PD,LF,EMCC

Action 2.1.2 Encourage all fire districts in the Planning Area to pass burn ordinances.Priority HighPlan for Implementation & Administration

Talk with Glasgow Fire Protection District re: burn ordinance. (Armstrong Fire District and Howard Co. Fire District already have burn ordinances.)

Lead Howard Co. Emergency Management AgencyPartners Glasgow Fire Protection DistrictProjected Cost/Funding Minimal/operating budgetProjected Completion 2013Criterion for Completion Burn ordinances ares in place in all fire districts in Howard County.Hazards Addressed WildfireApplicable Jurisdictions All jurisdictionsBenefits (Losses Avoided) I/C, PD, LF, EMCC

Action 3.1.1 Protect critical infrastructure.Priority HighPlan for Implementation & Administration

Monitor roads and bridges for safe travel and protect/repair as needed.

Lead Howard Co. Road and Bridge DepartmentProjected Cost/Funding Minimal/operating budgetProjected Completion Ongoing

Criterion for Completion Actions are taken as needed to protect roads and bridges from the effects of natural hazards.

Hazards Addressed Dam Failure, Earthquake, Flood, Levee Failure, Severe Winter Weather, Windstorm, Tornado, Wildfire

Applicable Jurisdictions CountyBenefits (Losses Avoided) I/C, PD, LF, EMCC

237

Action 3.1.3 Mitigate the effects of flooding on public infrastructure.Priority HighPlan for Implementation & Administration

Monitor public infrastructure and mitigate as needed.

Lead Howard Co. Road and Bridge Department, Howard Co. CommissionPartners FEMA/SEMAProjected Cost/Funding Moderate-high/Grants, loans, internal fundsProjected Completion Ongoing monitoring, mitigation as needed

Criterion for Completion Successful mitigation of flooding effects on public infrastructure, if and when needed.

Hazards Addressed Dam Failure, Flood, Levee FailureApplicable Jurisdictions CountyBenefits (Losses Avoided) I/C, PD, LF, EMCC

Action 3.1.4 Provide backup power to all critical infrastructure (police, fire, hospitals, local government buildings).

Priority MediumPlan for Implementation & Administration

Look for funding opportunities for transfer switches and additional generators.

Lead Howard Co. Emergency Management AgencyPartners Cities, Fire Districts, Howard Co. CommissionProjected Cost/Funding Significant/grantsProjected Completion OngoingCriterion for Completion Backup power is available for all critical infrastructure.

Hazards AddressedDam Failure, Earthquake, Extreme Heat, Flood, Land Subsidence/Sinkhole, Levee Failure, Severe Winter Weather, Windstorm, Tornado, Hailstorm, Wildfire

Applicable Jurisdictions County, all incorporated communitiesBenefits (Losses Avoided) I/C, PD, LF, EMCC

Action 3.2.1 Ensure reliable warning system and dissemination of information regarding high wind situations throughout county.

Priority High


The Emergency Operations E-911 Center will automatically set off the warning sirens for Armstrong, Fayette and New Franklin; radio contact will be made to Glasgow Police Department so they can manually set off their siren. Sirens will be tested monthly.

Lead Howard County Emergency Management AgencyPartners City of Glasgow Police DepartmentProjected Cost/Funding Minimal/operating budgetProjected Completion Ongoing

Criterion for Completion Proper procedures for setting off sirens is followed and sirens are tested monthly.

Hazards Addressed Windstorm, TornadoApplicable Jurisdictions County and all incorporated communities.Benefits (Losses Avoided) I/C, EMCC


Action 3.2.2 Promote the use of NOAA weather radios.Priority High


A public education campaign will be undertaken through the local media to encourage the public to purchase NOAA radios since warning sirens are designed only to be heard outdoors.

Lead Howard County Emergency Management AgencyPartners Local mediaProjected Cost/Funding Minimal/operating budgetProjected Completion Ongoing

Criterion for Completion Information regarding NOAA radios is published in the local media each spring before thunderstorm season.

Hazards Addressed Severe Winter Weather, Windstorm, Tornado, HailstormApplicable Jurisdictions County and all incorporated communities.Benefits (Losses Avoided) I/C, PD, EMCC

Action 3.2.6 Encourage new mobile home parks to have safe rooms on the premises.Priority MediumPlan for Implementation & Administration

Talk to new developers of mobile home parks about the importance of some type of protection for windstorm/tornado events.

Lead Howard Co. Emergency Management AgencyPartners Mobile home park ownersProjected Cost/Funding Significant/grants, private funds, membership feesProjected Completion Ongoing

Criterion for Completion All new mobile home park owners are made aware of the importance of some type of protection for their tenants for windstorm/tornado events.

Hazards Addressed Windstorm, TornadoApplicable Jurisdictions County and all incorporated communitiesBenefits (Losses Avoided) I/C, EMCC

Action 3.2.7 Encourage nursing and residential care facilities to have alternate power and heating sources.


Discuss the importance of backup power with those facilities which don't currently have it.

Lead Howard Co. Emergency Management AgencyPartners Nursing and residential care facilitiesProjected Cost/Funding Significant/grants, private fundsProjected Completion OngoingCriterion for Completion All


Applicable Jurisdictions County, Fayette, Glasgow, New FranklinBenefits (Losses Avoided) I/C, EMCC

239

Action 3.2.9 Identify potential transportation for vulnerable populations.Priority HighPlan for Implementation & Administration

Contact school districts and OATS for buses.

Lead Howard Co. Emergency Management AgencyPartners School districts, OATSProjected Cost/Funding Minimal to moderate/operating budget Projected Completion OngoingCriterion for Completion Transportation is available.


Applicable Jurisdictions CountyBenefits (Losses Avoided) I/C, EMCC

Action 4.0.1 Develop public education hazard awareness program.Priority HighPlan for Implementation & Administration

Ensure that local media receives information re: hazard awareness.

Lead Howard Co. Emergency Management AgencyPartners SEMA, local mediaProjected Cost/Funding Minimal/operating budgetProjected Completion Ongoing

Criterion for Completion Educational information about hazards and emergency preparedness is regularly distributed through local media.

Hazards AddressedDam Failure, Drought, Earthquake, Extreme Heat, Flood, Land Subsidence/Sinkhole, Levee Failure, Severe Winter Weather, Windstorm, Tornado, Hailstorm, Wildfire

Applicable Jurisdictions County and all incorporated communitiesBenefits (Losses Avoided) I/C, PD, LF, EMCC

Action 4.0.2 Maintain flood awareness signs at low water crossings and flash flooding areas.


Permanent signs are installed and will be maintained.

Lead Howard Co. Road and Bridge DepartmentProjected Cost/Funding Minimal/operating budgetProjected Completion OngoingCriterion for Completion Low water crossings and flash flooding areas are posted with warning signs.Hazards Addressed FloodApplicable Jurisdictions CountyBenefits (Losses Avoided) I/C, PD, EMCC


Integration of Hazard Mitigation Actions into Current Planning Processes

The mitigation actions in this plan will be integrated into the work plans of the appropriate departments responsible for leading the actions.

The Emergency Management Co-Directors will discuss any fiscal costs associated with the mitigation actions with the County Commissioners during the annual budgeting process. Mitigation actions will be integrated into the LEOP, as appropriate, when next updated.

Action 4.0.4 Encourage the MO Dept. of Conservation (MDC) to continue their trainings on controlled burns.


Provide feedback to the MDC re: the importance of this training program in Howard County.

Lead Howard Co. Emergency Management AgencyPartnersProjected Cost/Funding Minimal/operating budgetProjected Completion OngoingCriterion for Completion MDC is given regular feedback on importance of training program.Hazards Addressed WildfireApplicable Jurisdictions All jurisdictionsBenefits (Losses Avoided) I/C, PD, LF, EMCC

Action 4.0.5 Encourage levee districts to restrict public access at access points to the levees.


Emergency Management Directors will discuss with levee personnel.

Lead Howard Co. Emergency Management Agency, County CommissionersPartners Levee District personnelProjected Cost/Funding Minimal/internal fundsProjected Completion 2012Criterion for Completion Public access to levees is restricted.Hazards Addressed Flood, Levee Failure

Applicable Jurisdictions County, Franklin, New Franklin, Howard Co. Consolidated Public Water Supply District #1

Benefits (Losses Avoided) I/C, PD, LF, EMCC

241

Armstrong Mitigation actions for Armstrong are shown in the following charts and subsequent list. The actions in the charts are those for which Armstrong itself will take the lead. Those listed at the end of the charts are mitigation actions which the County will lead on behalf of numerous jurisdictions, including Armstrong.

The benefits (losses avoided) key for the charts below is:

I/C=Injuries or Casualties PD=Property Damages LF=Loss-of-function/displacement impacts EMCC=Emergency management/community costs



Monitor any potential construction in the floodplain to ensure it is in compliance with floodplain regulations.

Lead City ClerkPartners City CouncilProjected Cost/Funding Minimal/city budgetProjected Completion OngoingCriterion for Completion Floodplain ordinance is enforcedHazards Addressed Flood, Levee FailureBenefits (Losses Avoided) PD,LF,EMCC


Clean out drainage ditches and reestablish along streets where necessary.

Lead City of ArmstrongPartners Eight Mile Road DistrictProjected Cost/Funding Moderate/city budgetProjected Completion OngoingCriterion for Completion Drainage works well throughout ArmstrongHazards Addressed FloodBenefits (Losses Avoided) I/C, PD, LF, EMCC




Update ordinance as needed or required.

Lead City ClerkPartners City Council, SEMAProjected Cost/Funding Minimal/city budgetProjected Completion Ongoing as neededCriterion for Completion Floodplain ordinance is updated as needed or required.Hazards Addressed Flood, Levee FailureBenefits (Losses Avoided) PD,LF,EMCC


Priority High*


An old Army generator can be used for backup at the fire district but the district would like to update this generator, if funds could be found. A portable generator is available from Howard Co. EMA, if needed (and not already in use elsewhere.)

Lead Armstrong Fire Protection DistrictPartners Howard Co. Emergency Management AgencyProjected Cost/Funding High/donations, grants, loansProjected Completion When funding is found for purchase.Criterion for Completion There is reliable backup power at the Armstrong Fire Protection District.



Action 3.2.10 Establish a community storm shelter with heat and backup power.Priority High*


The most feasible location is the Community Center which has the following features: four large exits which will accommodate wheelchairs/cots; a nearby landing pad for evacuation; decent plumbing and a propane tank. It needs a better heating system, a drop ceiling, a transfer switch for generator use, and a generator. Funding of this project is an issue and possibilities need to be explored.

Lead Armstrong Fire Protection DistrictPartners City of Armstrong, Howard Co. Emergency Management AgencyProjected Cost/Funding High/donations, grants, loansProjected Completion As funding allowsCriterion for Completion Armstrong has a community storm shelter available for its citizens.Hazards Addressed Severe Winter WeatherBenefits (Losses Avoided) I/C, EMCC* This action scored a 17 (=Medium Priority) on the prioritization exercise (because of the economic cost) but was deemed a High priority for Armstrong because of the large number of senior citizens in the community.

* This action scored a 19 (=Medium Priority) on the Prioritization exercise but was deemed a High priority for Armstrong because of the questionable reliability of the current backup generator.

243

In addition to the above mitigation actions for which the City of Armstrong is the lead, Howard County will be the lead on the following actions for the City of Armstrong:



1.2.1 Establish formal agreements with appropriate shelter locations through out the County. 1.2.2 Encourage shelters to have alternative power and heating sources. 2.1.2 Encourage all fire districts in the Planning Area to pass burn ordinances. 3.1.4 Provide backup power to all critical infrastructure (police, fire, hospitals, local government buildings).

3.2.1 Ensure reliable warning system and dissemination of information regarding high wind situations throughout county. 3.2.2 Promote the use of NOAA weather radios

3.2.6 Encourage new mobile home parks to have safe rooms on the premises. 4.0.1 Develop public education hazard awareness program. 4.0.4 Encourage the MO Dept. of Conservation (MDC) to continue their trainings on controlled burns. Details on the Implementation and Administration of these actions is found under Howard County in this section (Section 4.4.2).

Integration of Hazard Mitigation Actions into Current Planning Processes Planning in Armstrong is done by the City Council on a project basis. Any projects undertaken will take into consideration the hazard mitigation actions outlined in this plan.


Fayette

Mitigation actions for Fayette are shown in the following charts and subsequent list. The actions in the charts are those for which Fayette itself will take the lead. Those listed at the end of the charts are mitigation actions which the County will lead on behalf of numerous jurisdictions, including Fayette.





Check permit applications and ensure that they are in compliance with regulations.

Lead Building Inspector

Projected Cost/Funding Minimal/operating budget

Projected Completion Ongoing

Criterion for Completion Permits are always checked for compliance with floodplain ordinances.Hazards Addressed Flood, Levee FailureBenefits (Losses Avoided) PD,LF,EMCC

Action 1.1.2 Complete Community Rating System Application (CRS) of the NFIP.Priority Medium-LowPlan for Implementation & Administration

Assess Community Rating System and pursue if warranted.

Lead Building InspectorPartners City AdministratorProjected Cost/Funding Minimal/operating budgetProjected Completion 2012Criterion for Completion CRS application is completed or decision has been made to not participate.Hazards Addressed Flood, Levee FailureBenefits (Losses Avoided) PD,LF,EMCC

245

Action 1.1.3 Ensure adequate maintenance of drainage systems. Priority High Plan for Implementation & Administration

Cleaning out culverts, replacing old culverts, and ditching are ongoing efforts throughout the city.

Lead Street Department Partners MoDOT, local contractor Projected Cost/Funding Moderate/city budget Projected Completion Ongoing Criterion for Completion Water is not backing up on street, yards, or into sewer system Hazards Addressed Flood Benefits (Losses Avoided) I/C, PD, LF, EMCC

Action 1.1.4 Develop and maintain stormwater policies. Priority High Plan for Implementation & Administration

An ordinance is in place that stormwater cannot run into the sewer system; Building Inspector regulates stormwater according to building codes.

Lead Building Inspector Partners Street Superintendent Projected Cost/Funding Minimal/operating budget Projected Completion Ongoing Criterion for Completion Stormwater is continually monitored and ordinance enforced. Hazards Addressed Flood Benefits (Losses Avoided) I/C, PD, LF, EMCC

Action 1.1.7 Encourage appropriate County, municipal, special district and educational staff to continually update their knowledge base regarding earthquake safety.

Priority High Plan for Implementation & Administration Appropriate city staff will attend trainings.

Lead City of Fayette Partners Howard County Emergency Management Agency, SEMA Projected Cost/Funding Minimal/internal Projected Completion Ongoing Criterion for Completion Trainings attended. Hazards Addressed Earthquake Benefits (Losses Avoided) I/C, PD, EMCC




The flood ordinance was updated in 2009 and will be updated as required.

Lead Building InspectorPartners SEMA, City CouncilProjected Cost/Funding Minimal/operating budgetProjected Completion OngoingCriterion for Completion Flood damage prevention ordinance is updated as required.Hazards Addressed Flood, Levee FailureBenefits (Losses Avoided) PD,LF,EMCC

Action 2.2.1 Adopt and enforce latest model building codes and national engineering standards.


The city has adopted the 2009 ICC codes; these will be updated on a regular basis as warranted.

Lead Building InspectorPartners City CouncilProjected Cost/Funding Minimal/operating budgetProjected Completion OngoingCriterion for Completion Building codes are updated as needed.

Hazards Addressed Earthquake, Severe Winter Weather, Windstorm, Tornado, Hailstorm, Wildfire


Action 2.2.2 Adopt regulations that preserve riparian corridors in developments.Priority Medium to HighPlan for Implementation & Administration

City Building Inspector will research ordinances; City Attorney will draft ordinance which will then be presented to City Council.

Lead City Building Inspector, City Attorney, City CouncilPartners Street Department, Private property ownersProjected Cost/Funding Minimal/operating budgetProjected Completion 2013Criterion for Completion Regulations are adopted.Hazards Addressed FloodBenefits (Losses Avoided) PD, EMCC

247


Building Inspector will monitor for problems and report to City Administrator who will report to the City Council for action.

Lead Building InspectorPartners City Administrator, City CouncilProjected Cost/Funding Minimal to Significant/operating budget to grants, loansProjected Completion OngoingCriterion for Completion Critical infrastructure is monitored and protected.

Hazards Addressed Dam Failure, Earthquake,Flood, Levee Failure, Severe Winter Weather, Windstorm, Tornado, Wildfire



Building Inspector will monitor for flooding problems and report to City Administrator who will report to the City Council for action.

Lead Building InspectorPartners City Administrator, City CouncilProjected Cost/Funding Minimal to Significant/operating budget to grants, loansProjected Completion OngoingCriterion for Completion Public infrastructure is monitored and protected from flooding.Hazards Addressed Dam Failure, Flood, Levee FailureBenefits (Losses Avoided) I/C, PD, LF, EMCC

Action 3.1.5 Remove vegetation and combustible materials around critical infrastructure. Priority High


Building Inspector sends out letters re: needed cleanup; if action is not taken by the contacted party, city or contracted crews will do the cleanup and the party will be billed. Note: City agencies are not exempt from receiving these letters.

Lead Building InspectorPartners Property owners, cleanup crewsProjected Cost/Funding Minimal/operating budgetProjected Completion OngoingCriterion for Completion Vegetation and combustibles are monitored and cleaned up.Hazards Addressed Earthquake, Severe Winter Weather, Windstorm, Tornado, WildfireBenefits (Losses Avoided) I/C, PD, LF, EMCC


Action 3.1.6 Ensure that manufactured homes are secured to ground to maximize their longevity.

Priority High Plan for Implementation & Administration

A city ordinance is in place which follows state requirements; the ordinance is enforced by the Building Inspector.

Lead Building Inspector Projected Cost/Funding Minimal/operating budget Projected Completion Ongoing Criterion for Completion Manufactured homes are monitored for compliance with city ordinance. Hazards Addressed Earthquake, Windstorm, Tornado Benefits (Losses Avoided) I/C, PD, LF, EMCC

Action 3.2.5 Build tornado safe rooms.

Priority Medium Plan for Implementation & Administration Include plans for a tornado saferoom in any new city building project.

Lead City Council, City Administrator Partners SEMA, FEMA Projected Cost/Funding Significant/grants, loans Projected Completion Ongoing Criterion for Completion Tornado saferoom is built. Hazards Addressed Windstorm, Tornado Benefits (Losses Avoided) I/C, EMCC

Action 3.2.8 Have plan for cooling centers in all communities.

Priority High


The Fayette Public Library and the Fayette Senior Center are used as cooling centers. This is advertised in the newspaper and on radio stations, as needed.

Lead City Administrator Partners Fayette Public Library and Fayette Senior Center Projected Cost/Funding Minimal/operating budget Projected Completion Ongoing Criterion for Completion Cooling centers are available when needed. Hazards Addressed Extreme Heat Benefits (Losses Avoided) I/C, EMCC

249

In addition to the above mitigation actions for which the City of Fayette is the lead, Howard County will be the lead on the following actions for the City of Fayette:

1.1.6 Provide continuing education for firefighters on fighting wildfires. 1.1.10 Maintain file of Emergency Action Plans (EAPs) for state regulated high hazard dams.


1.2.1 Establish formal agreements with appropriate shelter locations through out the County. 1.2.2 Encourage shelters to have alternative power and heating sources. 1.2.3 Encourage local motels to provide their customers with safety information for high wind/tornado events. 2.1.2 Encourage all fire districts in the Planning Area to pass burn ordinances. 3.1.4 Provide backup power to all critical infrastructure (police, fire, hospitals, local government buildings).

3.2.1 Ensure reliable warning system and dissemination of information regarding high wind situations throughout county. 3.2.2 Promote the use of NOAA weather radios. 3.2.6 Encourage new mobile home parks to have safe rooms on the premises. 3.2.7 Encourage nursing and residential care facilities to have alternate power and heating sources. 4.0.1 Develop public education hazard awareness program. 4.0.4 Encourage the MO Dept. of Conservation (MDC) to continue their trainings on controlled burns. Details on the Implementation and Administration of these actions is found under Howard County in this section (Section 4.4.2).

Integration of Hazard Mitigation Actions into Current Planning Processes The City of Fayette has a Comprehensive Plan. The hazard mitigation actions will be considered when looking at the Comprehensive Plan or any other plans in the future. The City Administrator, Building Inspector, and Public Works meet on a weekly basis. The work plans in the departments will include the hazard mitigation actions designated in this plan.


Glasgow

Mitigation actions for Glasgow are shown in the following charts and subsequent list. The actions in the charts are those for which Glasgow itself will take the lead. Those listed at the end of the charts are mitigation actions which the County will lead on behalf of numerous jurisdictions, including Glasgow.




Priority High


The only occupied structures currently in the floodplain are city properties: 2 wells, the lift station and the lagoon. The building inspector issues new building permits. Permits will only be issued for projects in compliance with the floodplain ordinance.

Lead Building InspectorProjected Cost/Funding Minimal/operating budgetProjected Completion OngoingCriterion for Completion All building permits comply with floodplain ordinance.Hazards Addressed Flood, Levee FailureBenefits (Losses Avoided) PD,LF,EMCC


Check for problems and repair or replace.

Lead Public Works Dept.Projected Cost/Funding Minimal to significant/operating fund or loans, grants if significantProjected Completion OngoingCriterion for Completion Drainage systems are working well.Hazards Addressed FloodBenefits (Losses Avoided) I/C, PD, LF, EMCC

251

Action 1.1.4 Develop and maintain stormwater policies.Priority HighPlan for Implementation & Administration

Ordinances are in place that stormwater cannot go into the sewer system; update as needed.

Lead Public WorksProjected Cost/Funding Minimal/operating budgetProjected Completion OngoingCriterion for Completion Stormwater policies are maintained and updated, if needed.Hazards Addressed FloodBenefits (Losses Avoided) I/C, PD, LF, EMCC

Action 1.1.5 Encourage cooperative agreements between water districts and connect disparate water supplies as much as possible.

Priority High


Explore possibility of agreement(s) with the City of Slater (Saline County), Thomas Hills Water Supply District, and/or the Howard County Regional Water Commission.

Lead Mayor, City AdministratorPartners City of Slater and/or Howard County Regional Water CommissionProjected Cost/Funding Significant/loans, grantsProjected Completion 2016Criterion for Completion Agreements are in place to supply backup water when needed.Hazards Addressed Drought, WildfireBenefits (Losses Avoided) I/C, PD, LF, EMCC



Attend trainings offered by Howard County Emergency Management Agency and SEMA.

Lead City AdministratorPartners County, SEMA, schoolsProjected Cost/Funding Minimal/internalProjected Completion OngoingCriterion for Completion Trainings attended.Hazards Addressed EarthquakeBenefits (Losses Avoided) I/C, PD, EMCC




Ordinance will be reviewed and updated as needed or required.

Lead Building Inspector, City CouncilPartners SEMAProjected Cost/Funding Minimal/internal budgetProjected Completion OngoingCriterion for Completion Floodplain ordinance is updated as needed.Hazards Addressed Flood, Levee FailureBenefits (Losses Avoided) PD,LF,EMCC

Action 2.2.1 Adopt and enforce latest model building codes and national engineering standards.


Update codes to the IBC (International Building Code) or equivalent.

Lead Building InspectorPartners City CouncilProjected Cost/Funding Minimal/operating budgetProjected Completion 2012Criterion for Completion Building codes are updated and enforced.

Hazards Addressed Earthquake, Severe Winter Weather, Windstorm, Tornado, Hailstorm, Wildfire



Monitor critical infrastructure for any potential problems and mitigate.

Lead Building InspectorPartners City Administrator, City CouncilProjected Cost/Funding Minimal to significant/operating budget or loans, grants if significantProjected Completion OngoingCriterion for Completion Critical infrastructure is continually protected.



253


Work on possible solutions to lagoon and lift station flooding; mitigate any other flooding of public infrastructure, if need becomes apparent.

Lead City AdministratorPartners FEMA, SEMA, USDAProjected Cost/Funding Significant/grants, loansProjected Completion 2013

Criterion for Completion Flooding of lagoon and lift stations is no longer a problem; no other public infrastructure is in danger of flooding.

Hazards Addressed Dam Failure, Flood, Levee FailureBenefits (Losses Avoided) I/C, PD, LF, EMCC



Two military generators are available for power at the wells or elsewhere.

Lead City of GlasgowProjected Cost/Funding Minimal/operating budgetProjected Completion OngoingCriterion for Completion Backup power is available when needed.



Action 3.1.7 Stabilize the riverbank along Water Street in the City of Glasgow.Priority HighPlan for Implementation & Administration

Apply for grant funds to help carry out this project.

Lead City AdministratorPartners FEMA, SEMAProjected Cost/Funding Significant/grants, loansProjected Completion 2014Criterion for Completion Riverbank is stabilized.Hazards Addressed FloodBenefits (Losses Avoided) I/C, PD, LF, EMCC


Action 3.2.1Ensure reliable warning system and dissemination of information regarding high wind situations throughout county.


Update all three warning sirens in the city.

Lead City AdministratorPartners USDAProjected Cost/Funding Significant/grants, loansProjected Completion 2013Criterion for Completion Sirens are updated.Hazards Addressed Windstorm, TornadoBenefits (Losses Avoided) I/C, EMCC

Action 3.2.8 Have plan for cooling centers in all communities.


All city owned structures with air conditioning will be left open and advertised as cooling centers for the public during extreme heat events.

Lead City AdministratorProjected Cost/Funding Minimal/internal fundsProjected Completion OngoingCriterion for Completion Cooling centers for public are available as needed.Hazards Addressed Extreme HeatBenefits (Losses Avoided) I/C, EMCC

Action 5.0.1 Encourage developers to build earthquake resistant structures.Priority MediumPlan for Implementation & Administration

This will be addressed during the update of the building codes.

Lead Building InspectorPartners City CouncilProjected Cost/Funding Minimal/internal fundsProjected Completion 2012Criterion for Completion Building codes address earthquake resistance.Hazards Addressed EarthquakeBenefits (Losses Avoided) I/C, PD, LF, EMCC

255

In addition to the above mitigation actions for which the City of Glasgow is the lead, Howard County will be the lead on the following actions for the City of Glasgow:



1.2.1 Establish formal agreements with appropriate shelter locations through out the County. 1.2.2 Encourage shelters to have alternative power and heating sources. 1.2.3 Encourage local motels to provide their customers with safety information for high wind/tornado events. 2.1.2 Encourage all fire districts in the Planning Area to pass burn ordinances. 3.1.4 Provide backup power to all critical infrastructure (police, fire, hospitals, local government buildings). 3.2.2 Promote the use of NOAA weather radios.

3.2.6 Encourage new mobile home parks to have safe rooms on the premises. 3.2.7 Encourage nursing and residential care facilities to have alternate power and heating sources. 4.0.1 Develop public education hazard awareness program. 4.0.4 Encourage the MO Dept. of Conservation (MDC) to continue their trainings on controlled burns. Details on the Implementation and Administration of these actions is found under Howard County in this section (Section 4.4.2).

Integration of Hazard Mitigation Actions into Current Planning Processes The City of Glasgow has an Emergency Operations Plan, a normal maintenance plan and a 5-year water plan. City officials work closely with the Mid-Missouri Regional Planning Commission on developing infrastructure projects. The actions in the Hazard Mitigation Plan which have not already been incorporated into these plans and planning discussions will be integrated at the appropriate time.


New Franklin

Mitigation actions for New Franklin are shown in the following charts and subsequent list. The actions in the charts are those for which New Franklin itself will take the lead. Those listed at the end of the charts are mitigation actions which the County will lead on behalf of numerous jurisdictions, including New Franklin.





Permits are, and will be, only issued for projects in compliance with the floodplain ordinances.

Lead City AdministratorPartners Building InspectorProjected Cost/Funding Minimal/internal fundsProjected Completion OngoingCriterion for Completion Permits are issued appropriately and all floodplain ordinances are enforced.Hazards Addressed Flood, Levee FailureBenefits (Losses Avoided) PD,LF,EMCC

Action 1.1.2 Complete Community Rating System Application (CRS) of the NFIP.Priority MediumPlan for Implementation & Administration

Evaluate value of completing CRS for the city and begin application if justified.

Lead City AdministratorPartners Mid-Missouri Regional Planning CommissionProjected Cost/Funding Minimal to moderate/operating budgetProjected Completion 2014

Criterion for Completion A decision re: CRS has been made and appropriate action taken, if warranted.

Hazards Addressed Flood, Levee FailureBenefits (Losses Avoided) PD,LF,EMCC

257

Action 1.1.3 Ensure adequate maintenance of drainage systems.Priority Medium to HighPlan for Implementation & Administration

Use sewer jet to blow out culverts on a regular basis.

Lead Public Works DepartmentProjected Cost/Funding Minimal/operating budgetProjected Completion Ongoing

Criterion for Completion This work is being done proactively on a regular basis and not only in response to problems.

Hazards Addressed FloodBenefits (Losses Avoided) I/C, PD, LF, EMCC



This will be updated as needed when notified of required changes by SEMA.

Lead City AdministratorPartners Board of Aldermen, SEMAProjected Cost/Funding Minimal/internal fundsProjected Completion OngoingCriterion for Completion Flood damage prevention ordinance is updated as needed/required.Hazards Addressed Flood, Levee FailureBenefits (Losses Avoided) PD,LF,EMCC


Monitor for any problems around critical infrastructure and mitigate as needed.

Lead Building inspectorPartners City Administrator, Board of Aldermen, SEMA, FEMAProjected Cost/Funding Minimal to significant/Operating budget to grants, loansProjected Completion OngoingCriterion for Completion Critical infrastructure is monitored and protected.

Hazards Addressed Dam Failure, Earthquake, Flood, Levee Failure, Severe Winter Weather, Windstorm, Tornado, Wildfire




Evaluate any problems and look for solutions.

Lead Building inspectorPartners City Administrator, Board of Aldermen, SEMA, FEMAProjected Cost/Funding Minimal to significant/Operating budget to grants, loansProjected Completion OngoingCriterion for Completion Public infrastructure is protected from flooding.Hazards Addressed Dam Failure, Flood, Levee FailureBenefits (Losses Avoided) I/C, PD, LF, EMCC


Priority Medium


Generators are available upon request from the MO Rural Water Association, Howard Co. Emergency Management Agency, and the Howard Co. Fire Protection District.

Lead Chief of Police

Partners MO Rural Water Association, Howard Co. Emergency Management Agency, and the Howard Co. Fire Protection District

Projected Cost/Funding Minimal/operating budgetProjected Completion OngoingCriterion for Completion Backup power is provided as needed.



Action 3.2.5 Build tornado safe rooms.Priority MediumPlan for Implementation & Administration

Include a safe room in plans if ever building a new City Hall or Police Department building.

Lead City AdministratorPartners SEMA/FEMAProjected Cost/Funding Significant/grants, loansProjected Completion OngoingCriterion for Completion Safe room is included in new city building.Hazards Addressed Windstorm, TornadoBenefits (Losses Avoided) I/C, EMCC

259

Action 5.0.1 Encourage developers to build earthquake resistant structures. Priority Medium Plan for Implementation & Administration Encourage this if any new subdivision development is planned.

Lead Building Inspector Partners Mayor, Board of Aldermen Projected Cost/Funding Significant/cost would be rolled into cost of development Projected Completion Ongoing Criterion for Completion New subdivision developments have earthquake resistant structures. Hazards Addressed Earthquake Benefits (Losses Avoided) I/C, PD, LF, EMCC

Action 5.0.2 Retrofit structures to new earthquake safety standards when undergoing

renovations/improvements. Priority Medium Plan for Implementation & Administration Include this if doing any major renovations of city buildings.

Lead Building Inspector Partners Mayor, Board of Aldermen Projected Cost/Funding Significant/grants, loans Projected Completion Ongoing

Criterion for Completion Any major renovation of city buildings includes retrofitting to current earthquake resistant standards.

Hazards Addressed Earthquake Benefits (Losses Avoided) I/C, PD, LF, EMCC

Howard County will be the lead on the following actions for numerous jurisdictions, including the City of New Franklin. Details on the Implementation and Administration of these actions is found under Howard County in this section (Section 4.4.2).


1.1.11 Hold annual training on Local Emergency Operations Plan (LEOP) for County and City officials. 1.2.1 Establish formal agreements with appropriate shelter locations through out the County. 1.2.2 Encourage shelters to have alternative power and heating sources. 2.1.2 Encourage all fire districts in the Planning Area to pass burn ordinances. 3.1.4 Provide backup power to all critical infrastructure (police, fire, hospitals, local government buildings).


3.2.1 Ensure reliable warning system and dissemination of information regarding high wind situations throughout county. 3.2.2 Promote the use of NOAA weather radios. 3.2.6 Encourage new mobile home parks to have safe rooms on the premises. 3.2.7 Encourage nursing and residential care facilities to have alternate power and heating sources. 4.0.1 Develop public education hazard awareness program. 4.0.4 Encourage the MO Dept. of Conservation (MDC) to continue their trainings on controlled burns. 4.0.5 Encourage levee districts to restrict access at public access points to the levees.

Integration of Hazard Mitigation Actions into Current Planning Processes The current planning process in the City of New Franklin is a meeting of the Board of Aldermen in the spring of each year where plans and improvement for the upcoming fiscal year are discussed. The City Administrator will review the hazard mitigation plan annually at this time to ensure that mitigation actions are included in the operating and maintenance budget.

261

New Franklin R-I School District

Mitigation actions for the New Franklin R-I School District are shown in the following charts and subsequent list. The actions in the charts are those for which the School District itself will take the lead. Those listed at the end of the charts are mitigation actions which the County will lead on behalf of numerous jurisdictions, including the New Franklin R-I School District.





This is already in place and is a yearly practice.

Lead School personnel

Projected Cost/Funding Minimal/school budget


Criterion for Completion Yearly check

Hazards Addressed Earthquake

Benefits (Losses Avoided) I/C, PD, EMCC

Action 1.1.8 Continue to meet the Revised Statutes of Missouri concerning earthquake emergency system and earthquake safety in schools.


This is school policy and a yearly practice; a letter is sent out to parents re: this.

Lead School leadership

Partners Local city personnel

Projected Cost/Funding Minimal/internal funds


Criterion for CompletionEarthquake emergency procedure system is in place and maintained yearly with exercises and information for students as required by the Revised Statutes of Missouri.


Benefits (Losses Avoided) I/C, EMCC


Action 1.1.9 Evaluate and maintain school emergency preparedness plans and incorporate into the County Local Emergency Operations Plan (LEOP).


Emergency preparedness plans are evaluated on a regular basis and will be send to the Emergency Action Agency for incorporation into the LEOP.

Lead School administration, city officials, law enforcement

Partners County Emergency Management Directors



Criterion for Completion Plan is evaluated and incorporated into LEOP.





NOAA radios are in place in all schools.


Partners County Emergency Management, local law enforcement



Criterion for Completion NOAA radios are in place and maintained.

Hazards Addressed Windstorm, Tornado


Action 3.2.3 Ensure school buses have two-way radios on board.


Already in place with continued maintenance

Lead School district personnel

Projected Cost/Funding Minimal/Program Funds


Criterion for Completion Radios on board

Hazards Addressed All hazards with the exception of Drought


263

Action 3.2.4 Coordinate with local law enforcement to include scanner frequency in 2-way radios at schools.


School district personnel will contact local law enforcement to program the frequencies needed.


Partners Local law enforcement, EMDs


Projected Completion 2012

Criterion for Completion Law enforcement scanner frequencies are programmed into 2-way radios at schools

Hazards Addressed Earthquake, Flood, Levee Failure, Severe Winter Weather, Windstorm, Tornado, Hailstorm



Maintain awareness for any funding opportunities which would help provide the 25% local match required in FEMA grants

Lead School administration

Partners FEMA, SEMA, other grant programs, local patrons

Projected Cost/Funding Signif/grants and some source of funding for local match


Criterion for Completion Tornado Safe Room is built.



Action 4.0.3 Encourage safe driving through public education campaigns, websites, community events, etc.


Posters in school, seat belt checks, and curriculum in health class related to drinking and drug use.

Lead Staff and administration

Partners Local and state law enforcement



Criterion for Completion Above actions are carried out on an ongoing basis.

Hazards Addressed Flood, Severe Winter Weather



Howard County will be the lead on the following actions for numerous jurisdictions, including the New Franklin R-I School District. Details on the Implementation and Administration of these actions is found under Howard County in this section (Section 4.4.2).


2.1.2 Encourage all fire districts in the Planning Area to pass burn ordinances. 4.0.1 Develop public education hazard awareness program. 4.0.4 Encourage the MO Dept. of Conservation (MDC) to continue their trainings on controlled burns. Integration of Actions into Current Planning Processes New Franklin R-I School District has a Facilities Plan, an Emergency/Crisis Response Plan, and a Missouri School Improvement Plan (MSIP).

The MSIP is a requirement for all public schools in the state; it focuses on the particular area(s) of need in the school. The MSIP planning committee meets at least once a year, sometimes more, to identify problems, instigate possible solutions, and assess the outcomes of past planning. Safety and facilities are always included in the plan.

The school district will consider the information and mitigation actions in the Howard County Hazard Mitigation Plan before finalizing these plans.

265

Howard County R-II School District

Mitigation actions for the Howard County R-II School District are shown in the following charts and subsequent list. The actions in the charts are those for which the School District itself will take the lead. Those listed at the end of the charts are mitigation actions which the County will lead on behalf of numerous jurisdictions, including the Howard County R-II School District.





This is in place in the school district.


Partners Local law enforcemnt

Projected Cost/Funding Minimal/budget


Criterion for Completion Annual drill/education are carried out.





In place - annual drill and week of education information.


Partners Local law enforcement

Projected Cost/Funding Minimal/budget


Criterion for Completion Drill/education information take place each year.




Action 1.1.9 Evaluate and maintain school emergency preparedness plans and incorporate into the County Emergency Operations Plan (EOP).


In place

Lead School staff/local law enforcement

Partners Law enforcement - local and county

Projected Cost/Funding Minimal/local budget


Criterion for Completion Review plan on an ongoing basis; updated plan is incorporated into LEOP.





NOAA radios are in place in all schools.


Partners County Emergency Management, local law enforcement



Criterion for Completion NOAA radios are in place and maintained.



Action 3.2.3 Ensure school buses have two-way radios on board.









267



School district personnel will contact local law enforcement to program the frequencies needed.


Partners Local law enforcement, EMDs


Projected Completion 2012















In place

Lead School staff and local law enforcment

Partners Local police/Highway Patrol



Criterion for Completion Posters, assemblies, seat belt checks




Howard County will be the lead on the following actions for numerous jurisdictions, including the Howard County R-II School District. Details on the Implementation and Administration of these actions is found under Howard County in this section (Section 4.4.2).


2.1.2 Encourage all fire districts in the Planning Area to pass burn ordinances. 4.0.1 Develop public education hazard awareness program. 4.0.4 Encourage the MO Dept. of Conservation (MDC) to continue their trainings on controlled burns.

Integration of Hazard Mitigation Actions into Current Planning Processes Howard County R-II School District has a Crisis Management Plan and a Comprehensive School Improvement Plan. The mitigation actions from this plan will be integrated into both of these existing plans.

269


Mitigation actions for the Fayette R-III School District are shown in the following charts and subsequent list. The actions in the charts are those for which the School District itself will take the lead. Those listed at the end of the charts are mitigation actions which the County will lead on behalf of numerous jurisdictions, including the Fayette R-III School District.





This is covered in the District Crisis Intervention Plan.

Lead District Administration


Projected Cost/Funding Minimal/Local funds

Projected Completion In place now - ongoing

Criterion for Completion In place now





This is included in Crisis Management Plan

Lead District administration/local law enforcement


Projected Cost/Funding Minimal/local funds

Projected Completion This is in place.

Criterion for Completion This is in place.




Action 1.1.9 Evaluate and maintain school emergency preparedness plans and incorporate into the County Emergency Operations Plan (EOP).


In place

Lead School staff/local law enforcement

Partners Law enforcement - local and county



Criterion for Completion Review plan on an ongoing basis; updated plan is incorporated into LEOP.





In house weather radios are in place.

Lead District administration/local law enforcement



Projected Completion This is in place.

Criterion for Completion This is in place.



Action 3.2.3 Ensure school buses have two-way radios on board.Priority HighPlan for Implementation & Administration








271



This is in place.




Projected Completion In place















Posters in high school, safety instruction in classes, seatbelt checks

Lead District Administration/counselors/teachers

Partners County Health Dept., local law enforcement


Projected Completion This is in place and ongoing.

Criterion for Completion Activities take place on a regular basis.




Howard County will be the lead on the following actions for numerous jurisdictions, including the Fayette R-III School District. Details on the Implementation and Administration of these actions is found under Howard County in this section (Section 4.4.2).


2.1.2 Encourage all fire districts in the Planning Area to pass burn ordinances. 4.0.1 Develop public education hazard awareness program. 4.0.4 Encourage the MO Dept. of Conservation (MDC) to continue their trainings on controlled burns.

Integration of Actions into Current Planning Processes Fayette R-III School District has a Crisis Management Plan. The mitigation actions will be integrated into that plan and into any long-range planning for projects requiring significant funding.

273


Mitigation actions for Central Methodist University are shown in the following charts and subsequent list. The actions in the charts are those for which the University itself will take the lead. Those listed at the end of the charts are mitigation actions which the County will lead on behalf of numerous jurisdictions, including Central Methodist University.





Ensure that faculty and staff are aware of earthquake procedures; conduct at least one informational session during the academic year.

Lead Crisis CommitteePartners Fayette Police and Fire DepartmentsProjected Cost/Funding Minimal/operating budgetProjected Completion Ongoing

Criterion for Completion Faculty and staff are aware of procedure and informational session is conducted annually

Hazards Addressed EarthquakeBenefits (Losses Avoided) I/C, PD, EMCC



The Crisis Committee is currently carrying out investigative studies regarding onsite power generation.

Lead Crisis CommitteeProjected Cost/Funding Significant/grantsProjected Completion 2012-2016Criterion for Completion Power generation is available on campus.Hazards Addressed Earthquake, Severe Winter Weather, Windstorm, TornadoBenefits (Losses Avoided) I/C, PD, LF, EMCC



Priority High


A voluntary text messaging and computer banner alert system is available on campus for faculty, staff and students. The Fayette warning siren can also be heard out-of-doors on campus and in some parts of buildings.

Lead Crisis CommitteeProjected Cost/Funding Minimal/operating budgetProjected Completion Ongoing

Criterion for Completion Text messaging and computer banner alert system is kept in place; faculty, staff and students are encouraged to sign up.

Hazards Addressed Windstorm, TornadoBenefits (Losses Avoided) I/C, EMCC


This possibility will be considered during the update of the Facilities Master Plan.

Lead Steering CommitteePartners SEMA/FEMAProjected Cost/Funding Significant/grantsProjected Completion Dependent on Master Plan decisions and availability of fundingCriterion for Completion Tornado safe room is built.Hazards Addressed Windstorm, TornadoBenefits (Losses Avoided) I/C, EMCC

Action 3.2.10 Establish a community storm shelter with heat and backup power.Priority High


The Phillip Recreation Center is a designated Red Cross shelter; backup power will be provided by the Red Cross should the shelter become operational.

Lead Crisis CommitteePartners Red CrossProjected Cost/Funding Minimal/operating budgetProjected Completion OngoingCriterion for Completion Shelter is available when needed.Hazards Addressed Earthquake, Severe Winter Weather, Windstorm, Tornado Benefits (Losses Avoided) I/C, EMCC

275

In addition to the above mitigation actions for which Central Methodist University is the lead, Howard County will be the lead on the following actions for CMU. Details on the Implementation and Administration of these actions is found under Howard County in this section (Section 4.4.2).


2.1.2 Encourage all fire districts in the Planning Area to pass burn ordinances. 4.0.4 Encourage the MO Dept. of Conservation (MDC) to continue their trainings on controlled burns.

In addition to its own hazard awareness program (Action 4.0.1) which focuses on hazards to which CMU is most vulnerable, the university will be covered as a jurisdiction by the hazard awareness program of Howard County:

4.0.1 Develop public education hazard awareness program. The County’s hazard awareness program deals with other hazards for which CMU has a very low vulnerability, such as Drought, Land Subsidence/Sinkhole, and Wildfire.

Integration of Actions into Current Planning Processes The Steering Committee for the Facilities Master Plan is in charge of the majority of planning on campus. In addition, the Crisis Committee does specific planning and evaluation with regard to emergency management issues. All Crisis Committee recommendations go to the University executive team for a decision. The mitigation actions in this plan will be integrated into this process through the appropriate committee.

Action 4.0.1 Develop public education hazard awareness program.Priority High


Hazard awareness is discussed in staff meetings; residence hall directors cover this subject with students; campuswide emails outlining emergency procedures are sent out a beginning of school year; text messaging/computer banner alert system is in place.

Lead Crisis CommitteePartners Student DevelopmentProjected Cost/Funding Minimal/operating budgetProjected Completion OngoingCriterion for Completion Hazard awareness measures continue to be carried out each school year.Hazards Addressed Earthquake, Severe Winter Weather, Windstorm, TornadoBenefits (Losses Avoided) I/C, PD, LF, EMCC


Howard Co. Consolidated Public Water Supply District #1

Mitigation actions for Howard Co. Consolidated Public Water Supply District #1 are shown in the following charts and subsequent list. The actions in the charts are those for which the PWSD itself will take the lead. Those listed at the end of the charts are mitigation actions which the County will lead on behalf of numerous jurisdictions, including Howard Co. Consolidated Public Water Supply District #1.




Priority High


CPWSD#1 is currently connected with the water supplies of the cities of Fayette and New Franklin. The three water providers have joined together to form the Howard Co. Regional Water Commission which is projected to be operational around the year 2016.

Lead CPWSD#1, City of Fayette, City of New FranklinProjected Cost/Funding Minimal (already in place)/operating budgetProjected Completion OngoingCriterion for Completion Cooperative agreements and connections are in place.Hazards Addressed Drought, WildfireBenefits (Losses Avoided) I/C, PD, LF, EMCC

Action 3.1.8 Relocate buildings out of floodplain.Priority High


Secure funds for buyout/demolition of water treatment plant/offices/boardroom and warehouse located in floodplain; contruct new building(s) for offices, boardroom and warehouse out of floodplain.

Lead Board of DirectorsPartners SEMA/FEMAProjected Cost/Funding Significant/grants, loansProjected Completion Dependent on availability of funding

Criterion for Completion Current treatment plant is demolished; offices, boardroom, warehouse are relocated.

Hazards Addressed Dam Failure, Flood, Levee FailureBenefits (Losses Avoided) I/C, PD, LF, EMCC

277

In addition to the above mitigation actions for which Howard Co. Consolidated Public Water Supply District #1 is the lead, Howard County will be the lead on the following actions for the CPWSD#1:




3.2.1 Ensure reliable warning system and dissemination of information regarding high wind situations throughout county. 4.0.1 Develop public education hazard awareness program. 4.0.4 Encourage the MO Dept. of Conservation (MDC) to continue their trainings on controlled burns.

Integration of Actions into Current Planning Processes The district follows the “PWS Model Emergency Operations Plan” issued by the MoDNR and also has its own Emergency Operations Plan.

Long range planning for CPWSD#1 is carried out by the 5-member Board of Directors which meets monthly and prepares the annual budget. The Board of Directors will integrate the actions in this hazard mitigation plan into their planning discussions.


Howard Co. Regional Water Commission

Mitigation actions for the Howard Co. Regional Water Commission are shown in the following charts and subsequent list. The actions in the charts are those for which the Commission itself will take the lead. Those listed at the end of the charts are mitigation actions which the County will lead on behalf of numerous jurisdictions, including the Howard Co. Regional Water Commission.





The commission plans to enter into agreements when the system is operational.

Lead Board PresidentPartners Neighboring water districtsProjected Cost/Funding Minimal/operations budgetProjected Completion OngoingCriterion for Completion Signed agreements and legal counsel approvalHazards Addressed Drought, WildfireBenefits (Losses Avoided) I/C, PD, LF, EMCC


Monitor for any problems around critical infrastructure and mitigate as needed.

Lead Operations ManagerPartners Board of Directors, SEMA, FEMAProjected Cost/Funding Minimal to significant/operations budget to grants, loansProjected Completion OngoingCriterion for Completion Critical infrastructure is monitored and protected.



279

Action 3.1.2 Evaluate access problems to critical infrastructure in the event of a flood.Priority HighPlan for Implementation & Administration

Develop alternative access to infrastructure. Maintain access roads.

Lead Operations ManagerPartners Board of Directors, MECO EngineeringProjected Cost/Funding Minimal/operations budgetProjected Completion OngoingCriterion for Completion Alternative access is available and monitored and protected.Hazards Addressed Dam Failure, Flood, Levee Failure, Severe Winter WeatherBenefits (Losses Avoided) I/C, PD, LF, EMCC


Evaluate any problems and look for solutions.

Lead Operations ManagerPartners Board of Directors, SEMA, FEMAProjected Cost/Funding Minimal to significant/operations budget to grants, loansProjected Completion OngoingCriterion for Completion Public infrastructure is protected from flooding.Hazards Addressed Dam Failure, Flood, Levee FailureBenefits (Losses Avoided) I/C, PD, LF, EMCC

Action 3.1.5 Remove vegetation and combustible materials around critical infrastructure. Priority HighPlan for Implementation & Administration

This will be done routinely as part of general maintenance.

Lead Operations ManagerProjected Cost/Funding Minimal/operations budgetProjected Completion OngoingCriterion for Completion Area of critical infrastructure is free of combustible materials.Hazards Addressed Earthquake, Severe Winter Weather, Windstorm, Tornado, WildfireBenefits (Losses Avoided) I/C, PD, LF, EMCC

Action 5.0.1 Encourage developers to build earthquake resistant structures.Priority MediumPlan for Implementation & Administration

The latest earthquake safety standards will be used in building design and construction.

Lead Board of DirectorsPartners MECO Engineering

Projected Cost/Funding Minimal to significant (undetermined at this time)/ operations budget to grants/loans

Projected Completion 2015Criterion for Completion Buildings are constructed to earthquake safety standards.Hazards Addressed EarthquakeBenefits (Losses Avoided) I/C, PD, LF, EMCC


In addition to the above mitigation actions for which Howard Co. Consolidated Public Water Supply District #1 is the lead, Howard County will be the lead on the following actions for the CPWSD#1:




3.2.1 Ensure reliable warning system and dissemination of information regarding high wind situations throughout county. 4.0.1 Develop public education hazard awareness program. 4.0.4 Encourage the MO Dept. of Conservation (MDC) to continue their trainings on controlled burns.

Integration of Actions into Current Planning Processes The Board of Directors meets monthly and has close contact and communication with the engineer on the project, legal counsel, USDA, MoDNR and the Mid-MO Regional Planning Commission. The Board of Directors will reference the hazard mitigation actions in this plan continually during the planning, development and operational stages of the water supply system.

281

4.5 Funding Sources There are numerous ways which local mitigation projects can be funded.

Local Funds These funds come predominantly from property and sales tax revenues; they are generally allocated directly to school, public works, and other essential government functions. While there may be little room for mitigation funding within this revenue stream, mitigation activities frequently will be a part of essential government functions. For example, money that is allocated for a new school can fund stronger than normal roofs to help the school in the event of a tornado.

Non-Governmental Funds Another potential source of revenue for local mitigation efforts are contributions of non-governmental organizations such as churches, charities, community relief funds, the Red Cross, hospitals, businesses, and nonprofit organizations. A variety of these local organizations can be tapped to help carry out local hazard mitigation initiatives.

Federal Funds The bulk of federal funding for mitigation is available through the FEMA Mitigation Grants Programs; another possible funding source is Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) after a Presidential Disaster Declaration. FEMA Mitigation Grant Programs - Jurisdictions which have adopted a FEMA approved Hazard Mitigation Plan are eligible for hazard mitigation funding through FEMA grant programs. The following five FEMA grant programs currently provide hazard mitigation funding:

• Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) • Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PDM) • Flood Mitigation Assistance (FMA) • Repetitive Flood Claims (RFC) • Severe Repetitive Loss (SRL)

Funding Cycle

HMGP is a mitigation program funded after a Presidential Disaster Declaration.

PDM, FMA, RFC, SRL are programs funded through a yearly appropriation from Congress. The approximate grant cycle for these programs is:

• June/July – FEMA publishes the “Unified Guidance” for these grant programs

• Notices of Interest (NOIs) for possible mitigation projects are due at SEMA as soon as possible

• Mid-October – Grant applications are due at SEMA

• December – SEMA sends applications to FEMA


Mitigation activities which are eligible for funding vary between the programs (see Figure 4.5.1). All potential projects must match the stated goals and objectives of the Howard County Hazard Mitigation Plan and the State of Missouri Hazard Mitigation Plan.

Application and Cost Share Requirements:

The application process for the FEMA Mitigation Grant Programs includes a Benefit Cost Analysis (BCA). A potential project must have a Benefit Cost Ratio of at least 1.0 to be considered for funding; a ratio of 1.0 indicates at least $1 benefit for each $1 spent on the project. A BCA is the first step in assessing if a project has the potential to be funded. The BCA for a potential project is run on FEMA’s BCA Software; planners at the Mid-MO RPC are trained on this software. Application for most of the mitigation grant programs must be made through eGrants, FEMA’s web-based, electronic grants management system. HMGP has a paper application. Cost share requirements and the application format for these five programs are shown in Figure 4.5.2. Contributions of cash, in-kind services or materials, or any combination thereof, may be accepted as part of the non-Federal cost share. For FMA, not more than one half of the non-Federal contribution may be provided from in-kind contributions.

Figure 4.5.1

Activity HMGP PDM FMA RFC SRL1. Mitigation Projects X X X X X

Property Acquisition and Structure Demolition or Relocation X X X X X

Structure Elevation X X X X X

Mitigation Reconstruction X

Dry Floodproofing of Historic Residential Structures X X X X X

Dry Floodproofing of Non-residential Structures X X X X

Minor Localized Flood Reduction Projects X X X X X

Structural Retrofitting of Existing Buildings X X

Non-structural Retrofitting of Existing Buildings and Facilities X X

Safe Room Construction X X

Infrastructure Retrofit X X

Soil Stabilization X X

Wildfire Mitigation X X

Post-disaster Code Enforcement X

5% Initiative Projects X

2. Hazard Mitigation Planning X X X

3. Management Costs X X X X X

Eligible Activities for FEMA Mitigation Grant Programs

Source: www.fema.gov/library/viewRecord.do?id=3648

283

Details of each program are discussed below. Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) The Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) was created in November 1988 through Section 404 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act. The HMGP assists states and local communities in implementing long-term mitigation measures following a Presidential disaster declaration. After a major disaster, communities may be able to identify additional areas where mitigation can help prevent losses in the future. HMGP funding is allocated using a “sliding scale” formula based on the percentage of the funds spent on Public and Individual Assistance programs for each Presidential Disaster Declaration. Due to the Enhanced Missouri State Hazard Mitigation Plan, the State of Missouri receives 20% of the federal total of a Disaster Declaration as additional mitigation funds through the HMGP.

Federal/Local Match Notes Application

HMGP 75/25 PaperPDM 75/25 e-grants

Qualification Requirements for "small impoverished":• A community of 3,000 or fewer individuals identified by the State as a rural community that is not a remote area within the corporate boundaries of a larger city• An average per capita annual income not exceeding 80 percent of the national per capita income, based on best available data. (For current information: http://www.bea.gov)• A local unemployment rate exceeding by 1 percentage point or more the most recently reported, average yearly national unemployment rate. (For current information: http://www.bls.gov/eag/eag.us.htm)• Meet other criteria required by the State/Tribe/Territory in which the community is located

FMA 75/25 e-grantsFMA

(Severe Repetitive Loss

Property)

90/10In Missouri, this cost share is less than the usual 75/25 because the State has an approved “Enhanced” State Mitigation Plan.

e-grants

RFC 100/0 RFC is only available to applicants who cannot meet the cost share requirement of FMA.

e-grants

SRL 90/10In Missouri, this cost share is less than the usual 75/25 because the State has an approved “Enhanced” State Mitigation Plan.

e-grants

Figure 4.5.2FEMA Mitigation Grant Programs

Grant Program

Cost Share

PDM (Small

Impoverished Community)

90/10 e-grants


In Missouri, the mitigation funds are initially awarded to projects in the counties of the Disaster Declaration; applications are opened up statewide if funds remain. The HMGP can be used to fund projects to protect either public or private property; the proposed projects must fit within the state and local government's overall mitigation strategy for the disaster area, and comply with program guidelines. Eligibility for funding under the HMGP is limited to state and local governments, certain private nonprofit organizations or institutions that serve a public function, Indian tribes and authorized tribal organizations. Applicants work through their state which is responsible for setting priorities for funding and administering the program. More information on this program is available at: fema.gov/government/grant/hmgp/ Pre-Disaster Mitigation Program (PDM) With the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000, Congress approved the creation of a national program to provide a funding mechanism that is not dependent on a Presidential Disaster Declaration. The Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PDM) Program provides funding for cost-effective hazard mitigation activities that complement a comprehensive mitigation program, and reduce injuries, loss of life, and damage and destruction of property. The PDM grant funds are provided to the state which then provides sub-grants to local governments for eligible mitigation activities. More information on this program is available at: fema.gov/government/grant/pdm/ Flood Mitigation Assistance Program (FMA) FMA was created as part of the National Flood Insurance Reform Act of 1994 (42 U.S.C. 4101) with the goal of reducing or eliminating claims under the NFIP. Applicants must be participants in good standing in NFIP and properties to be mitigated must have flood insurance. States administer the FMA program and are responsible for selecting projects for funding from the applicants submitted by all communities within the state. The state forwards selected applications to FEMA for an eligibility determination. Although individuals cannot apply directly for FMA funds, their local government may submit an application on their behalf. FMA funding for the state depends on the number of repetitive losses in the state. The frequency of flooding in Missouri in recent years, coupled with the losses incurred, has caused Missouri’s funding to rise. This is a good program for smaller projects like low water crossings, according to Sheila Huddleston, Missouri State Hazard Mitigation Officer. For FMA, not more than one half of the non-Federal may be provided from in-kind contributions. More information on this program is available at: fema.gov/government/grant/fma/

Repetitive Flood Claims Grant Program (RFC)

285

The Repetitive Flood Claims (RFC) grant program was authorized in 1968 to assist States and communities in reducing flood damages to insured properties that have had one or more claims to the NFIP.

In order to apply for funding through this 100% Federal share program, a community must show that it can’t meet FMA requirements due to lack of cost share match or capacity to manage the activities. This doesn’t necessarily mean it needs to be a low-income community. A St. Louis area community was awarded a RFC grant on the basis that it couldn’t meet FMA requirements because it was in the middle of the budget cycle.

More information on this program is available at: fema.gov/government/grant/rfc/ Severe Repetitive Loss Grant Program (SRL) The Severe Repetitive Loss (SRL) grant program was authorized in 2004 to provide funding to reduce or eliminate the long-term risk of flood damage to severe repetitive loss (SRL) properties insured under the NFIP. A SRL property is defined as a residential property that is covered under an NFIP flood insurance policy and:

(a) Has at least four NFIP claim payments (including building and contents) over $5,000 each, and the cumulative amount of such claims payments exceeds $20,000; or

(b) For which at least two separate claims payments (building payments only) have been made with the cumulative amount of the building portion of such claims exceeding the market value of the building.

For both (a) and (b) above, at least two of the referenced claims must have occurred within any ten-year period, and must be greater than 10 days apart. There are very specific requirements for this grant program; requirements need to be studied carefully before making application. For buyouts under SRL, a property must be on FEMA’s validated SRL list to be eligible. Property owner consultations are required before submitting an application. More information on this program is available at: fema.gov/government/grant/srl/ Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program The objective of the CDBG program is to assist communities in rehabilitating substandard dwelling structures and to expand economic opportunities, primarily for low-to-moderate-income families. After a Presidential Disaster Declaration CDBG funds may be used for long-term needs such as acquisition, reconstruction, and redevelopment of disaster-affected areas. There is no low-to-moderate income requirement after a Presidential Disaster Declaration.


THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

287

Section 5: Plan Maintenance Process


[The plan maintenance process shall include a] section describing the method and schedule of monitoring, evaluating, and updating the mitigation plan within a five-year cycle.

5.1 Plan Monitoring and Evaluation The Howard County Hazard Mitigation Plan will be monitored and evaluated on an annual basis, beginning in the year following approval and adoption. This means there will be four monitoring/evaluation periods. The last monitoring and evaluation period will lead into the 5-year update process. The monitoring and evaluation with be facilitated through the Mid-MO Regional Planning Commission. It will consist of the following:

1. Surveys will be sent to all participating jurisdictions for information including: progress on the mitigation strategy outlined in the plan and any significant changes in the jurisdiction which should be noted. A sample survey is shown in Figure 5.1.1.

2. Survey information will be collated by planners at the Mid-MO RPC.

3. Meeting(s) of the Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee will be convened by the Mid-

MO RPC to discuss survey feedback, any changes in hazard risks in the county, and any other pertinent information.

4. An annual report will be written and included as an addendum to the current plan.


Figure 5.1.1 Participating Jurisdiction Survey Annual Review of Howard Co. Hazard Mitigation Plan

Jurisdiction Name

Name of Representative Completing Survey

Position

Phone Email Please review the attached documents indicating the 5-year mitigation strategy and future development plans for your jurisdiction which are outlined in the Howard Co. Hazard Mitigation Plan. Please describe progress made on any of the actions in the past year. (It will be assumed that actions which were already in place and are ongoing are still taking place; please indicate if, for some reason, this is not accurate.)

Are there any new development plans in your jurisdiction which may relate to hazard mitigation?

Are there any other changes in your jurisdiction which should be noted in the annual addendum to the Howard Co. Hazard Mitigation Plan? If so, please describe.

289

5.2 Plan Updating FEMA requires that a local hazard mitigation plan, such as the Howard County Hazard Mitigation Plan, be updated and reapproved by FEMA every five years. This five year period, until the next expiration date, is measured from FEMA’s acceptance of the first adoption resolutions submitted for an approved plan. Assuming approval and adoption of the current plan sometime in 2012, the Howard County Hazard Mitigation Plan will need to be updated and reapproved by FEMA in 2017. A proposed timeline for the update is shown in Figure 5.2.1.

Figure 5.2.1 Proposed Timeline for 5-year Update of Hazard Mitigation Plan

KEY: PED = Plan Expiration Date Activity Timeline to Begin Responsible Party

Preliminary update of data Yearly during maintenance/review of plan Mid-MO RPC

Prepare cost estimates for update of plan and submit to SEMA PED - 14 months Mid-MO RPC

Receive Memorandum of Agreement from SEMA for update PED - 12 months SEMA

Review data for any additional updates PED - 12 months Mid-MO RPC Contact participating jurisdictions re: representation on Planning Committee for update of plan

PED - 12 months Mid-MO RPC

Meetings to conduct preliminary review and update of plan PED - 11 months Planning Committee

Survey to participating jurisdictions re: capabilities, vulnerable assets, future development

PED - 11 months Mid-MO RPC

Public Meeting #1 for comment and input on draft update PED - 9 months Mid-MO RPC/Planning

Committee Draft of update due at SEMA PED - 8 months Mid-MO RPC Participating jurisdictions hold meetings to discuss plan and mitigation actions PED - 8 months Participating Jurisdictions

Public Meeting #2 for comment and input on final update PED - 6 months Mid-MO RPC/Planning

Committee Final plan due at SEMA for review before submission to FEMA PED - 5 months Mid-MO RPC

Plan reviewed by SEMA PED - 4 months SEMA Required changes/additions made to plan PED - 4 months Mid-MO RPC Plan submitted to FEMA PED - 3 months SEMA Participating jurisdictions adopt approved plan PED - 2 months Participating Jurisdictions


The ongoing yearly maintenance and evaluation of the plan, as described previously, will be of great value when undertaking the five year update. Continuity of personnel on the Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee throughout the five year process would be highly beneficial in taking mitigation planning to the next level. The following data gaps in the current plan should be examined during the 2016 update process: Dam Failure Inundation mapping of the two state regulated high hazards dams in the county should be completed before 2016; depending on the progress and funding of the inundation mapping project, there is a chance that the one state regulated significant hazard dam would also be mapped. Emergency Action Plans (EAPs) may have been written for some, or all, of the regulated dams in the county by the time of the next update. The following sites may be helpful in obtaining current information on the progress of this work: DNR’s Dam Safety Program (dnr.mo.gov/env/wrc/damsft/damsfthp.htm) and DamSafetyAction.org. 5.3 Public Participation in Plan Maintenance


[The plan maintenance process shall include a] discussion on how the community will continue public participation in the plan maintenance process.

The Howard County Hazard Mitigation plan will remain posted on the website of the Mid-Missouri Regional Planning Commission (http://mmrpc.org/reports-library/hazard-mitigation-reports/) for public review and comment. Either the plan itself or links to the plan will also be posted on as many websites of participating jurisdictions as possible. The Howard County Emergency Management Directors will facilitate presenting the entire plan to interested groups within the county including:

• Health Department Personnel • City Fire and Rural Fire Protection Districts • City Elected Officials/Administrators • Educational Personnel • Local Emergency Planning Committees • Local Police/Sheriff Department Personnel • Howard County Commissioners/Directors

In addition, all Planning Committee meetings for the review and maintenance of the plan will be open to the public, announced on the Mid-MO RPC website and posted as required by Missouri’s Sunshine Law.

http://www.dnr.mo.gov/env/wrc/damsft/damsfthp.htm�

http://www.damsafetyaction.org/�

291

Appendix A - Adoption Resolutions

THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK

Howard County Hazard Mitigation Plan (2012)

NEW FRANKLIN R-I SCHOOL DISTRICT 412 West Broadway

New Franklin, MO 65274 www.nfranklin.k12.mo.us

David A. Haggard Benji Dorson Malissa Pistel Superintendent Secondary Principal Elementary Principal Phone: 660-848-2141 Phone: 660-848-2314 Phone: 660-848-2112 Fax: 660-848-2226 Fax: 660-848-3071 Fax: 660-848-3061

Fully Accredited by the Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education An Equal Opportunity Employer

May 29, 2012 To Whom It May Concern: The Howard County Hazard Mitigation Plan is a multi-jurisdictional hazard mitigation plan prepared in accordance with FEMA requirements as 44 C.F.R. 2016. The New Franklin R-1 School District has participated in the preparation and review of the Howard County Hazard Mitigation Plan and is pleased to have been a part of this important process. The New Franklin R-1 School District adopts the Howard County Hazard Mitigation Plan as this jurisdiction’s Hazard Mitigation Plan and resolves to execute the action in the Plan. Respectfully,

David A. Haggard, Ed. D. Superintendent of Schools

THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK

Howard County Hazard Mitigation Plan (2012)

303

Appendix B - Meeting Announcements and Agendas


General Planning Meeting #1


Public Presentation #1 and Public School District Meetings

Public Presentation #1


Public School District Meeting

317

Public Presentation #2

319

Appendix C - Planning Meeting Participants


General Planning Meeting #1 - March 9, 2011

Agenda: Overview of history and benefits of hazard mitigation planning/plans, hazard mitigation vs. emergency preparedness/response, requirements for participating jurisdictions, outline of proposed planning process

Name Representing Position

Howard McMillan Howard Co. Commissioner Bill John Howard Co. EMA EMD Bryan Kunze Howard Co. EMA EMD Kristie Griffitts Howard Co. Public Health Dept. RN Sheila Wallace Howard Co. Public Health Dept. Administration/RN Glenn Spotts Armstrong Fire Protection District Vice President Jeff Oswald Fayette Police Dept. Police Chief David Kunze Howard Co. Fire Protection District Board President Randy Kircher Bonne Femme Levee District President Kendall Kircher Howard Co. Levee District #4 President Bob Cramer City of Armstrong President of Park Board Robin Triplett City of Fayette City Administrator Marvin Hilgedick City of Fayette Electrical Line Superintendent David Ford Fayette Police Dept. Sergeant Jeff Stockhorst Fayette Street Dept. Street Superintendent Hope Smith Fayette Water Plant Water Operator Jim Dobbins Glasgow Special Road District Grader operator W. Michael Monnig Glasgow Special Road District Commissioner Jill Wiseman Fayette R-III Schools Curr. Director David Haggard New Franklin R-1 Schools Superintendent Susan Galeota Mid-MO RPC Planner

General Planning Meeting #2 - March 23, 2011

Agenda: Measures of Probability and Severity; hazard profiles/mitigation actions - Levee Failure, Dam Failure


Bryan Kunze Howard Co. EMA EMD Sherri Beeler Howard County 911 Director Kendall Kircher Howard Co. Levee District #4 President David Kunze Howard Co. Fire Protection District Board President Susan Galeota Mid-MO RPC Planner

321

General Planning Meeting #3 - April 13, 2011

Agenda: Hazard profiles/mitigation actions - Flooding, Wildfire

Name Representing Position Bill John Howard Co. EMA EMD Bryan Kunze Howard Co. EMA EMD Fred Stroupe City of Armstrong Mayor Bob Cramer City of Armstrong President of Park Board Robin Triplett City of Fayette City Administrator David Kunze Howard Co. Fire Protection District Board President Ted Townlain New Franklin Station 2 Volunteer Tim Hill New Franklin Station 2 Volunteer Susan Galeota Mid-MO RPC Planner

General Planning Meeting #4 - April 26, 2011

Agenda: Hazard profiles/mitigation actions - Tornado, Windstorm, Hailstorm, Severe Winter Weather Name Representing Position Sherri Beeler Howard County 911 Director Gary Dillon Howard County Roads & Bridges Fred Stroupe City of Armstrong Mayor Bob Cramer City of Armstrong President of Park Board Marvin Hilgedick City of Fayette Electrical Line Superintendent Jeff Stockhorst Fayette Street Dept. Street Superintendent Ron Anderson Armstrong Fire Protection District President Rosemarie Adams Central Methodist University Grants Specialist Susan Galeota Mid-MO RPC Planner


General Planning Meeting #5 - May 18, 2011

Agenda: Hazard profiles/mitigation actions - Earthquake, Land Subsidence/Sinkholes, Drought, Extreme Heat Name Representing Position

Bryan Kunze Howard Co. EMA EMD C. Frank Frevert New Franklin Mayor Chad Gaines Central Methodist University Vice President, Crisis Manager Connie Bowman Howard County Administrative Asst. David Wells New Franklin Police Dept. Chief of Police

Frank Flashpohler Howard Co. Ambulance/Howard Co. Coroner Ambulance Director

Fred Stroupe City of Armstrong Mayor Gary Dillon Howard County Roads & Bridges Jan Addison City of Fayette Mayor Jay Kaiser Howard Co. 911 Dispatcher Jeff Oswald Fayette Police/Fayette Fire Dept. Police Chief/Fire Volunteer Jessica Shannon HoCo 911 Dispatch Jimmie Polson Howard Co. Roads & Bridges Kristie Griffitts Howard Co. Public Health Dept. RN Kyle Conrow Fayette Fire Department Chief Lindsey Raymore Howard Co. 911 Dispatcher Lisa Wyatt Family Support Eligibility Specialist Lowell Eaton Howard Co. Presiding Commissioner Robin Triplett City of Fayette City Administrator Sheila Wallace Howard Co. Public Health Dept. RN/Administrator Sherri Beeler Howard County 911 Director

Susan Phillips Howard Co. Public Health Dept.

Environmental Public Health Specialist

Susie Nagel Family Support Eligibility Specialist-Supervisor I Tracy Malone Howard Co. Central Dispatcher Trisha Smith Howard Co. 911 Dispatcher Susan Galeota Mid-MO RPC Planner

323

Public Presentation #1 - August 8, 2011

Agenda: History/benefits of the plan, status of update draft, questions/comments


Lowell Eaton Howard Co. Presiding Commissioner D.L. Dimond City of Fayette City Council Howard McMillan Howard Co. Commissioner Jo Ann Sumner Howard Co. Econ. Dev. Corp. Director Gary Dillon Howard County Roads & Bridges Roads & Bridges Rosemarie Adams Central Methodist University Grants Specialist Derry Wiswall Central Methodist University Director of Plant Operations Paul Lehman Self Citizen Susan Galeota Mid-MO RPC Planner

School District Meeting - August 8, 2011

Agenda: Participating Jurisdiction requirements; hazards threatening the schools; mitigation actions; prioritization, implementation and administration of actions

Name Representing Position Bill John Howard Co. EMA EMD Bryan Kunze Howard Co. EMA EMD David Haggard New Franklin R-1 Schools Superintendent James F. Judd Fayette R-III Schools Superintendent Mike Reynolds Howard Co. R-II Schools Superintendent Susan Galeota Mid-MO RPC Planner

Public Presentation #1 - August 8, 2011

Agenda: Power Point presentation of plan followed by question and comment period

Name Representing Position Bryan Kunze Howard Co. EMA EMD Richard Conrow Howard County Commissioner Fred Stroupe City of Armstrong Mayor Robin Triplett City of Fayette City Administrator Robert Triplett Self Citizen James F. Judd Fayette R-III Schools Superintendent David Kunze Howard Co. Fire Protection District Board President Susan Galeota Mid-MO RPC Planner


Appendix D - Jurisdictional Value Statements

325

City of Fayette – Buildings and Contents

City of Fayette Insured Replacement Value

Prem. #

Bldg. # Building Description Building Contents

1 1 City Hall 530,486 17,000 2 1 Fuel Storage Tanks 4,785 53,700 2 2 Electric Plant 173,114 5,386,500 2 3 Water Treatment Plant 1,323,495 387,516 2 4 New Water Treatment Plant 207,738 - 2 5 Garage and Storage Building 136,678 39,100 3 1 Swimming Pool 296,513 -

4 1 City Lagoon - Lab and Testing Station 193,479 36,700

4 2 City Lagoon - Generator 58,000 - 4 3 City Lagoon - Headworks Building 674,200 - 4 4 City Lagoon - UV Building 145,000 - 4 5 City Lagoon - Blower Building 162,000 -

4 6 City Lagoon - Cover for WWT Lagoon 525,000 -

5 1 Water Tower - Lucky Street 1,136,900 - 6 1 City Library 457,840 - 7 1 Water Tower - Givens Road 456,525 - 8 1 Cabinet Shop 146,300 - 9 1 Vaccine Laboratory 97,986 - 10 1 Garage - S. Church 426,964 - 11 1 Spec Building 576,585 - 12 1 Fayette City Park - Shelter House 45,841 - 12 2 Fayette City Park - Shelter House 17,029 - 12 3 Fayette City Park - Restroom 15,315 - 13 1 Liberty Park - Shelter House 22,919 - 13 2 Liberty Park - Shelter House 5,783 - 13 3 Liberty Park - Restroom 17,457 - 14 1 D.C. Rogers Lake - Shelter House 6,319 - 14 2 D.C. Rogers Lake - Shelter House 5,998 - 14 3 D.C. Rogers Lake - Shelter House 5,783 - 14 4 D.C. Rogers Lake - Restroom 8,354 - 14 5 D.C. Rogers Lake - Restroom 8,354 - 15 1 Ricketts Lake - Shelter House 5,569 - 16 1 Courthouse Substation 6,690 - 17 1 CMU Substation 4,514 - 18 1 Hospital Substation 6,690 - 18 2 Hospital Substation 6,690 - 19 1 Taylor Mart Substation 5,048 -


City of Fayette Insured Replacement Value

Prem. #

Bldg. # Building Description Building Contents

20 1 Bank Substation 7,263 - 21 1 McDonald's Substation 6,690 - 22 1 Fayette Medical Clinic Substation 4,514 - 23 1 Fastland Taco Bell Substation 4,514 - 24 1 Fayette High School Substation 9,554 - 25 1 Linn Memorial Methodist Substation 4,514 - 26 1 CMU Woodward Hall Substation 6,690 - 26 2 CMU McMurry Hall Substation 9,554 - 26 3 CMU McMurry Hall Substation 7,263 - 26 4 CMU College Kitchen Substation 9,104 - 27 1 Ashbury Heights Substation 5,108 - 28 1 C & R Market Substation 7,691 - 29 1 CMU Student Union Substation 7,100 - 30 1 Howard County Jail Substation 3,090 - 31 1 Industrial Building Substation 13,182 - 32 1 Division of FS/Head Start Substation 3,086 - 33 1 Power Plant & Water Plant 7,263 - 35 1 Carbon Building 27,389 - 36 1 Potassium Pump House Building 3,000 - 37 1 Single Family Dwelling 30,000 - 38 1 CMU Football Field Substation 8,000 - 39 1 CMU Softball Field Substation 8,000 - Total 8,116,510 5,920,516

Source: City of Fayette Insurance Statement

327

City of Glasgow – Buildings and Business Personal Property

329

City of New Franklin – Property


City of New Franklin – Vehicles and Road Equipment

331

Central Methodist University – Vehicle and Property Statements

333

Appendix E - Vulnerability Chart with Measures of Probability and Severity


Appendix E

Plan

ning

Are

a

How

ard

Co.

(u

ninc

orp.

)

Arm

stro

ng

Faye

tte

Gla

sgow

New

Fra

nklin

New

Fra

nklin

R-I

S. D

.

How

ard

Co.

R-II

S.

D.

Faye

tte R

-III S

.D.

Cen

tral

Met

hodi

st

Uni

v.

CPW

SD #

1

H.C

. Reg

. Wat

er

Com

mis

sion

P L L na L na na na na na na L naS L L na L na na na na na na L naV L L na L na na na na na na L naP H H L L L L L L L L na naS M M L L L L L L L L na naV M M L L L L L L L L na naP L-M L-M L-M L-M L-M L-M L-M L-M L-M L-M L-M L-MS M-H M-H M-H M-H M-H M-H M-H M-H M-H M-H M-H M-HV M M M M M M M M M M M MP H H H H H H H H H H H HS L L L L L L L L L L L LV M M M M M M M M M M M MP H H H H H H H H H H H HS M M L M H H L L M L H HV H H M H H H M M H M H HP L L L L L L L L L L L LS L L L L L L L L L L L LV L L L L L L L L L L L LP M M na na na M na na na na M MS H H na na na H na na na na H HV H H na na na H na na na na H H*P H H H H H H H H H H H HS L L L L L L L L L L L LV M M M M M M M M M M L LP M-H M-H L M-H L M-H L L L L L LS M M L M L M L L L L L LV M/H M/H L M/H L M/H L L L L L LP H H H H H H H H H H H HS L L L L L L L L L L L LV M M M M M M M M M M L LP M M M M M M M M M M M MS H H H H H H H H H H H HV H H H H H H H H H H H HP H H H H H H H H H H H HS M M M M M M M M M M L LV H H H H H H H H H H L L

* Vulnerability rating based on location of future infrastructure.

Probability, Severity, and Vulnerability Worksheet

Wildfire

Windstorm

Tornado

Hailstorm

Dam Failure

Flood

Land Subsidence/

Sinkhole

Earthquake

Extreme Heat

Drought

Levee Failure

Severe Winter Weather

335

Appendix F - Earthquake National Exercise Invitation

337

Appendix G Fire District Burning Ordinances


Armstrong Fire Protection District


Howard County Fire Protection District


Appendix H - Priority Scale Development

343


STA

PLEE

To

tal

Ben

efit

Cos

t

B/C

Tot

al

TOTA

L

PRIO

RIT

Y

Half prob NO, half maybe YES on STAPLEE, Low Benefit, High cost 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 10 2 -5 -3 7 L

Half prob NO, half maybe YES on STAPLEE, Mod Benefit, Mod cost 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 10 5 -3 2 12 L

Half prob NO, half maybe YES on STAPLEE, High Benefit, Little cost 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 10 8 -1 7 17 M All maybe YES on STAPLEE, Low Benefit, High cost 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 14 2 -5 -3 11 L All maybe YES on STAPLEE, Moderate Benefit, Moderate cost 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 14 5 -3 2 16 M All maybe YES on STAPLEE, High Benefit, Little cost 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 14 8 -1 7 21 H Half maybe YES, half def YES on STAPLEE, Low Benefit, High cost 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 17 2 -5 -3 14 M Half maybe YES, half def YES on STAPLEE, Mod Benefit, Mod cost 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 17 5 -3 2 19 M Half maybe YES, half def YES on STAPLEE, High Benefit, Little cost 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 17 8 -1 7 24 H

All def YES on STAPLEE, Low Benefit, High cost 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 21 2 -5 -3 18 M

All def YES on STAPLEE, Moderate Benefit, Moderate cost 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 21 5 -3 2 23 H All def YES on STAPLEE, High Benefit, Little cost 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 21 8 -1 7 28 H Total Score 20-28 = High Priority Total Score 14-19 = Medium Priority Total Score 13 and below = Low Priority


Addendum: Yearly Monitoring and Evaluation of Plan

The Howard County Hazard Mitigation Plan received final approval from FEMA on July 18, 2012. A process was laid out in the plan for yearly monitoring and evaluation as required by FEMA guidelines. The initial review took place beginning in July 2013. Summaries of the yearly reviews follow. 2013 Monitoring and Evaluation Overview of Hazard Events in Howard County A search was done on the NOAA database for hazard events which had occurred after the original plan was written. (The plan, as approved by FEMA, had covered hazard events through Aug. 30, 2011; data was available on the NOAA database through April 30, 2013 at the time of the search.) The major hazardous weather events during this period were the extreme drought and extreme heat which affected much of the country in the summer of 2012 and three major winter storms which affected the region in February and March 2013. Drought and Extreme Heat The Governor issued an Executive Order on June 29, 2012 declaring a State of Emergency “in response to the severe heat, dry conditions and fire risks affecting the State of Missouri”. The State of Emergency was later extended until October 1. This State of Emergency activated the Missouri State Emergency Operations Plan and authorized the use of state agencies to provide assistance, as needed, to those affected by heat and drought. The USDA declared the all 114 counties of Missouri and the City of St. Louis primary agricultural disaster areas on July 17, 2012. This designation permitted assistance from the USDA’s Farm Service Agency to farmers affected by the drought. Severe Winter Weather

A snowstorm in late February resulted in power being lost throughout the County. In some locations, power was restored in a matter of hours; in others, power was out for up to 5 or 6 days. Howard County government offices were closed for a day and schools were closed for two days.

This snowstorm carried very heavy wet snow. The snow caused the collapse of the roofs of two buildings on the square in the City of Fayette; no one was injured in the collapse. According to a Fayette City Council report, city crews put in 176 hours of overtime in responding to the two February snowstorms which occurred less than two weeks apart. This overtime cost the City $3,800 and the rental of an extra truck to haul away snow cost $630.

345

The details of the events, with descriptions for the major events, are shown in the following chart. Events listed as Howard (Zone) indicate an event impacting a larger area than just Howard County.

Storm Events in Howard County 9/1/2011 - 4/30/2013

Location Date Type Magnitude Description Hilldale 1/22/2012 Hail 0.88 in. Howard (Zone) 2/13/2012 Winter

Weather

Fayette 6/16/2012 Thunderstorm Wind 52 kts. EG Numerous reports of damaging winds and hail.

Howard (Zone) 7/1/2012 Drought

Dry conditions, which started in the spring, intensified during the month of July with D3 extreme drought conditions across the county. Fayette reported 1.19 inches of rain for the month. New Franklin reported 1.14 inches of rain for the month.

Howard (Zone) 7/18/2012 Excessive

Heat

An unusually strong upper level ridge of high pressure, dominated the central United States with very hot and dry conditions, from July 18th through 25th 2012. Temperatures topped out from 100 to 110 degrees. High temperatures in the 100 to 110 degree range, combined with humidity, produced afternoon and early evening heat indices in the 100 to 110 degree range. Overnight low temperatures were in the 70s to lower 80s.


Below normal precipitation continued through August, with D4 extreme drought conditions across the county. Albany reported 0.57 inches of rain for the month.


The remnants of Hurricane Isaac, brought some much needed relief to drought conditions across the area, on the 1st of September. This helped improve drought conditions from D4 to D3. Fayette measured 5.45 inches of rain.

Hilldale 9/7/2012 Hail 1.50 in. A cold front moved across Missouri, during the afternoon hours of September 7, 2012.|Severe thunderstorms with large hail were reported across Cooper and Howard Counties.

North Boonville 9/7/2012 Hail 1.00 in.


The drought continued with slight improvement noted. Drought D1 to D2 conditions prevailed across the county. Fayette received 4.60 inches of rain.


Storm Events in Howard County 9/1/2011 - 4/30/2013 (cont.)

Howard (Zone) 2/21/2013 Winter

Storm

A major winter storm impacted much of Kansas and Missouri on February 21, with very heavy snow and some sleet and freezing rain. Some areas received up to a foot of snow, placing this snow storm among the largest snow events in recent memory. Many locations reported thunder with heavy snow and sleet, with snowfall rates as high as 3 inches per hour! The very heavy snowfall rates created havoc on area roadways and many travelers became stuck and stranded. Many roads became clogged with stalled vehicles, essentially closing them down. Many motorists abandoned their cars altogether leaving roadways littered with snow-covered vehicles. New Franklin measured 12 inches of snow.


Storm

A major winter storm swept through the Plains, February 25th through the 27th, resulting in the second round of heavy snows that the region had experienced in under a week. Temperatures near freezing led to a heavy wet snow that was slow to accumulate at the onset of the event. However, as snowfall rates increased overnight, snow rapidly began to accumulate, sticking to trees and power lines and resulting in numerous power outages across the area. Thirteen inches of snow was measured near Fayette.


Storm A major early-spring winter storm tracked across the Interstate 70 corridor, March 23rd through 24th, 2013. Six inches of snow was measured in New Franklin.

Hilldale 4/17/2013 Hail 1.25 in. A warm front lifted north across central and northern Missouri, during the afternoon and evening hours of April 17, 2013. Numerous hail reports of up to an inch in diameter were reported. Widespread heavy rainfall was also observed, with numerous reports of rainfall in the two to four inch range.

Fayette 4/17/2013 Hail 0.88 in.

Source: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/stormevents/choosedates.jsp?statefips=29%2CMISSOURI Wildfire A search was also conducted on the Missouri Department of Conservation website for reported wildfires in Howard County since the last reported in the approved plan. There were 73 fires, burning 645 acres, reported in the county. One residence and two outbuildings were threatened

347

by fire, one outbuilding was damaged and one outbuilding was destroyed. Data for the individual fires is shown in the following chart.

Reported Wildfires in Howard County (2011-May 2013)

Date City Cause Acres Burnt Station

3/12/2011 20:13 New Franklin Not Reported 4 Howard Co Fpd 3/31/2011 19:48 New Franklin Unknown 0.5 Howard Co Fpd 4/2/2011 15:31 Harrisburg Debris 40 Howard Co Fpd 4/12/2011 16:20 Harrisburg Debris 20 Howard Co Fpd 5/10/2011 20:05 New Franklin Equipment 7 Howard Co Fpd 8/7/2011 16:46 New Franklin Unknown 10 Howard Co Fpd 10/13/2011 18:15 Harrisburg Debris 10 Howard Co Fpd 10/16/2011 21:30 New Franklin Unknown 10 Howard Co Fpd 10/23/2011 20:35 New Franklin Unknown 14 Howard Co Fpd 10/25/2011 12:59 New Franklin Equipment 4 Howard Co Fpd 10/25/2011 19:26 Harrisburg Unknown 50 Howard Co Fpd 10/28/2011 12:59 New Franklin Unknown 1 Howard Co Fpd 10/28/2011 15:48 Harrisburg Debris 5 Howard Co Fpd 10/31/2011 15:02 Franklin Debris 1 Howard Co Fpd 11/1/2011 13:51 Fayette Unknown 20 Howard Co Fpd 11/1/2011 15:02 Fayette Debris 20 Howard Co Fpd 11/1/2011 17:52 Fayette Debris 5 Howard Co Fpd 11/5/2011 16:22 Harrisburg Debris 1 Howard Co Fpd 11/13/2011 14:51 Higbee Unknown 5 Howard Co Fpd 12/20/2011 17:01 New Franklin Miscellaneous 0.5 Howard Co Fpd 12/29/2011 17:00 Fayette Debris 1 Howard Co Fpd 1/1/2012 0:15 Clark Unknown 2 Howard Co Fpd 1/1/2012 15:01 New Franklin Miscellaneous 0.5 Howard Co Fpd 1/2/2012 11:35 New Franklin Miscellaneous 1 Howard Co Fpd 1/2/2012 11:35 New Franklin Debris 3 Howard Co Fpd 1/2/2012 11:35 New Franklin Debris 0.5 Howard Co Fpd 1/5/2012 21:28 New Franklin Debris 50 Howard Co Fpd 1/11/2012 16:00 Fayette Unknown 15 Howard Co Fpd 1/12/2012 12:40 Fayette Miscellaneous 5 Howard Co Fpd 1/16/2012 15:05 Fayette Miscellaneous 1 Howard Co Fpd 2/11/2012 19:45 Fayette Miscellaneous 1 Howard Co Fpd 2/12/2012 15:30 Fayette Miscellaneous 1 Howard Co Fpd 2/19/2012 14:52 Fayette Miscellaneous 30 Howard Co Fpd 3/6/2012 12:30 Armstrong Unknown 1 Howard Co Fpd 3/6/2012 13:50 Fayette Unknown 1 Howard Co Fpd


Reported Wildfires in Howard County (2011-May 2013) - cont.

3/6/2012 15:00 Fayette Unknown 6 Howard Co Fpd 3/6/2012 15:45 Harrisburg Unknown 3 Howard Co Fpd 3/6/2012 18:43 New Franklin Unknown 2 Howard Co Fpd 3/7/2012 6:14 New Franklin Debris 25 Howard Co Fpd 3/10/2012 12:41 Fayette Unknown 1 Howard Co Fpd 3/13/2012 14:30 Harrisburg Unknown 5 Howard Co Fpd 5/2/2012 17:30 New Franklin Debris 0.5 Howard Co Fpd 5/12/2012 21:42 New Franklin Debris 2 Howard Co Fpd 5/16/2012 22:05 New Franklin Debris 0.5 Howard Co Fpd 5/17/2012 21:13 New Franklin Debris 0.5 Howard Co Fpd 5/19/2012 13:15 Fayette Miscellaneous 5 Howard Co Fpd 5/23/2012 16:40 Fayette Equipment 15 Howard Co Fpd 5/30/2012 9:30 Fayette Unknown 1 Howard Co Fpd 6/18/2012 11:11 Fayette Miscellaneous 1 Howard Co Fpd 6/25/2012 10:55 Fayette Debris 1 Howard Co Fpd 7/8/2012 21:20 Fayette Unknown 1 Howard Co Fpd 7/21/2012 0:20 New Franklin Debris 0.5 Howard Co Fpd 7/21/2012 19:08 Fayette Miscellaneous 1 Howard Co Fpd 7/23/2012 10:30 Fayette Miscellaneous 10 Howard Co Fpd 7/29/2012 15:30 Fayette Unknown 10 Howard Co Fpd 7/29/2012 15:47 Fayette Debris 10 Howard Co Fpd 8/11/2012 17:00 Harrisburg Debris 1 Howard Co Fpd 8/20/2012 13:52 New Franklin Debris 1 Howard Co Fpd 8/21/2012 18:40 Fayette Equipment 15 Howard Co Fpd 8/28/2012 13:54 New Franklin Unknown 15 Howard Co Fpd 8/28/2012 14:04 New Franklin Equipment 1 Howard Co Fpd 8/29/2012 9:20 New Franklin Debris 5 Howard Co Fpd 8/29/2012 14:15 Fayette Equipment 150 Howard Co Fpd 8/30/2012 12:01 New Franklin Debris 3 Howard Co Fpd 11/14/2012 12:53 Fayette Unknown 1 Howard Co Fpd 11/21/2012 21:00 New Franklin Debris 1 Howard Co Fpd 11/24/2012 10:47 New Franklin Debris 2 Howard Co Fpd 11/25/2012 17:23 Harrisburg Debris 2 Howard Co Fpd 12/2/2012 17:15 Fayette Unknown 1 Howard Co Fpd 12/11/2012 6:40 Fayette Debris 1 Howard Co Fpd 1/25/2013 12:55 Fayette Debris 1 Howard Co Fpd 3/19/2013 12:21 Higbee Unknown 2 Howard Co Fpd 4/3/2013 12:45 Fayette Debris 1 Howard Co Fpd Source: http://mdc4.mdc.mo.gov/applications/FireReporting/Report.aspx

349

Disaster Declaration DR-1430 Howard County was one of 27 Missouri Counties included in a Presidential Disaster Declaration for damages caused by severe storms, straight-line winds, tornadoes and flooding during the period of May 29 to June 10, 2013. (The NOAA data for this time period was not available at the time of writing.) Most of the damage from these storms was to county roads and electrical poles and transformers. Survey of Participating Jurisdictions In July 2013, representatives from the participating jurisdictions were sent an email asking them to evaluate the mitigation actions included in the plan for their jurisdiction and report on any changes in the jurisdiction which might affect the Hazard Mitigation Plan. A spreadsheet with the jurisdiction’s mitigation actions was attached to the email. Responses were received from the following participating jurisdictions. The responses indicated that the ongoing mitigation actions are still taking place. Other information follows. Howard County Action 1.1.1 Continue to enforce flood damage prevention/floodplain management ordinances in compliance with NFIP requirements. In place. Action 1.1.3 Ensure adequate maintenance of drainage systems. Ditch work completed in late July 2013. Action 1.1.6 Provide continuing education for firefighters on fighting wildfires. Training provided in February and March 2013. Action 1.1.7 Encourage appropriate County, municipal, special district and educational staff to continually update their knowledge base regarding earthquake safety. Schools took part in shakeout exercise in spring. Action 1.1.9 Evaluate and maintain school emergency preparedness plans and incorporate into the County Local Emergency Operations Plan (LEOP). Plan reviewed in April and May 2013. Action 1.1.11 Hold annual training on Local Emergency Operations Plan (LEOP) for County and City officials. Conducted in April 2013. Action 1.2.1 Establish formal agreements with appropriate shelter locations throughout the County. Some in place, others need to be finished. Action 1.2.2 Encourage shelters to have alternative power and heating sources. Working with Faith Family Church (located about 1 miles south of Fayette and largest church in area) to put theirs in place by end of 2013.


Action 2.1.1. Review and update flood damage prevention ordinance to ensure maximum protection from flood hazard events. Up to date. Action 2.1.2 Encourage all fire districts in the Planning Area to pass burn ordinances. Glasgow Fire District (the one fire district without a burn ordinance) has been contacted. Action 3.1.4 Provide backup power to all critical infrastructure (police, fire, hospitals, local government buildings). Fayette Fire Department, Howard County Ambulance and Glasgow Fire now have backup power. Action 3.2.2 Promote the use of NOAA weather radios. Howard Electric gives away five radios to members at its Annual Meeting. Action 3.2.6 Encourage new mobile home parks to have safe rooms on the premises. No mobile home parks in planning phase at this time. Action 3.2.7 Encourage nursing and residential care facilities to have alternate power and heating sources. Fayette Caring Center and Maple Lawn Care Center now have this in place. Action 3.2.9 Identify potential transportation for vulnerable populations. Fayette School buses and Central Methodist vans to be used. Action 4.0.1 Develop public education hazard awareness program. Local newspapers run items from time to time as needed. Action 4.0.2 Maintain flood awareness signs at low water crossings and flash flooding areas. In place. Temporary signs put up as needed. Action 4.0.4 Encourage the MO Dept. of Conservation (MDC) to continue their trainings on controlled burns. Fire departments are maintaining their relationships with MDC. Armstrong 1.1.3 Ensure adequate maintenance of drainage systems. This is an ongoing concern for the City. The drainage ditches along one main street were cleaned out this year; this cost the City $700. Finding funds to get all the needed work done is an ongoing issue. 3.2.10 Establish a community storm shelter with heat and backup power. The City is in the final stages of landscaping a newly built City Hall/Community Center. (The old Community Center is now being used solely as a gymnasium.) The City has been pricing generators to provide backup power at the new City Hall/Community Center.

351

Fayette Action 2.2.1 Adopt and enforce latest model building codes and national engineering standards. Currently reviewing 2012 ICC codes for recommendation to the City Council. Action 2.2.2 Adopt regulations that preserve riparian corridors in developments. City Building Inspector is currently reviewing this for recommendations to the City Council. Glasgow 1.1.3 Ensure adequate maintenance of drainage systems. About a 1/4 mile of storm drainage was put in on 4th Street to help mitigate flooding. The City is hoping to do smoke testing of the sewer system in the fall of 2013. 2.2.1 Adopt and enforce latest model building codes and national engineering standards. Codes have not been updated due to the expense involved. 3.1.3 Mitigate the effects of flooding on public infrastructure. The City is currently in the middle of dredging the lagoon to remove the sludge deposited during the flood of 2010 (Disaster Declaration #1934). The project is being funded primarily through a FEMA disaster grant and a CDBG grant. A following project is being developed to raise the berms at the lagoon, raise the entry tube at the Stump Island lift station, and install an apparatus capable of lifting pumps and/or people out of the lift station if needed. The City's goal is for this project to take place in 2014. 3.1.4 Provide backup power to all critical infrastructure (police, fire, hospitals, local government buildings). The larger generator was serviced this year and is in excellent running condition. 3.2.1 Ensure reliable warning system and dissemination of information regarding high wind situations throughout county. The City is hoping to accomplish this in 2014. New Franklin Action 3.1.4 Provide backup power to all critical infrastructure (police, fire, hospitals, local government buildings). Currently developing plan and financing for transfer switch required for backup power at the water plant. Fayette R-III School District General Feedback - Nothing to report.


Central Methodist University Action 1.1.7 Encourage appropriate County, municipal, special district and educational staff to continually update their knowledge base regarding earthquake safety. An Earthquake drill will be conducted in fall 2013 as part of the routine drills. Action 3.1.4 Provide backup power to all critical infrastructure (police, fire, hospitals, local government buildings). The university recently purchased a small portable backup generator for general use on campus. Action 3.2.1 Ensure reliable warning system and dissemination of information regarding high wind situations throughout county. The university recently purchased two new message banners as part of the alert system. These provide messages that run across the bottom of all CMU computer screens (faculty, staff, and students) during tests or actual emergencies. They indicate if the “event” is a test or an actual event, in which case it may be followed by a few further instructions. In all cases, the message banners are one way that is used to issue the “all-clear” message, as well as loud speakers, text messaging, etc. Howard Co. Consolidated Public Water Supply District #1 General Feedback – Lightning strike at a water tower that required repair of the communication system. A lot of water was used in 2012 due to the dry conditions. Action 1.1.5 Encourage cooperative agreements between water districts and connect disparate water supplies as much as possible. Work with forming the Regional Water Commission is continuing. Most easements are signed so that the project can move forward. Howard Co. Regional Water Commission Action 1.1.5 Encourage cooperative agreements between water districts and connect disparate water supplies as much as possible. Work with forming the Regional Water Commission is continuing. Continuity of Operations Planning Workshops In the spring of 2013, the Mid-Missouri Regional Planning Commission developed and offered workshop training on developing a Continuity of Operations Plan (COOP). A Continuity of Operations Plan (COOP) is a pro-active plan that clearly defines the steps an organization will take during times of disruption or disaster to ensure they can continue operation of their essential functions. This project was funded by a Disaster Planning Grant from the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program of the Missouri Department of Economic Development. The workshop stressed the importance of a local government agency having a COOP to protect lives and assets, reduce or mitigate disruptions, and help achieve a timely and orderly recovery

353

and resumption of full service to citizens. Simple worksheets and steps for creating a COOP assisted participants in identifying their agency’s most essential functions and the leadership, staff, facilities, records and other things needed to operate those functions. Other information included training for staff, testing and updating a plan. The phases of activating, operating under a COOP and returning to normal operations were also discussed. The workshop offering held in Fayette had the following attendance: Howard County (11 participants), the City of Fayette (10 participants), the City of Glasgow (1 participant), and Central Methodist University (2 participants). In addition, Central Methodist University requested a follow-up presentation for their Crisis Committee; there were 6 additional participants at this training.


Changes Made in Plan Date Page Change Reason

9/16/2013 34 “Gateway and Western” changed to “Kansas City Southern” Merged into Kansas City Southern in 2001