Hazard Mitigation Plan Washington County, Arkansas

Including:

Unincorporated Washington County City of Elkins City of Elm Springs City of Farmington City of Fayetteville City of Goshen City of Greenland City of Johnson City of Lincoln City of Prairie Grove City of Springdale City of Tontitown City of West Fork City of Winslow Elkins School District Farmington School District Fayetteville School District Greenland School District Lincoln School District Prairie Grove School District Springdale School District West Fork School District

Primary Point of Contact John C. Luther, Director Washington County Office of Emergency Management 2615 Brink Drive, Suite 104 Fayetteville, Arkansas 72701 479-444-1721 [email protected]

Revised October 3, 2007 Revised January 8, 2008

Table of Contents

Section 1. Introduction 1.1. General Description 1 1.2. Purpose and Authority 2 1.3. Community Information 4 1.3.1. Physiography, Climate, and Geology 4 1.3.2. Population and Demographics 7 1.3.3. Economy 27 1.3.4. Future Development 28 1.3.5. Capability Assessment 28 Section 2. Plan Adoption 2.1. Multi-Jurisdictional Plan Adoption 46 2.2. Points of Contact for Multi-Jurisdictions 50

Section 3. Planning Process 3.1. Multi-Jurisdictional Planning Participation 53 3.2. Documentation of the Planning Process 56 3.2.1 Planning Meeting Documentation 65 3.2.2 Household Natural Preparedness Questionnaire 77 3.2.3 Proof of Publication 102

Section 4. Risk Assessment 4.1. Hazard Identification 104 4.2. Profiling Hazards 110 4.2.1. Tornado Hazard Profile 111 4.2.2. Severe Winter Storm Hazard Profile 125 4.2.3. Flooding Hazard Profile 134 4.2.4. Earthquake Hazard Profile 151 4.2.5. Wildfire Hazard Profile 155 4.2.6. Landslide Hazard Profile 162 4.2.7. Expansive Soil Hazard Profile 166 4.2.8. Straight-Line Wind Hazard Profile 172 4.2.9. Drought Hazard Profile 217 4.2.10 Thunderstorm Hazard Profile 222 4.2.11 Hailstorm Hazard Profile 223 4.2.12 Extreme Heat Hazard Profile 229 4.2.13 Dam Failure Hazard Profile 233

4.3. Vulnerability Assessment 4.3.1. Assessing Vulnerability: Overview 239 4.3.1.1. Washington County Exposure Summary 239 4.3.1.2. Hazard Vulnerability Summary 239 4.3.1.3. Hazard Impact on Vulnerable Structures 242 4.3.2. Multi-Jurisdictional Risk Assessment 245

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan ii

Section 5. Mitigation Strategy 5.1. Local Hazard Mitigation Goals 248 5.2. Identification and Analysis of Mitigation Actions 252 5.3. Implementation of Mitigation Actions 259 5.4. Multi-Jurisdictional Mitigation Actions 271

Section 6. Plan Maintenance Process 6.1. Monitoring, Evaluating, and Updating the Plan 274 6.2. Incorporating into Existing Planning Mechanisms 276 6.3. Continued Public Involvement 277

Appendices ATTACHMENT 1 – Plan Review and Prioritization ATTACHMENT 2 – Cooperative Agreements – Benton, Madison and Washington Counties (Assist in Emergency and Disaster Response Operations)

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan iii Section 1: Introduction

1.1 General Description

This Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan (WCHMP) was created to protect the health, safety and economic interests of Washington County residents by reducing the risk of natural hazards. The plan provides a path toward continuous, proactive identification and reduction of vulnerability to the most frequent hazards that result in repetitive and often severe social, economic and physical damage. This plan provides a foundation for hazard mitigation activities within incorporated and unincorporated areas of Washington County, including the cities of Elkins, Elm Springs, Farmington, Fayetteville, Goshen, Greenland, Johnson, Lincoln, Prairie Grove, Springdale, Tontitown, West Fork and Winslow (hereinafter referred to as the municipalities of Washington County).

This WCHMP is also established to fulfill federal, state, and local hazard mitigation planning requirements. The Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (DMA 2000), Section 322 (a-d) requires local governments to have an approved local mitigation plan in accordance with 44 CFR 201.6 as a condition of receiving future federal disaster mitigation funds.

In the past, federal legislation has provided funding for disaster relief, recovery, and some hazard mitigation planning. The Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (DMA 2000) is the latest legislation to improve this planning process. DMA 2000 amended the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act by repealing the previous Mitigation Planning section (409) and replacing it with a new Mitigation Planning section (322). This new section emphasizes the need for State, Tribal, and local entities to closely coordinate mitigation planning and implementation efforts. The new legislation reinforces the importance of mitigation planning and emphasizes planning for disasters before they occur. As such, this Act establishes a pre-disaster hazard mitigation program and new requirements for the national post-disaster Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP). It also requires that communities must have an approved hazard mitigation plan in order to receive Stafford Act assistance, excluding assistance provided pursuant to emergency provisions.

Development and implementation of the Plan has been, and will be directed by the WCHMP Steering Committee, composed of the Executive Board of Washington County Emergency Services (LEPC). The Steering Committee has appointed a Planning Committee, composed of representatives of the municipalities and other stakeholders, to oversee formulation and maintenance of the WCHMP, and to coordinate action items between the involved municipalities. Washington County Emergency Services (WCES) is the agency tasked with supporting the Planning Committee in developing and maintaining the WCHMP.

Implementing this Plan provides several benefits to Washington County and its residents and communities, including:

 Saving lives and protecting property  Reducing vulnerability to future hazardous events  Facilitating post-disaster funding for mitigation assistance  Speeding recovery after a disaster  Improving long-term community health

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 1  Involving the public in decision-making, and  Demonstrating community support for emergency management and hazard mitigation.

The Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan is being developed to assess the ongoing natural hazard mitigation activities in Washington County, to evaluate additional mitigation measures that should be undertaken, and to outline a strategy for implementation of mitigation projects. This plan is multi-jurisdictional with a planning area that includes all of unincorporated Washington County and thirteen municipalities within the County including the City of Elkins, City of Elm Springs, City of Farmington, City of Fayetteville, City of Goshen, City of Greenland, City of Johnson, City of Lincoln, City of Prairie Grove, City of Springdale, City of Tontitown, City of West Fork, and City of Winslow. This plan also includes the eight School Districts located in Washington County including the Elkins School District, Farmington School District, Fayetteville School District, Greenland School District, Lincoln School District, Prairie Grove School District, Springdale School District, and West Fork School District. A map showing the locations of each of these jurisdictions within Washington County is in the Maps section of this report.

Formal adoption and implementation of a hazard mitigation plan presents many benefits to Washington County and its residents. By identifying problems and possible solutions in advance of a disaster, Washington County and participating communities and school districts will be in a better position to obtain pre- and post-disaster funding. Specifically, the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 establishes a pre-disaster hazard mitigation program and new requirements for the national post-disaster Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP). It requires that states and communities have a FEMA approved hazard mitigation plan in place prior to receiving post- disaster HMGP funds. Adoption of this hazard mitigation strategy will also increase Washington County’s eligibility for assistance from FEMA’s Flood Mitigation Assistance (FMA) program. Washington County and participating communities will also gain additional credit points under FEMA’s Community Rating System (CRS) program, which provides discounts on National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) flood insurance premiums for residents of communities that voluntarily participate in this program. Most importantly, Washington County will be able to recover faster and more wisely from a disaster. Through planning and acting on local mitigation strategies, the city will reduce vulnerability to disasters and identify opportunities for mitigation. In addition, the communities may meet comprehensive planning and other planning requirements and achieve community goals.

1.2. Purpose and Authority

The purpose of the Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan is to provide guidance for hazard mitigation activities in Washington County. The Washington County Office of Emergency Management has the responsibility to coordinate all local activities relating to hazard evaluation and mitigation and to prepare and submit to FEMA a Local Mitigation Plan following the criteria established in 44 CFR 201.4 and Section 322 of the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-390). The Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 became law on October 30, 2000, and amends the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (the “Stafford Act”) (Public Law 93-288, as amended). Regulations for this activity can be found in Title 44 of the Code of Federal Regulations Part 206, Subpart M.

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 2 This plan meets requirements for a local mitigation plan under Interim Final Rule 44 CFR 201.4, published in the Federal Register by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) on February 28, 2002. Meeting the requirements of the regulations cited above keeps Washington County qualified to obtain all disaster assistance including hazard mitigation grants available through the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, P.L. 93-288, as amended.

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 3

1.3. Community Information

1.3.1. Physiography, Climate, and Geology

1. Topography:

Located in northwest corner of Arkansas, Washington County covers a land area of 950 square miles and is bound by Adair County, Oklahoma on the west, Benton County, Arkansas on the north, Crawford County, Arkansas making the southern border, and Madison County, Arkansas is the easterly neighbor.

Washington County is located within two difference geologic regions, the Boston Mountains and the Springfield-Salem Plateau, both of which are part of the Ozark Plateau province.

The southern two-thirds of the county is located within the Boston Mountains. A large part of this area consists of steep, stony mountainsides covered with hardwoods. The more level areas are mostly pasture and meadow. The soils of this region are formed under hardwoods and are underlain by acid sandstone, siltstone and shale or by alluvium derived from these rocks. The drainage and slope of these soils depend heavily on the location with the landscape: soils located on terraces and flood plains are deep, moderately well-drained to well-drained with slopes raging from 0 to 2 percent; soils found on mountaintops and mountainsides can bed deep or shallow, moderately well- drained to excessively well-drained, with slopes ranging from 3 to 20 percent up to 12 to 65 percent.

The northern third of the county is located within the Springfield-Salem Plateau. This area consists mainly of broad, nearly level to gently sloping areas dissected by steep V- shaped draws (small, natural depression that water drains into). The soils of this region are formed under hardwoods and are underlain by silty deposits or cherty limestone, or by alluvium derived from these sources. The slope range for the soils of this area average from 1 to 8 percent. These soils are loamy, silty and/or cherty and are deep to moderately shallow. The drainage classes range from moderately well drained to well drained.

Karst features such a springs, sinkholes, and caves are common in the limestone formations of the Springfield Plateau and abundant in the dolomite bedrock of the Salem Plateau and Boston Mountains.

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 4 Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 5

2. Climate:

The climate of the area is influenced predominately by the Gulf of Mexico, particularly in the spring and summer, with the autumn and winter seasons influenced by continental air masses from the north. Summer months are quite warm and winters, on the whole, are mild with cold temperatures generally prevailing for only short periods. For the area, typical annual rainfall is 44 inches, with the wettest month typically being June and the driest being August. The average daily maximum temperature is 68.2 degrees, and the average daily minimum is 46.5 degrees, with a median temperature of 57.5 degrees. Slightly cooler temperatures prevail in the mountainous reaches. The average duration of the growing season is 200 to 240 days.

3. Major River/Watersheds:

Within confines of Washington County, there are no major waterways. However, it does house the headwaters of both the Illinois River and the White River.

The natural drainage system within the county consists of many small streams in a dendritic pattern in the upper reaches of the county and an irregular drainage divide in the southern part of the county. A small area within the southern part of the county drains to the Arkansas River. About a third of the eastern part of the county drains toward the north into the White River. The western part of the county drains west into the Illinois River and its tributaries. The headwaters of both the Illinois River and the White River begin in Washington County.

Serious flooding in the mountainous areas is unusual because streams tend to be faster flowing and flood waters drain quickly. Also, the mountainous area of the county are less populated and flooding that does occur is not as likely to threaten property or lives. Most of the county’s flooding and drainage problems are found in the larger communities in the less hilly regions of Washington County.

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 6 1.3.2. Population and Demographics

Washington County

Washington County's current 2004 population is an estimated 174,077 persons. For 2000, the U. S. Census of Population documented 157,715 persons. The county is part of the economically healthy and expanding Fayetteville, Rogers and Springdale metropolitan area, which consists of the three-counties of Benton, Washington and recently added Madison County in Arkansas. For 2000 the metro area’s population was 325,364 residents.

Between 1990 and 2000, Washington County added 44,306 new residents, a dramatic 39.1% increase. Growth at this rate, translates to approximately 4,500 new residents annually, is expected to continue throughout the 2000 to 2010 period.

Most of the increase in population is occurring in and near the cities in the north central part of the county. Specifically, most residential and commercial growth occurring over the past fifteen years and continuing now is in Fayetteville and Springdale and areas adjacent to Interstate 540, the most dramatic percent changes are found in some of the small communities such as Elm Springs, Johnson, and Tontitown, with Johnson reporting the greatest percent change being nearly 300 percent. Suburban growth in the metro area is a product of proximity to Fayetteville and south Springdale, which is the region’s center for trade and employment. Outlying communities and rural areas are experiencing impressive new growth, mainly residential, but lack of adequate infrastructure to support development (water, roads, wastewater) is an inhibiting factor. Following is a table showing 1990 and 2000 population figures and percent of change from 1990-2000 for the entire county and for each of the thirteen incorporated places in the county.

Population by County & City 1990 and 2000 Washington County, Arkansas Numerical Percent 1990 2000 Change Change Census Census 1990-2000 1990-2000 Washington County 113,409 157,715 44,306 39.1 Elkins 692 1,251 559 80.8 Elm Springs 893 1,044 151 16.9 Farmington 1,322 3,605 2,283 172.7 Fayetteville 42,099 58,047 15,948 37.9 Goshen 589 752 163 27.7 Greenland 757 907 150 19.8 Johnson 599 2,319 1,720 287.1 Lincoln 1,460 1,752 292 20.0 Prairie Grove 1,760 2,540 780 44.3 Springdale 29,941 45,798 15,857 52.9 Tontitown 460 942 482 104.8 West Fork 1,607 2,042 435 27.1 Winslow 342 399 57 16.7

Information Source: U. S. Census of Population, 1990 and 2000

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 7

Washington County’s forty percent increase in population is impressive however, can be more dramatically defined as a population density of 183 persons per square mile. When compared to the State of Arkansas which reports 53 persons per square mile, Adair County, Okalahoma which has a population density of 38 persons per square mile and Madison County, Arkansas which has a population density of 18 persons per square mile. It is understandable why the comment made at one of the public meetings was “it is much harder to land a tornado in Washington County and not cause injury or property damage than in the past” is so true.

Population Growth 1990-2004

200000

150000

100000

50000

0 Adair Benton Crawford Madison County, Washington County, OK County, AR County, AR AR County, AR

1990 2000 2004

2004 1990 2000 Population Percent Change Counties Population Population Estimate 1990-2000 Adair Co., OK 18,421 21,038 21,675 14.2 Benton Co., AR 97,499 153,406 179,756 57.3 Crawford Co., AR 42,493 53,247 56,578 25.3 Madison Co., AR 11,618 14,243 14,685 22.6 Washington Co., AR 113,409 157,715 174,077 39.1

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 8 Population Density

Persons Per Square Mile

250

200

150

100

50

0 State of Adair Benton Crawford Madison Washington Arkansas County, OK County, AR County, AR County, AR County, AR

1990 2004

1990 Persons 2004 Persons Per Square Mile Per Square Mile State of Arkansas 45 53 Adair Co., OK 31 38 Benton Co., AR 115 213 Crawford Co., AR 71 95 Madison Co., AR 13 18 Washington Co., AR 119 183

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 9

Participating in the development of this plan and responsible for its implementation are 22 jurisdictions, Washington County, City of Elkins, City of Elm Springs, City of Farmington, City of Fayetteville, City of Goshen, City of Greenland, City of Johnson, City of Lincoln, City of Prairie Grove, City of Springdale, City of Tontitown, City of West Fork, City of Winslow, Elkins School District, Farmington School District, Fayetteville School District, Greenland School District, Lincoln School District, Prairie Grove School District, Springdale School District, and West Fork School District. Elected Quorum Court members govern Washington County. The cities are governed by elected councilpersons, and the school districts by elected school board members. The following table represents the population and student enrollment for Washington County and the participating jurisdictions.

Population Jurisdiction (2000) Washington County Total 157,715 City of Elkins 1,251 City of Elm Springs 1,044 City of Farmington 3,605 City of Fayetteville 58,047 City of Goshen 752 City of Greenland 907 City of Johnson 2,319 City of Lincoln 1,752 City of Prairie Grove 2,540 City of Springdale 45,798 City of Tontitown 942 City of West Fork 2,042 City of Winslow 399 Student Enrollment (2004-2005) Elkins School District 1,071 Farmington School District 1,959 Fayetteville School District 8,177 Greenland School District 834 Lincoln School District 1,218 Prairie Grove School District 1,518 Springdale School District 14,512 West Fork School District 1,160

The maps on the following pages show the cities and school districts.

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 10

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 11

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 12 Following are “fact sheets” providing population, demographic, social, economic and housing information from the 2000 census for the county and for each of the incorporated places.

WASHINGTON COUNTY, ARKANSAS CENSUS 2000 DEMOGRAPHICS PROFILE General Characteristics Number Percent U.S. Total population 115,071 100.0 100% Male 56,140 48.8 49.1% Female 58,931 51.2 50.9% Median age (years) 35.5 (X) 35.3 Under 5 years 8,473 7.4 6.8% 18 years and over 85,134 74.0 74.3% 65 years and over 14,907 13.0 12.4% One race 111,999 97.3 97.6% White 94,745 82.3 75.1% Black or African American 7,086 6.2 12.3% American Indian and Alaska Native 1,810 1.6 0.9% Asian 4,039 3.5 3.6% Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander 53 0.0 0.1% Some other race 4,266 3.7 5.5% Two or more races 3,072 2.7 2.4% Hispanic or Latino (of any race) 7,710 6.7 12.5% Average household size 2.49 (X) 2.59 Average family size 3.04 (X) 3.14 Total housing units 49,311 100.0 100.0% Occupied housing units 45,300 91.9 91.0% Owner-occupied housing units 28,787 63.5 66.2% Renter-occupied housing units 16,513 36.5 33.8% Vacant housing units 4,011 8.1 9.0%

Social Characteristics Number Percent U.S. Population 25 years and over 74,601 100.0 High school graduate or higher 57,126 76.6 80.4% Bachelor's degree or higher 12,383 16.6 24.4% Civilian veterans (civilian population 18 years and over) 12,136 14.3 12.7% Disability status (population 21 to 64 years) 14,542 22.4 19.2% Foreign born 7,922 6.9 11.1% Now married (population 15 years and over) 51,441 57.0 54.4% Speak a language other than English at home (5 years and 9,979 9.4 17.9% over)

Economic Characteristics Number Percent U.S. In labor force (population 16 years and over) 55,925 63.2 63.9% Mean travel time to work in minutes (population 16 years and 19.3 (X) 25.5 over) Median household income (dollars) 33,889 (X) 41,994 Median family income (dollars) 41,303 (X) 50,046 Per capita income (dollars) 18,424 (X) 21,587 Families below poverty level 3,228 10.4 9.2% Individuals below poverty level 15,410 13.6 12.4%

Housing Characteristics Number Percent U.S. Single-family owner-occupied homes 24,514 100.0 Median value (dollars) 73,300 (X) 119,600 Median of selected monthly owner costs (X) (X) With a mortgage 722 (X) 1,088 Not mortgaged 247 (X) 295 X) Not applicable. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Summary File 1 (SF 1) and Summary File 3 (SF 3)

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 13

CITY OF ELKINS, ARKANSAS CENSUS 2000 DEMOGRAPHICS PROFILE General Characteristics Number Percent U.S. Total population 1,251 100.0 100% Male 621 49.6 49.1% Female 630 50.4 50.9% Median age (years) 34.1 (X) 35.3 Under 5 years 100 8.0 6.8% 18 years and over 919 73.5 74.3% 65 years and over 152 12.2 12.4% One race 1,238 99.0 97.6% White 1,208 96.6 75.1% Black or African American 2 0.2 12.3% American Indian and Alaska Native 22 1.8 0.9% Asian 3 0.2 3.6% Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander 1 0.1 0.1% Some other race 2 0.2 5.5% Two or more races 13 1.0 2.4% Hispanic or Latino (of any race) 15 1.2 12.5% Household population 1,251 100.0 97.2% Group quarters population 0 0.0 2.8% Average household size 2.58 (X) 2.59 Average family size 2.98 (X) 3.14 Total housing units 518 100.0 100.0% Occupied housing units 485 93.6 91.0% Owner-occupied housing units 414 85.4 66.2% Renter-occupied housing units 71 14.6 33.8% Vacant housing units 33 6.4 9.0%

Social Characteristics Number Percent U.S. Population 25 years and over 831 100.0 High school graduate or higher 677 81.5 80.4% Bachelor's degree or higher 107 12.9 24.4% Civilian veterans (civilian population 18 years and over) 125 13.4 12.7% Disability status (population 21 to 64 years) 131 17.8 19.2% Foreign born 16 1.3 11.1% Male, Now married (population 15 years and over) 320 66.3 56.7% Female, Now married (population 15 years and over) 335 67.1 52.1% Speak a language other than English at home (population 5 years and over) 30 2.6 17.9%

Economic Characteristics Number Percent U.S. In labor force (population 16 years and over) 678 70.7 63.9% Mean travel time to work in minutes (population 16 years and over) 27.8 (X) 25.5 Median household income (dollars) 39,318 (X) 41,994 Median family income (dollars) 45,750 (X) 50,046 Per capita income (dollars) 17,161 (X) 21,587 Families below poverty level 21 5.9 9.2% Individuals below poverty level 82 6.5 12.4%

Housing Characteristics Number Percent U.S. Single-family owner-occupied homes 380 100.0 Median value (dollars) 74,500 (X) 119,600 Median of selected monthly owner costs (X) (X) With a mortgage 732 (X) 1,088 Not mortgaged 225 (X) 295 (X) Not applicable. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Summary File 1 (SF 1) and Summary File 3 (SF 3)

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 14

CITY OF ELM SPRINGS, ARKANSAS CENSUS 2000 DEMOGRAPHICS PROFILE Characteristics Number Percent U.S. Total population 1,044 100.0 100% Male 530 50.8 49.1% Female 514 49.2 50.9% Median age (years) 39.0 (X) 35.3 Under 5 years 65 6.2 6.8% 18 years and over 808 77.4 74.3% 65 years and over 140 13.4 12.4% One race 1,033 98.9 97.6% White 977 93.6 75.1% Black or African American 4 0.4 12.3% American Indian and Alaska Native 10 1.0 0.9% Asian 16 1.5 3.6% Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander 0 0.0 0.1% Some other race 26 2.5 5.5% Two or more races 11 1.1 2.4% Hispanic or Latino (of any race) 45 4.3 12.5% Household population 1,037 99.3 97.2% Group quarters population 7 0.7 2.8% Average household size 2.69 (X) 2.59 Average family size 3.02 (X) 3.14 Total housing units 410 100.0 100.0% Occupied housing units 385 93.9 91.0% Owner-occupied housing units 288 74.8 66.2% Renter-occupied housing units 97 25.2 33.8% Vacant housing units 25 6.1 9.0%

Social Characteristics Number Percent U.S. Population 25 years and over 693 100.0 High school graduate or higher 548 79.1 80.4% Bachelor's degree or higher 83 12.0 24.4% Civilian veterans (civilian population 18 years and over) 107 13.5 12.7% Disability status (population 21 to 64 years) 100 15.9 19.2% Foreign born 29 2.8 11.1% Male, Now married (population 15 years and over) 268 66.3 56.7% Female, Now married (population 15 years and over) 276 65.6 52.1% Speak a language other than English at home (population 5 years and over) 65 6.7 17.9%

Economic Characteristics Number Percent U.S. In labor force (population 16 years and over) 558 68.8 63.9% Mean travel time to work in minutes (population 16 years and over) 18.8 (X) 25.5 Median household income (dollars) 40,703 (X) 41,994 Median family income (dollars) 45,536 (X) 50,046 Per capita income (dollars) 17,551 (X) 21,587 Families below poverty level 25 8.6 9.2% Individuals below poverty level 130 12.5 12.4%

Housing Characteristics Number Percent U.S. Single-family owner-occupied homes 197 100.0 Median value (dollars) 115,900 (X) 119,600 Median of selected monthly owner costs (X) (X) With a mortgage 842 (X) 1,088 Not mortgaged 222 (X) 295 (X) Not applicable. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Summary File 1 (SF 1) and Summary File 3 (SF 3)

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 15

CITY OF FARMINGTON, ARKANSAS CENSUS 2000 DEMOGRAPHICS PROFILE General Characteristics Number Percent U.S. Total population 3,605 100.0 100% Male 1,745 48.4 49.1% Female 1,860 51.6 50.9% Median age (years) 29.5 (X) 35.3 Under 5 years 338 9.4 6.8% 18 years and over 2,498 69.3 74.3% 65 years and over 302 8.4 12.4% One race 3,518 97.6 97.6% White 3,389 94.0 75.1% Black or African American 23 0.6 12.3% American Indian and Alaska Native 63 1.7 0.9% Asian 9 0.2 3.6% Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander 0 0.0 0.1% Some other race 34 0.9 5.5% Two or more races 87 2.4 2.4% Hispanic or Latino (of any race) 79 2.2 12.5% Household population 3,605 100.0 97.2% Group quarters population 0 0.0 2.8% Average household size 2.70 (X) 2.59 Average family size 3.09 (X) 3.14 Total housing units 1,390 100.0 100.0% Occupied housing units 1,337 96.2 91.0% Owner-occupied housing units 878 65.7 66.2% Renter-occupied housing units 459 34.3 33.8% Vacant housing units 53 3.8 9.0%

Social Characteristics Number Percent U.S. Population 25 years and over 2,173 100.0 High school graduate or higher 1,797 82.7 80.4% Bachelor's degree or higher 397 18.3 24.4% Civilian veterans (civilian population 18 years and over) 355 13.9 12.7% Disability status (population 21 to 64 years) 307 14.5 19.2% Foreign born 65 1.8 11.1% Male, Now married (population 15 years and over) 824 64.2 56.7% Female, Now married (population 15 years and over) 860 61.2 52.1% Speak a language other than English at home (population 5 years and over) 133 4.0 17.9%

Economic Characteristics Number Percent U.S. In labor force (population 16 years and over) 1,969 74.4 63.9% Mean travel time to work in minutes (population 16 years and over) 20.2 (X) 25.5 Median household income (dollars) 38,969 (X) 41,994 Median family income (dollars) 43,472 (X) 50,046 Per capita income (dollars) 15,387 (X) 21,587 Families below poverty level 53 5.2 9.2% Individuals below poverty level 276 7.5 12.4%

Housing Characteristics Number Percent U.S. Single-family owner-occupied homes 849 100.0 Median value (dollars) 78,100 (X) 119,600 Median of selected monthly owner costs (X) (X) With a mortgage 754 (X) 1,088 Not mortgaged 214 (X) 295 (X) Not applicable. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Summary File 1 (SF 1) and Summary File 3 (SF 3)

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 16

CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS CENSUS 2000 DEMOGRAPHICS PROFILE General Characteristics Number Percent U.S. Total population 58,047 100.0 100% Male 29,458 50.7 49.1% Female 28,589 49.3 50.9% Median age (years) 26.9 (X) 35.3 Under 5 years 3,792 6.5 6.8% 18 years and over 46,468 80.1 74.3% 65 years and over 5,038 8.7 12.4% One race 56,643 97.6 97.6% White 50,212 86.5 75.1% Black or African American 2,969 5.1 12.3% American Indian and Alaska Native 730 1.3 0.9% Asian 1,484 2.6 3.6% Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander 90 0.2 0.1% Some other race 1,158 2.0 5.5% Two or more races 1,404 2.4 2.4% Hispanic or Latino (of any race) 2,821 4.9 12.5% Household population 52,697 90.8 97.2% Group quarters population 5,350 9.2 2.8% Average household size 2.21 (X) 2.59 Average family size 2.91 (X) 3.14 Total housing units 25,467 100.0 100.0% Occupied housing units 23,798 93.4 91.0% Owner-occupied housing units 10,047 42.2 66.2% Renter-occupied housing units 13,751 57.8 33.8% Vacant housing units 1,669 6.6 9.0%

Social Characteristics Number Percent U.S. Population 25 years and over 31,508 100.0 High school graduate or higher 27,371 86.9 80.4% Bachelor's degree or higher 12,975 41.2 24.4% Civilian veterans (civilian population 18 years and over) 4,526 9.8 12.7% Disability status (population 21 to 64 years) 5,171 15.2 19.2% Foreign born 3,700 6.4 11.1% Male, Now married (population 15 years and over) 11,502 47.2 56.7% Female, Now married (population 15 years and over) 12,107 51.1 52.1% Speak a language other than English at home (population 5 years and over) 4,889 9.1 17.9%

Economic Characteristics Number Percent U.S. In labor force (population 16 years and over) 33,942 71.4 63.9% Mean travel time to work in minutes (population 16 years and over) 16.4 (X) 25.5 Median household income (dollars) 31,345 (X) 41,994 Median family income (dollars) 45,074 (X) 50,046 Per capita income (dollars) 18,311 (X) 21,587 Families below poverty level 1,395 11.4 9.2% Individuals below poverty level 10,465 19.9 12.4%

Housing Characteristics Number Percent U.S. Single-family owner-occupied homes 8,875 100.0 Median value (dollars) 100,300 (X) 119,600 Median of selected monthly owner costs (X) (X) With a mortgage 916 (X) 1,088 Not mortgaged 276 (X) 295 (X) Not applicable. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Summary File 1 (SF 1) and Summary File 3 (SF 3)

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 17

CITY OF GOSHEN, ARKANSAS CENSUS 2000 DEMOGRAPHICS PROFILE General Characteristics Number Percent U.S. Total population 752 100.0 100% Male 373 49.6 49.1% Female 379 50.4 50.9% Median age (years) 37.5 (X) 35.3 Under 5 years 43 5.7 6.8% 18 years and over 548 72.9 74.3% 65 years and over 76 10.1 12.4% One race 742 98.7 97.6% White 724 96.3 75.1% Black or African American 1 0.1 12.3% American Indian and Alaska Native 6 0.8 0.9% Asian 3 0.4 3.6% Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander 0 0.0 0.1% Some other race 8 1.1 5.5% Two or more races 10 1.3 2.4% Hispanic or Latino (of any race) 6 0.8 12.5% Household population 752 100.0 97.2% Group quarters population 0 0.0 2.8% Average household size 2.71 (X) 2.59 Average family size 3.16 (X) 3.14 Total housing units 310 100.0 100.0% Occupied housing units 277 89.4 91.0% Owner-occupied housing units 225 81.2 66.2% Renter-occupied housing units 52 18.8 33.8% Vacant housing units 33 10.6 9.0%

Social Characteristics Number Percent U.S. Population 25 years and over 508 100.0 High school graduate or higher 431 84.8 80.4% Bachelor's degree or higher 124 24.4 24.4% Civilian veterans (civilian population 18 years and over) 87 15.5 12.7% Disability status (population 21 to 64 years) 50 11.1 19.2% Foreign born 7 0.9 11.1% Male, Now married (population 15 years and over) 204 66.0 56.7% Female, Now married (population 15 years and over) 204 64.8 52.1% Speak a language other than English at home (population 5 years and 16 2.1 17.9% over)

Economic Characteristics Number Percent U.S. In labor force (population 16 years and over) 448 73.6 63.9% Mean travel time to work in minutes (population 16 years and over) 23.8 (X) 25.5 Median household income (dollars) 47,083 (X) 41,994 Median family income (dollars) 52,891 (X) 50,046 Per capita income (dollars) 18,513 (X) 21,587 Families below poverty level 12 5.6 9.2% Individuals below poverty level 51 6.4 12.4%

Housing Characteristics Number Percent U.S. Single-family owner-occupied homes 155 100.0 Median value (dollars) 111,600 (X) 119,600 Median of selected monthly owner costs (X) (X) With a mortgage 890 (X) 1,088 Not mortgaged 254 (X) 295 (X) Not applicable. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Summary File 1 (SF 1) and Summary File 3 (SF 3)

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 18

CITY OF GREENLAND, ARKANSAS CENSUS 2000 DEMOGRAPHICS PROFILE General Characteristics Number Percent U.S. Total population 907 100.0 100% Male 450 49.6 49.1% Female 457 50.4 50.9% Median age (years) 35.1 (X) 35.3 Under 5 years 63 6.9 6.8% 18 years and over 648 71.4 74.3% 65 years and over 93 10.3 12.4% One race 896 98.8 97.6% White 866 95.5 75.1% Black or African American 10 1.1 12.3% American Indian and Alaska Native 11 1.2 0.9% Asian 4 0.4 3.6% Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander 0 0.0 0.1% Some other race 5 0.6 5.5% Two or more races 11 1.2 2.4% Hispanic or Latino (of any race) 20 2.2 12.5% Household population 907 100.0 97.2% Group quarters population 0 0.0 2.8% Average household size 2.71 (X) 2.59 Average family size 3.08 (X) 3.14 Total housing units 361 100.0 100.0% Occupied housing units 335 92.8 91.0% Owner-occupied housing units 243 72.5 66.2% Renter-occupied housing units 92 27.5 33.8% Vacant housing units 26 7.2 9.0%

Social Characteristics Number Percent U.S. Population 25 years and over 581 100.0 High school graduate or higher 462 79.5 80.4% Bachelor's degree or higher 94 16.2 24.4% Civilian veterans (civilian population 18 years and over) 113 17.1 12.7% Disability status (population 21 to 64 years) 87 17.7 19.2% Foreign born 7 0.8 11.1% Male, Now married (population 15 years and over) 216 64.5 56.7% Female, Now married (population 15 years and over) 222 59.0 52.1% Speak a language other than English at home (population 5 years and over) 6 0.7 17.9%

Economic Characteristics Number Percent U.S. In labor force (population 16 years and over) 495 71.4 63.9% Mean travel time to work in minutes (population 16 years and over) 21.0 (X) 25.5 Median household income (dollars) 39,643 (X) 41,994 Median family income (dollars) 41,875 (X) 50,046 Per capita income (dollars) 16,127 (X) 21,587 Families below poverty level 19 6.9 9.2% Individuals below poverty level 66 7.3 12.4%

Housing Characteristics Number Percent U.S. Single-family owner-occupied homes 200 100.0 Median value (dollars) 78,100 (X) 119,600 Median of selected monthly owner costs (X) (X) With a mortgage 746 (X) 1,088 Not mortgaged 230 (X) 295 (X) Not applicable. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Summary File 1 (SF 1) and Summary File 3 (SF 3)

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 19

CITY OF JOHNSON, ARKANSAS CENSUS 2000 DEMOGRAPHICS PROFILE General Characteristics Number Percent U.S. Total population 2,319 100.0 100% Male 1,107 47.7 49.1% Female 1,212 52.3 50.9% Median age (years) 29.1 (X) 35.3 Under 5 years 245 10.6 6.8% 18 years and over 1,675 72.2 74.3% 65 years and over 128 5.5 12.4% One race 2,262 97.5 97.6% White 2,123 91.5 75.1% Black or African American 33 1.4 12.3% American Indian and Alaska Native 16 0.7 0.9% Asian 49 2.1 3.6% Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander 2 0.1 0.1% Some other race 39 1.7 5.5% Two or more races 57 2.5 2.4% Hispanic or Latino (of any race) 74 3.2 12.5% Household population 2,315 99.8 97.2% Group quarters population 4 0.2 2.8% Average household size 2.49 (X) 2.59 Average family size 2.98 (X) 3.14 Total housing units 990 100.0 100.0% Occupied housing units 928 93.7 91.0% Owner-occupied housing units 593 63.9 66.2% Renter-occupied housing units 335 36.1 33.8% Vacant housing units 62 6.3 9.0%

Social Characteristics Number Percent U.S. Population 25 years and over 1,415 100.0 High school graduate or higher 1,282 90.6 80.4% Bachelor's degree or higher 567 40.1 24.4% Civilian veterans (civilian population 18 years and over) 160 9.6 12.7% Disability status (population 21 to 64 years) 181 12.1 19.2% Foreign born 66 2.9 11.1% Male, Now married (population 15 years and over) 493 62.4 56.7% Female, Now married (population 15 years and over) 505 53.3 52.1% Speak a language other than English at home (population 5 years and over) 133 6.5 17.9%

Economic Characteristics Number Percent U.S. In labor force (population 16 years and over) 1,383 80.5 63.9% Mean travel time to work in minutes (population 16 years and over) 17.3 (X) 25.5 Median household income (dollars) 44,556 (X) 41,994 Median family income (dollars) 51,618 (X) 50,046 Per capita income (dollars) 21,502 (X) 21,587 Families below poverty level 32 5.4 9.2% Individuals below poverty level 171 7.6 12.4%

Housing Characteristics Number Percent U.S. Single-family owner-occupied homes 442 100.0 Median value (dollars) 110,700 (X) 119,600 Median of selected monthly owner costs (X) (X) With a mortgage 914 (X) 1,088 Not mortgaged 201 (X) 295 (X) Not applicable. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Summary File 1 (SF 1) and Summary File 3 (SF 3)

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 20

CITY OF LINCOLN, ARKANSAS CENSUS 2000 DEMOGRAPHICS PROFILE General Characteristics Number Percent U.S. Total population 1,752 100.0 100% Male 823 47.0 49.1% Female 929 53.0 50.9% Median age (years) 35.2 (X) 35.3 Under 5 years 137 7.8 6.8% 18 years and over 1,285 73.3 74.3% 65 years and over 294 16.8 12.4% One race 1,699 97.0 97.6% White 1,608 91.8 75.1% Black or African American 0 0.0 12.3% American Indian and Alaska Native 45 2.6 0.9% Asian 1 0.1 3.6% Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander 0 0.0 0.1% Some other race 45 2.6 5.5% Two or more races 53 3.0 2.4% Hispanic or Latino (of any race) 89 5.1 12.5% Household population 1,752 100.0 97.2% Group quarters population 0 0.0 2.8% Average household size 2.42 (X) 2.59 Average family size 3.00 (X) 3.14 Total housing units 798 100.0 100.0% Occupied housing units 723 90.6 91.0% Owner-occupied housing units 453 62.7 66.2% Renter-occupied housing units 270 37.3 33.8% Vacant housing units 75 9.4 9.0%

Social Characteristics Number Percent U.S. Population 25 years and over 1,160 100.0 High school graduate or higher 806 69.5 80.4% Bachelor's degree or higher 82 7.1 24.4% Civilian veterans (civilian population 18 years and over) 193 14.6 12.7% Disability status (population 21 to 64 years) 269 27.4 19.2% Foreign born 51 2.8 11.1% Male, Now married (population 15 years and over) 395 60.5 56.7% Female, Now married (population 15 years and over) 415 55.3 52.1% Speak a language other than English at home (population 5 years and over) 90 5.4 17.9%

Economic Characteristics Number Percent U.S. In labor force (population 16 years and over) 858 62.1 63.9% Mean travel time to work in minutes (population 16 years and over) 27.2 (X) 25.5 Median household income (dollars) 27,639 (X) 41,994 Median family income (dollars) 37,102 (X) 50,046 Per capita income (dollars) 14,232 (X) 21,587 Families below poverty level 61 12.7 9.2% Individuals below poverty level 286 15.8 12.4%

Housing Characteristics Number Percent U.S. Single-family owner-occupied homes 393 100.0 Median value (dollars) 70,500 (X) 119,600 Median of selected monthly owner costs (X) (X) With a mortgage 655 (X) 1,088 Not mortgaged 219 (X) 295 (X) Not applicable. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Summary File 1 (SF 1) and Summary File 3 (SF 3)

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 21

CITY OF PRAIRIE GROVE, ARKANSAS CENSUS 2000 DEMOGRAPHICS PROFILE General Characteristics Number Percent U.S. Total population 2,540 100.0 100% Male 1,172 46.1 49.1% Female 1,368 53.9 50.9% Median age (years) 35.9 (X) 35.3 Under 5 years 188 7.4 6.8% 18 years and over 1,841 72.5 74.3% 65 years and over 410 16.1 12.4% One race 2,495 98.2 97.6% White 2,414 95.0 75.1% Black or African American 13 0.5 12.3% American Indian and Alaska Native 38 1.5 0.9% Asian 12 0.5 3.6% Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander 1 0.0 0.1% Some other race 17 0.7 5.5% Two or more races 45 1.8 2.4% Hispanic or Latino (of any race) 52 2.0 12.5% Household population 2,482 97.7 97.2% Group quarters population 58 2.3 2.8% Average household size 2.53 (X) 2.59 Average family size 3.05 (X) 3.14 Total housing units 1,054 100.0 100.0% Occupied housing units 981 93.1 91.0% Owner-occupied housing units 709 72.3 66.2% Renter-occupied housing units 272 27.7 33.8% Vacant housing units 73 6.9 9.0%

Social Characteristics Number Percent U.S. Population 25 years and over 1,611 100.0 High school graduate or higher 1,301 80.8 80.4% Bachelor's degree or higher 293 18.2 24.4% Civilian veterans (civilian population 18 years and over) 248 13.8 12.7% Disability status (population 21 to 64 years) 276 21.8 19.2% Foreign born 26 1.0 11.1% Male, Now married (population 15 years and over) 538 60.0 56.7% Female, Now married (population 15 years and over) 552 53.1 52.1% Speak a language other than English at home (population 5 years and over) 65 2.8 17.9%

Economic Characteristics Number Percent U.S. In labor force (population 16 years and over) 1,160 61.1 63.9% Mean travel time to work in minutes (population 16 years and over) 22.9 (X) 25.5 Median household income (dollars) 34,628 (X) 41,994 Median family income (dollars) 41,972 (X) 50,046 Per capita income (dollars) 16,154 (X) 21,587 Families below poverty level 41 6.0 9.2% Individuals below poverty level 237 9.6 12.4%

Housing Characteristics Number Percent U.S. Single-family owner-occupied homes 676 100.0 Median value (dollars) 81,700 (X) 119,600 Median of selected monthly owner costs (X) (X) With a mortgage 734 (X) 1,088 Not mortgaged 237 (X) 295 (X) Not applicable. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Summary File 1 (SF 1) and Summary File 3 (SF 3)

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 22

CITY OF SPRINGDALE, ARKANSAS CENSUS 2000 DEMOGRAPHICS PROFILE General Characteristics Number Percent U.S. Total population 45,798 100.0 100% Male 22,730 49.6 49.1% Female 23,068 50.4 50.9% Median age (years) 31.0 (X) 35.3 Under 5 years 4,256 9.3 6.8% 18 years and over 32,511 71.0 74.3% 65 years and over 4,692 10.2 12.4% One race 44,751 97.7 97.6% White 37,380 81.6 75.1% Black or African American 377 0.8 12.3% American Indian and Alaska Native 431 0.9 0.9% Asian 772 1.7 3.6% Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander 712 1.6 0.1% Some other race 5,079 11.1 5.5% Two or more races 1,047 2.3 2.4% Hispanic or Latino (of any race) 9,005 19.7 12.5% Household population 45,224 98.7 97.2% Group quarters population 574 1.3 2.8% Average household size 2.80 (X) 2.59 Average family size 3.26 (X) 3.14 Total housing units 16,962 100.0 100.0% Occupied housing units 16,149 95.2 91.0% Owner-occupied housing units 9,748 60.4 66.2% Renter-occupied housing units 6,401 39.6 33.8% Vacant housing units 813 4.8 9.0%

Social Characteristics Number Percent U.S. Population 25 years and over 27,641 100.0 High school graduate or higher 20,333 73.6 80.4% Bachelor's degree or higher 4,884 17.7 24.4% Civilian veterans (civilian population 18 years and over) 3,940 12.1 12.7% Disability status (population 21 to 64 years) 4,507 17.6 19.2% Foreign born 7,220 15.7 11.1% Male, Now married (population 15 years and over) 10,564 62.3 56.7% Female, Now married (population 15 years and over) 10,405 58.5 52.1% Speak a language other than English at home (population 5 years and over) 8,783 21.0 17.9%

Economic Characteristics Number Percent U.S. In labor force (population 16 years and over) 22,364 65.7 63.9% Mean travel time to work in minutes (population 16 years and over) 17.3 (X) 25.5 Median household income (dollars) 36,729 (X) 41,994 Median family income (dollars) 42,170 (X) 50,046 Per capita income (dollars) 16,855 (X) 21,587 Families below poverty level 1,057 8.8 9.2% Individuals below poverty level 5,684 12.5 12.4%

Housing Characteristics Number Percent U.S. Single-family owner-occupied homes 8,615 100.0 Median value (dollars) 87,500 (X) 119,600 Median of selected monthly owner costs (X) (X) With a mortgage 787 (X) 1,088 Not mortgaged 230 (X) 295 (X) Not applicable. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Summary File 1 (SF 1) and Summary File 3 (SF 3)

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 23

CITY OF TONTITOWN, ARKANSAS CENSUS 2000 DEMOGRAPHICS PROFILE General Characteristics Number Percent U.S. Total population 942 100.0 100% Male 471 50.0 49.1% Female 471 50.0 50.9% Median age (years) 37.3 (X) 35.3 Under 5 years 64 6.8 6.8% 18 years and over 688 73.0 74.3% 65 years and over 115 12.2 12.4% One race 932 98.9 97.6% White 907 96.3 75.1% Black or African American 0 0.0 12.3% American Indian and Alaska Native 16 1.7 0.9% Asian 0 0.0 3.6% Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander 1 0.1 0.1% Some other race 8 0.8 5.5% Two or more races 10 1.1 2.4% Hispanic or Latino (of any race) 21 2.2 12.5% Household population 942 100.0 97.2% Group quarters population 0 0.0 2.8% Average household size 2.68 (X) 2.59 Average family size 3.07 (X) 3.14 Total housing units 368 100.0 100.0% Occupied housing units 351 95.4 91.0% Owner-occupied housing units 283 80.6 66.2% Renter-occupied housing units 68 19.4 33.8% Vacant housing units 17 4.6 9.0%

Social Characteristics Number Percent U.S. Population 25 years and over 649 100.0 High school graduate or higher 503 77.5 80.4% Bachelor's degree or higher 107 16.5 24.4% Civilian veterans (civilian population 18 years and over) 110 15.4 12.7% Disability status (population 21 to 64 years) 96 17.6 19.2% Foreign born 18 2.0 11.1% Male, Now married (population 15 years and over) 221 60.2 56.7% Female, Now married (population 15 years and over) 248 65.6 52.1% Speak a language other than English at home (population 5 years and over) 51 5.9 17.9%

Economic Characteristics Number Percent U.S. In labor force (population 16 years and over) 494 67.1 63.9% Mean travel time to work in minutes (population 16 years and over) 17.9 (X) 25.5 Median household income (dollars) 43,750 (X) 41,994 Median family income (dollars) 47,589 (X) 50,046 Per capita income (dollars) 20,058 (X) 21,587 Families below poverty level 13 4.9 9.2% Individuals below poverty level 79 8.7 12.4%

Housing Characteristics Number Percent U.S. Single-family owner-occupied homes 184 100.0 Median value (dollars) 116,800 (X) 119,600 Median of selected monthly owner costs (X) (X) With a mortgage 889 (X) 1,088 Not mortgaged 284 (X) 295 (X) Not applicable. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Summary File 1 (SF 1) and Summary File 3 (SF 3)

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 24

CITY OF WEST FORK, ARKANSAS CENSUS 2000 DEMOGRAPHICS PROFILE General Characteristics Number Percent U.S. Total population 2,042 100.0 100% Male 1,005 49.2 49.1% Female 1,037 50.8 50.9% Median age (years) 33.0 (X) 35.3 Under 5 years 165 8.1 6.8% 18 years and over 1,429 70.0 74.3% 65 years and over 200 9.8 12.4% One race 2,005 98.2 97.6% White 1,931 94.6 75.1% Black or African American 9 0.4 12.3% American Indian and Alaska Native 19 0.9 0.9% Asian 11 0.5 3.6% Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander 0 0.0 0.1% Some other race 35 1.7 5.5% Two or more races 37 1.8 2.4% Hispanic or Latino (of any race) 64 3.1 12.5% Household population 2,042 100.0 97.2% Group quarters population 0 0.0 2.8% Average household size 2.72 (X) 2.59 Average family size 3.04 (X) 3.14 Total housing units 800 100.0 100.0% Occupied housing units 750 93.8 91.0% Owner-occupied housing units 552 73.6 66.2% Renter-occupied housing units 198 26.4 33.8% Vacant housing units 50 6.3 9.0%

Social Characteristics Number Percent U.S. Population 25 years and over 1,241 100.0 High school graduate or higher 1,010 81.4 80.4% Bachelor's degree or higher 136 11.0 24.4% Civilian veterans (civilian population 18 years and over) 231 16.5 12.7% Disability status (population 21 to 64 years) 181 15.8 19.2% Foreign born 26 1.3 11.1% Male, Now married (population 15 years and over) 459 64.2 56.7% Female, Now married (population 15 years and over) 463 60.0 52.1% Speak a language other than English at home (population 5 years and over) 55 3.0 17.9%

Economic Characteristics Number Percent U.S. In labor force (population 16 years and over) 994 68.2 63.9% Mean travel time to work in minutes (population 16 years and over) 22.2 (X) 25.5 Median household income (dollars) 37,356 (X) 41,994 Median family income (dollars) 41,818 (X) 50,046 Per capita income (dollars) 14,976 (X) 21,587 Families below poverty level 67 11.6 9.2% Individuals below poverty level 274 13.8 12.4%

Housing Characteristics Number Percent U.S. Single-family owner-occupied homes 481 100.0 Median value (dollars) 72,800 (X) 119,600 Median of selected monthly owner costs (X) (X) With a mortgage 681 (X) 1,088 Not mortgaged 227 (X) 295 (X) Not applicable. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Summary File 1 (SF 1) and Summary File 3 (SF 3)

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 25

CITY OF WINSLOW, ARKANSAS CENSUS 2000 DEMOGRAPHICS PROFILE General Characteristics Number Percent U.S. Total population 399 100.0 100% Male 205 51.4 49.1% Female 194 48.6 50.9% Median age (years) 38.5 (X) 35.3 Under 5 years 29 7.3 6.8% 18 years and over 285 71.4 74.3% 65 years and over 57 14.3 12.4% One race 380 95.2 97.6% White 365 91.5 75.1% Black or African American 4 1.0 12.3% American Indian and Alaska Native 8 2.0 0.9% Asian 0 0.0 3.6% Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander 0 0.0 0.1% Some other race 3 0.8 5.5% Two or more races 19 4.8 2.4% Hispanic or Latino (of any race) 3 0.8 12.5% Household population 399 100.0 97.2% Group quarters population 0 0.0 2.8% Average household size 2.70 (X) 2.59 Average family size 3.18 (X) 3.14 Total housing units 170 100.0 100.0% Occupied housing units 148 87.1 91.0% Owner-occupied housing units 125 84.5 66.2% Renter-occupied housing units 23 15.5 33.8% Vacant housing units 22 12.9 9.0%

Social Characteristics Number Percent U.S. Population 25 years and over 270 100.0 High school graduate or higher 216 80.0 80.4% Bachelor's degree or higher 32 11.9 24.4% Civilian veterans (civilian population 18 years and over) 54 17.3 12.7% Disability status (population 21 to 64 years) 68 28.5 19.2% Foreign born 0 0.0 11.1% Male, Now married (population 15 years and over) 97 56.4 56.7% Female, Now married (population 15 years and over) 100 62.9 52.1% Speak a language other than English at home (population 5 years and over) 14 3.4 17.9%

Economic Characteristics Number Percent U.S. In labor force (population 16 years and over) 187 57.9 63.9% Mean travel time to work in minutes (population 16 years and over) 32.3 (X) 25.5 Median household income (dollars) 24,306 (X) 41,994 Median family income (dollars) 28,125 (X) 50,046 Per capita income (dollars) 12,109 (X) 21,587 Families below poverty level 20 17.5 9.2% Individuals below poverty level 105 24.0 12.4%

Housing Characteristics Number Percent U.S. Single-family owner-occupied homes 109 100.0 Median value (dollars) 47,400 (X) 119,600 Median of selected monthly owner costs (X) (X) With a mortgage 529 (X) 1,088 Not mortgaged 194 (X) 295 (X) Not applicable. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Summary File 1 (SF 1) and Summary File 3 (SF 3)

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 26

1.3.3. Economy

An important indicator of the economic well being of Washington County is the per capita income level of the citizens of our region. The table below indicates that the nation's per capita income increased 56 per cent from 1990 through 2000 while the State of Arkansas recorded a 30 per cent increase in income, Washington County provided a 50 per cent increase in per capita income for its citizens.

PER CAPITA INCOME TRENDS FOR NORTHWEST ARKANSAS FOR PERIOD FROM 1990 TO 2000 PERCENTAGE LOCATION 1990 2000 INCREASE INCREASE Nation $ 17,592 $ 27,408 $ 9,816 56 Arkansas 13,000 16,927 3,927 30

Baxter County 14,730 22,612 7,882 53 Benton County 15,937 26,435 10,498 65 Boone County 14,129 21,717 7,588 53 Carroll County 13,757 19,943 6,186 44 Madison County 13,103 18,820 5,717 43 Marion County 12,611 17,070 4,459 35 Newton County 9,780 13,850 4,070 41 Searcy County 10,860 16,272 5,412 49 Washington County 14,736 22,115 7,379 50 Source: U. S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis, 2001

Only one of the District counties exceeded the growth rate of per capita income for the nation and the state during the decade from 1990 to 2000. However, in no county of Northwest Arkansas do citizens enjoy a per capita income as high as the U.S. average.

PER CAPITA INCOME – 1990 TO 2000 FOR NORTHWEST ARKANSAS PERCENT OF AREA 1990 1999 U.S. AVERAGE Nation $ 17,592 $ 27,408 Arkansas 13,000 16,927 61.75

Baxter County 14,730 22,612 82.5 Benton County 15,937 26,435 96.4 Boone County 14,129 21,717 79.2 Carroll County 13,757 19,943 72.8 Madison County 13,103 18,820 68.6 Marion County 12,611 17,070 62.3 Newton County 9,780 13,850 50.0 Searcy County 10,860 16,272 59.3 Washington County 14,736 22,115 80.8 Source: U. S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis, 2001

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 27

A critical component in Washington County's economic growth and the economic growth of Northwest Arkansas comes as a result of local firm’s expansion of company headquarters. The “Business of Doing Business” is a positive force on this economy. Bentonville is a home office of one of the countries largest retailers, Wal-Mart. The U.S. 540 corridor of Benton and Washington County serves as the home of the Tyson’s Foods Corporation, George’s Inc., and Simmons Foods Corporation all major players in the poultry industry. In addition J.B. Hunt Trucking, Cannon Express, and Willis Shaw all call Northwest Arkansas their home.

The agriculture industry is growing in Northwest Arkansas, especially in the area of poultry production and processing. The nation's largest producer of processed poultry, Tyson Foods, has its corporate headquarters in Washington County. Hudson Foods, the sixth largest processor of poultry was acquired by Tyson foods. Peterson Industries and Cobb-Vantress, the nation's leaders in the production of breeder stock for the poultry industry, are headquartered in Benton County. During the past year, these firms have contributed significantly to the creation of new economic and job opportunities in Benton, Boone, Carroll, Madison and most importantly Washington County.

1.3.4. Future Development

The region has the potential for the creation of economic growth through the implementation of value-added manufacturing which utilizes the District's natural resources of agriculture land and forest products. A good example is the further processing of poultry, which creates new job opportunities for our citizens, as the region becomes a leading supplier of poultry to the fast food industry.

Universities are key components of the most comprehensive and successful economic development strategies. Studies nationwide reveal that research firms desiring to develop relationships with universities often want to be located at or near the campus to create synergies, improve collaboration and provide direct access to facilities and faculty.

The premiere institution of higher education in the state, the University of Arkansas at Fayetteville, is located in Washington County. The physics department at the university is recognized for its leadership in numerous research endeavors. The utilization of the resources of this institution has great potential for the economic development of the region in the area of implementing the industrial production of products generated from the research laboratories of the university. Only 26 miles from Fayetteville in the Benton County Community of Siloam Springs is John Brown University. A smaller liberal arts college, best known for their masters’ degree program in business. This program has been well received by the businesses in the Fayetteville-Springdale-Rogers Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA). This program makes it possible for working individuals to attain a master’s degree in business by attending night classes.

1.3.5. Capability Assessment

The capability of Washington County’s county and city governments to address mitigation issues was determined through the collection of “capability assessment” information about each

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 28 jurisdiction. For each, it was determined if a jurisdiction had adopted ordinances implementing such mitigation-related activities as storm water management, stream management, zoning management, subdivision management and floodplain management. Information was also documented regarding the jurisdiction’s participation in the floodplain management program, including its join date, NFIP number and maintenance of elevation certificates.

Determination of capability information about each jurisdiction also included its establishment of a land use plan and building codes and information about the various utility services provided, fire insurance rating (ISO), previous mitigation plans & actions, and flood insurance claims.

The assessment findings for each jurisdiction are listed on the following pages.

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 29

Washington County Capability Assessment

Adopted Storm Water Management Ordinances:...... No Adopted Stream Management Ordinances:...... No Adopted Zoning Management Ordinances:...... No Adopted Subdivision Management Ordinances: ...... Yes Adopted Erosion Management Ordinances:...... No Adopted Floodplain Management Ordinances: ...... Yes Floodplain Management Plan Published Date:...... 2001 Elevation Certificates Maintained: ...... Yes National Flood Insurance Program Community:...... Yes National Flood Insurance Join Date:...... September 18, 1991 NFIP Community Number: ...... 050212 FFIP Community Rating System Number: ...... N/A NFIP CRS Effective Date:...... N/A Land Use Plan:...... No Land Use Plan Last Update:...... N/A Community Zoned: ...... No Zoned Date: ...... N/A Established Building Codes:...... No Building Codes Last Updated:...... N/A Type of Building Codes: ...... N/A Local Electric Utilities: ...... Ozark Electric Cooperative, Southwestern Electric Power Co. Local Water Treatment:...... Beaver Water Dist., Benton-Washington Water Dist. Local Water Distribution:...... Washington Water Authority Local Wastewater Collection:...... None Local Wastewater Treatment:...... None Local Natural Gas Utilities:...... Arkansas Western Gas Local Telephone Utilities: ...... ALLTEL, Southwestern Bell, Century Tel, Prairie Grove Tel. Co. TV, Cable: ...... Cox Communications Community has a Fire Insurance Rating: ...... Yes Fire Insurance Rating: ...... Class 3 to Class 9 Fire Insurance Rating Date:...... Varies By Individual/Rural Fire Departments Previous Mitigation Plans, Projects, and Actions: ...... None Flood Insurance Claims:...... Yes

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 30 City Capability Assessment for Washington County

City Name: Elkins

Adopted Storm Water Management Ordinances:...... Yes Adopted Stream Management Ordinances:...... No Adopted Zoning Management Ordinances:...... Yes Adopted Subdivision Management Ordinances: ...... Yes Adopted Erosion Management Ordinances:...... Yes Adopted Floodplain Management Ordinances: ...... Yes Floodplain Management Plan Published Date:...... December 20, 2000 Elevation Certificates Maintained: ...... Yes National Flood Insurance Program Community:...... Yes National Flood Insurance Join Date:...... December 20, 1974 NFIP Community Number: ...... 050214 FFIP Community Rating System Number: ...... N/A NFIP CRS Effective Date:...... N/A Land Use Plan:...... Yes Land Use Plan Last Update:...... December 6, 2001 Community Zoned: ...... Yes Zoned Date: ...... December 6, 2001 Established Building Codes:...... Yes Building Codes Last Updated:...... March 17, 2005 Type of Building Codes: ...... International Building Codes, 2000 OD. Local Electric Utilities: ...... Ozark Electric Cooperative Local Water Treatment:...... City of Fayetteville Local Water Distribution:...... City of Elkins Local Wastewater Collection:...... City of Elkins Local Wastewater Treatment:...... City of Fayetteville Local Natural Gas Utilities:...... Arkansas Western Gas Local Telephone Utilities: ...... ALLTEL & Southwestern Bell TV, Cable: ...... Cox Cable Community has a Fire Insurance Rating: ...... Yes Fire Insurance Rating: ...... 7 Fire Insurance Rating Date:...... 1991 Previous Mitigation Plans, Projects, and Actions: ...... None Flood Insurance Claims:...... None

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 31 City Capability Assessment for Washington County

City Name: Elm Springs

Adopted Storm Water Management Ordinances:...... No Adopted Stream Management Ordinances:...... No Adopted Zoning Management Ordinances:...... Yes Adopted Subdivision Management Ordinances: ...... Yes Adopted Erosion Management Ordinances:...... Yes Adopted Floodplain Management Ordinances: ...... Yes Floodplain Management Plan Published Date:...... No Elevation Certificates Maintained: ...... No National Flood Insurance Program Community:...... Yes National Flood Insurance Join Date:...... April 30, 1986 NFIP Community Number: ...... 050213 FFIP Community Rating System Number: ...... N/A NFIP CRS Effective Date:...... N/A Land Use Plan:...... Yes Land Use Plan Last Update:...... 2004 Community Zoned: ...... Yes Zoned Date: ...... 2004 Established Building Codes:...... Yes Building Codes Last Updated:...... April, 2003 Type of Building Codes: ...... State Fire Prevention Local Electric Utilities: ...... Ozark Electric Coop., Southwestern Electric Power Company Local Water Treatment:...... City of Springdale Local Water Distribution:...... City of Springdale Local Wastewater Collection:...... N/A Local Wastewater Treatment:...... N/A Local Natural Gas Utilities:...... Arkansas Western Gas Local Telephone Utilities: ...... CenturyTel, Southwestern Bell TV, Cable: ...... Cox Cable Community has a Fire Insurance Rating: ...... Yes Fire Insurance Rating: ...... 6 Fire Insurance Rating Date:...... Not Reported Previous Mitigation Plans, Projects, and Actions: ...... None Flood Insurance Claims:...... None

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 32 City Capability Assessment for Washington County

City Name: Farmington

Adopted Storm Water Management Ordinances:...... No Adopted Stream Management Ordinances:...... No Adopted Zoning Management Ordinances:...... Yes Adopted Subdivision Management Ordinances: ...... Yes Adopted Erosion Management Ordinances:...... No Adopted Floodplain Management Ordinances: ...... Yes Floodplain Management Plan Published Date:...... No Elevation Certificates Maintained: ...... No National Flood Insurance Program Community:...... Yes National Flood Insurance Join Date:...... August 24, 1982 NFIP Community Number: ...... 050215 FFIP Community Rating System Number: ...... N/A NFIP CRS Effective Date:...... N/A Land Use Plan:...... Yes Land Use Plan Last Update:...... 1988 Community Zoned: ...... Yes Zoned Date: ...... 1969 Established Building Codes:...... Yes Building Codes Last Updated:...... 1988 Type of Building Codes: ...... Southern Standard Local Electric Utilities: ...... Ozark Electric Local Water Treatment:...... Fayetteville Water Dept. Local Water Distribution:...... Fayetteville Water Dept. Local Wastewater Collection:...... Fayetteville Local Wastewater Treatment:...... Fayetteville Local Natural Gas Utilities:...... Arkansas Western Gas Local Telephone Utilities: ...... Prairie Grove Telephone Co. TV, Cable: ...... Cox Cable Community has a Fire Insurance Rating: ...... Yes Fire Insurance Rating: ...... 5 Fire Insurance Rating Date:...... 1988 Previous Mitigation Plans, Projects, and Actions: ...... None Flood Insurance Claims:...... None

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 33 City Capability Assessment for Washington County

City Name: Fayetteville

Adopted Storm Water Management Ordinances:...... Yes Adopted Stream Management Ordinances:...... Yes Adopted Zoning Management Ordinances:...... Yes Adopted Subdivision Management Ordinances: ...... Yes Adopted Erosion Management Ordinances:...... Yes Adopted Floodplain Management Ordinances: ...... Yes Floodplain Management Plan Published Date:...... 1998 Elevation Certificates Maintained: ...... Yes National Flood Insurance Program Community:...... Yes National Flood Insurance Join Date:...... January 20, 1982 NFIP Community Number: ...... 050216 FFIP Community Rating System Number: ...... N/A NFIP CRS Effective Date:...... N/A Land Use Plan:...... Yes Land Use Plan Last Update:...... 2001 Community Zoned: ...... Yes Zoned Date: ...... 1951 Established Building Codes:...... Yes Building Codes Last Updated:...... 2004 Type of Building Codes: ...... International Building Codes/AR State Fire Prevention Codes Local Electric Utilities: ...... AEP-Southwestern Electric Power Company Local Water Treatment:...... OMI, Inc. Local Water Distribution:...... City of Fayetteville Local Wastewater Collection:...... Beaver Lake Water Authority Local Wastewater Treatment:...... OMI, Inc. Local Natural Gas Utilities:...... Arkansas Western Gas Local Telephone Utilities: ...... Southwestern Bell TV, Cable: ...... Cox Communications Community has a Fire Insurance Rating: ...... Yes Fire Insurance Rating: ...... 4 Fire Insurance Rating Date:...... 2003 Previous Mitigation Plans, Projects, and Actions: ...... None Flood Insurance Claims:...... Yes

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 34 City Capability Assessment for Washington County

City Name: Goshen

Adopted Storm Water Management Ordinances:...... No Adopted Stream Management Ordinances:...... No Adopted Zoning Management Ordinances:...... Yes Adopted Subdivision Management Ordinances: ...... Yes Adopted Erosion Management Ordinances:...... No Adopted Floodplain Management Ordinances: ...... Yes Floodplain Management Plan Published Date:...... September, 2003 Elevation Certificates Maintained: ...... No National Flood Insurance Program Community:...... Yes National Flood Insurance Join Date:...... October 30, 2003 NFIP Community Number: ...... 050594 FFIP Community Rating System Number: ...... N/A NFIP CRS Effective Date:...... N/A Land Use Plan:...... Yes Land Use Plan Last Update:...... April, 2003 Community Zoned: ...... Yes Zoned Date: ...... February, 2003 Established Building Codes:...... Yes Building Codes Last Updated:...... July, 2003 Type of Building Codes: ...... AR State Fire Prevention Codes/International Building Codes Local Electric Utilities: ...... Ozark Electric Local Water Treatment:...... Mt. Olive, Madison Co., Fayetteville, Springdale Local Water Distribution:...... Mt. Olive, Madison Co., Fayetteville, Springdale Local Wastewater Collection:...... None Local Wastewater Treatment:...... Only in Waterford Estates Local Natural Gas Utilities:...... Arkansas Western Local Telephone Utilities: ...... Southwestern Bell TV, Cable: ...... Cox Community has a Fire Insurance Rating: ...... Yes Fire Insurance Rating: ...... 9 Fire Insurance Rating Date:...... Never tested given rate by the State Previous Mitigation Plans, Projects, and Actions: ...... Yes Flood Insurance Claims:...... Yes

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 35 City Capability Assessment for Washington County

City Name: Greenland

Adopted Storm Water Management Ordinances:...... Yes Adopted Stream Management Ordinances:...... No Adopted Zoning Management Ordinances:...... Yes Adopted Subdivision Management Ordinances: ...... Yes Adopted Erosion Management Ordinances:...... No Adopted Floodplain Management Ordinances: ...... Yes Floodplain Management Plan Published Date:...... February, 1978 Elevation Certificates Maintained: ...... No National Flood Insurance Program Community:...... Yes National Flood Insurance Join Date:...... June 20, 1978/September 18, 1991 NFIP Community Number: ...... 050217 FFIP Community Rating System Number: ...... N/A NFIP CRS Effective Date:...... N/A Land Use Plan:...... No Land Use Plan Last Update:...... N/A Community Zoned: ...... Yes Zoned Date: ...... March, 1993 Established Building Codes:...... Yes Building Codes Last Updated:...... 2002 Type of Building Codes: ...... Southern Building Code Local Electric Utilities: ...... AEP-Southwestern Electric, Ozarks Electric Local Water Treatment:...... City of Fayetteville Local Water Distribution:...... City of Fayetteville, Washington Water Authority Local Wastewater Collection:...... Local Wastewater Treatment:...... City of Fayetteville Local Natural Gas Utilities:...... Arkansas Western Gas Local Telephone Utilities: ...... Southwestern Bell TV, Cable: ...... Cox Communications Community has a Fire Insurance Rating: ...... Yes Fire Insurance Rating: ...... 4 Fire Insurance Rating Date:...... August 16, 1996 Previous Mitigation Plans, Projects, and Actions: ...... No Flood Insurance Claims:...... Yes

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 36 City Capability Assessment for Washington County

City Name: Johnson

Adopted Storm Water Management Ordinances:...... Yes Adopted Stream Management Ordinances:...... No Adopted Zoning Management Ordinances:...... Yes Adopted Subdivision Management Ordinances: ...... Yes Adopted Erosion Management Ordinances:...... No Adopted Floodplain Management Ordinances: ...... Yes Floodplain Management Plan Published Date:...... No Elevation Certificates Maintained: ...... No National Flood Insurance Program Community:...... Yes National Flood Insurance Join Date:...... July 16, 1980 NFIP Community Number: ...... 050218 FFIP Community Rating System Number: ...... N/A NFIP CRS Effective Date:...... N/A Land Use Plan:...... Yes Land Use Plan Last Update:...... As Needed Community Zoned: ...... Yes Zoned Date: ...... Updated Regularly Established Building Codes:...... Yes Building Codes Last Updated:...... January 1, 2005 Type of Building Codes: ...... Southern Building Code Local Electric Utilities: ...... Ozark Electric Coop., Southwestern Electric Power Co. Local Water Treatment:...... Fayetteville/Springdale Local Water Distribution:...... Fayetteville/Springdale Local Wastewater Collection:...... Fayetteville/Springdale Local Wastewater Treatment:...... Fayetteville/Springdale Local Natural Gas Utilities:...... Arkansas Western Gas Local Telephone Utilities: ...... Southwestern Bell TV, Cable: ...... Cox Communications Community has a Fire Insurance Rating: ...... Yes Fire Insurance Rating: ...... 5 Fire Insurance Rating Date:...... 1998 Previous Mitigation Plans, Projects, and Actions: ...... None Flood Insurance Claims:...... None

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 37 City Capability Assessment for Washington County

City Name: Lincoln

Adopted Storm Water Management Ordinances:...... No Adopted Stream Management Ordinances:...... No Adopted Zoning Management Ordinances:...... Yes Adopted Subdivision Management Ordinances: ...... Yes Adopted Erosion Management Ordinances:...... No Adopted Floodplain Management Ordinances: ...... Yes Floodplain Management Plan Published Date:...... February 25, 2004 Elevation Certificates Maintained: ...... No National Flood Insurance Program Community:...... Yes National Flood Insurance Join Date:...... June 1, 2004 NFIP Community Number: ...... 050338 FFIP Community Rating System Number: ...... N/A NFIP CRS Effective Date:...... N/A Land Use Plan:...... Yes Land Use Plan Last Update:...... November 8, 2004 Community Zoned: ...... Yes Zoned Date: ...... August 10, 1992 Established Building Codes:...... Yes Building Codes Last Updated:...... August 11, 2003 Type of Building Codes: ...... International Building Codes Local Electric Utilities: ...... Ozark Electric Cooperative & AEP Local Water Treatment:...... Two Ton Local Water Distribution:...... City of Lincoln Local Wastewater Collection:...... City of Lincoln Local Wastewater Treatment:...... City of Lincoln Local Natural Gas Utilities:...... Arkansas Western Gas Local Telephone Utilities: ...... Prairie Grove Telephone Co. TV, Cable: ...... Cox Communications Community has a Fire Insurance Rating: ...... Yes Fire Insurance Rating: ...... 4 Fire Insurance Rating Date:...... October, 2000 Previous Mitigation Plans, Projects, and Actions: ...... None Flood Insurance Claims:...... None

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 38 City Capability Assessment for Washington County

City Name: Prairie Grove

Adopted Storm Water Management Ordinances:...... No Adopted Stream Management Ordinances:...... No Adopted Zoning Management Ordinances:...... Yes Adopted Subdivision Management Ordinances: ...... Yes Adopted Erosion Management Ordinances:...... No Adopted Floodplain Management Ordinances: ...... Yes Floodplain Management Plan Published Date:...... March 15, 2006 Elevation Certificates Maintained: ...... Yes National Flood Insurance Program Community:...... Yes National Flood Insurance Join Date:...... June 1, 2004 NFIP Community Number: ...... 050587 FFIP Community Rating System Number: ...... N/A NFIP CRS Effective Date:...... N/A Land Use Plan:...... Yes Land Use Plan Last Update:...... 1995 Community Zoned: ...... Yes Zoned Date: ...... 1970 Established Building Codes:...... Yes Building Codes Last Updated:...... 2004 Type of Building Codes: ...... International Building Codes, AR Pluming & Mech., NEC Local Electric Utilities: ...... AEP, Ozark Electric Cooperative Local Water Treatment:...... Prairie Grove WTP; BIWRPWA Local Water Distribution:...... Prairie Grove Water; Washington Water Authority Local Wastewater Collection:...... Prairie Grove Water Local Wastewater Treatment:...... Prairie Grove WWTP Local Natural Gas Utilities:...... Arkansas Western Gas Local Telephone Utilities: ...... Prairie Grove Telephone Co. TV, Cable: ...... Cox Communication Community has a Fire Insurance Rating: ...... Yes Fire Insurance Rating: ...... 3 Fire Insurance Rating Date:...... 2002 Previous Mitigation Plans, Projects, and Actions: ...... None Flood Insurance Claims:...... None

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 39 City Capability Assessment for Washington County

City Name: Springdale

Adopted Storm Water Management Ordinances:...... Yes Adopted Stream Management Ordinances:...... No Adopted Zoning Management Ordinances:...... Yes Adopted Subdivision Management Ordinances: ...... Yes Adopted Erosion Management Ordinances:...... Yes Adopted Floodplain Management Ordinances: ...... Yes Floodplain Management Plan Published Date:...... None Elevation Certificates Maintained: ...... Yes National Flood Insurance Program Community:...... Yes National Flood Insurance Join Date:...... June 15, 1981 NFIP Community Number: ...... 050219 FFIP Community Rating System Number: ...... N/A NFIP CRS Effective Date:...... N/A Land Use Plan:...... Yes Land Use Plan Last Update:...... January, 1998 Community Zoned: ...... Yes Zoned Date: ...... March, 2003 Established Building Codes:...... Yes Building Codes Last Updated:...... February, 2003 Type of Building Codes: ...... International Building Codes Local Electric Utilities: ...... Ozark Electric Cooperative, AEP, Carroll Electric Local Water Treatment:...... Springdale Water & Sewer Utilities Local Water Distribution:...... Springdale Water & Sewer Utilities Local Wastewater Collection:...... Springdale Water & Sewer Utilities Local Wastewater Treatment:...... Springdale Water & Sewer Utilities Local Natural Gas Utilities:...... Arkansas Western Gas Local Telephone Utilities: ...... Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. TV, Cable: ...... Cox Communications Community has a Fire Insurance Rating: ...... Yes Fire Insurance Rating: ...... 3 Fire Insurance Rating Date:...... May, 2004 Previous Mitigation Plans, Projects, and Actions: ...... None Flood Insurance Claims:...... None

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 40 City Capability Assessment for Washington County

City Name: Tontitown

Adopted Storm Water Management Ordinances:...... Yes Adopted Stream Management Ordinances:...... No Adopted Zoning Management Ordinances:...... Yes Adopted Subdivision Management Ordinances: ...... Yes Adopted Erosion Management Ordinances:...... No Adopted Floodplain Management Ordinances: ...... Yes Floodplain Management Plan Published Date:...... None Elevation Certificates Maintained: ...... Yes National Flood Insurance Program Community:...... Yes National Flood Insurance Join Date:...... February 1, 1988 NFIP Community Number: ...... 050293 FFIP Community Rating System Number: ...... N/A NFIP CRS Effective Date:...... N/A Land Use Plan:...... Yes Land Use Plan Last Update:...... September 2005 Community Zoned: ...... Yes Zoned Date: ...... September 2005 Established Building Codes:...... Yes Building Codes Last Updated:...... April 2005 Type of Building Codes: ...... 2002 AR Fire Protection, 2003 AR Plumbing and Mechanical Code 1995 AR Gas Code, 2002 NEC, 2003 IBC Local Electric Utilities: ...... Ozarks and SWEPCO Local Water Treatment:...... City of Tontitown & Washington Co. Water Local Water Distribution:...... City of Tontitown & Washington Co. Water Local Wastewater Collection:...... Septic, recently received approval to tap to Springdale Sewer Local Wastewater Treatment:...... Septic, recently received approval to tap to Springdale Sewer Local Natural Gas Utilities:...... Arkansas Western Gas Local Telephone Utilities: ...... SBC TV, Cable: ...... Cox Community has a Fire Insurance Rating: ...... Yes Fire Insurance Rating: ...... 7 Fire Insurance Rating Date:...... March 1, 1999 Previous Mitigation Plans, Projects, and Actions: ...... No Flood Insurance Claims:...... No

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 41 City Capability Assessment for Washington County

City Name: West Fork

Adopted Storm Water Management Ordinances:...... No Adopted Stream Management Ordinances:...... No Adopted Zoning Management Ordinances:...... Yes Adopted Subdivision Management Ordinances: ...... Yes Adopted Erosion Management Ordinances:...... Yes Adopted Floodplain Management Ordinances: ...... Yes Floodplain Management Plan Published Date:...... December, 1987 Elevation Certificates Maintained: ...... Yes National Flood Insurance Program Community:...... Yes National Flood Insurance Join Date:...... July 2, 1980 NFIP Community Number: ...... 050220 FFIP Community Rating System Number: ...... N/A NFIP CRS Effective Date:...... N/A Land Use Plan:...... Yes Land Use Plan Last Update:...... December, 1997 Community Zoned: ...... Yes Zoned Date: ...... December, 1997 Established Building Codes:...... Yes Building Codes Last Updated:...... February, 2005 Type of Building Codes: ...... International Building Codes, Fire Code, Mech Code, etc. Local Electric Utilities: ...... AEP-Southwestern Electric Power Company Local Water Treatment:...... City of Fayetteville Local Water Distribution:...... City of West Fork Local Wastewater Collection:...... City of West Fork Local Wastewater Treatment:...... City of West Fork Local Natural Gas Utilities:...... Arkansas Western Gas Local Telephone Utilities: ...... ALLTEL TV, Cable: ...... Cox Cable Community has a Fire Insurance Rating: ...... Yes Fire Insurance Rating: ...... 5 Fire Insurance Rating Date:...... August 28, 1996 Previous Mitigation Plans, Projects, and Actions: ...... None Flood Insurance Claims:...... Yes

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 42 City Capability Assessment for Washington County

City Name: Winslow

Adopted Storm Water Management Ordinances:...... No Adopted Stream Management Ordinances:...... No Adopted Zoning Management Ordinances:...... No Adopted Subdivision Management Ordinances: ...... No Adopted Erosion Management Ordinances:...... No Adopted Floodplain Management Ordinances: ...... No Floodplain Management Plan Published Date:...... No Elevation Certificates Maintained: ...... No National Flood Insurance Program Community:...... Yes National Flood Insurance Join Date:...... June 1, 1988 NFIP Community Number: ...... 050300 FFIP Community Rating System Number: ...... N/A NFIP CRS Effective Date:...... N/A Land Use Plan:...... No Land Use Plan Last Update:...... N/A Community Zoned: ...... No Zoned Date: ...... N/A Established Building Codes:...... None Building Codes Last Updated:...... N/A Type of Building Codes: ...... N/A Local Electric Utilities: ...... Ozark Electric Coop Local Water Treatment:...... City of Fort Smith Local Water Distribution:...... Winslow Water System Local Wastewater Collection:...... None Local Wastewater Treatment:...... None Local Natural Gas Utilities:...... None Local Telephone Utilities: ...... CentruyTel TV, Cable: ...... Cox Community has a Fire Insurance Rating: ...... Yes Fire Insurance Rating: ...... 9 Fire Insurance Rating Date:...... 1978 Previous Mitigation Plans, Projects, and Actions: ...... No Flood Insurance Claims:...... No

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 43

Washington County Fire Department Current ISO Ratings ISO Ratings Boston Mountain Rural 9 (Includes Winslow) Elkins City 7 Elkins Rural 9 Evansville Rural 9 Farmington City 5 Farmington/Prairie Grove Rural 7 Fayetteville 4 Goshen City and Rural 9 Johnson City 5 Johnson Rural 9 Lincoln City 4 Lincoln Rural 7 Morrow Rural 9 Nob Hill Rural 5 Prairie Grove City 3 Round Mountain Rural 9 Springdale 3 Strickler Rural 9 Sunset Rural 9 Tontitown City 6 (Includes Elm Springs City) Tontitown Rural 9 Wedington Rural 8 West Fork City 5 (Includes Greenland City) West Fork Rural 9 Wheeler Rural 5 Whitehouse Rural 9

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 44

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 45 Section 2. Plan Adoption

2.1. Multi-Jurisdictional Plan Adoption

In addition to the rural portions of Washington County, thirteen cities within Washington County are included in this plan. The cities are City of Elkins, City of Elm Springs, City of Farmington, City of Fayetteville, City of Goshen, City of Greenland, City of Johnson, City of Lincoln, City of Prairie Grove, City of Springdale, City of Tontitown, City of West Fork, and the City of Winslow. The following school districts in Washington County are also included in this plan: Elkins School District, Farmington School District, Fayetteville School District, Greenland School District, Lincoln School District, Prairie Grove School District, Springdale School District, and West Fork School District. The signatories for each of these communities are listed below.

The County and each jurisdiction will adopt the plan once FEMA has approved the Mitigation Plan.

The Washington County Hazard Mitigation plan was reviewed and approved by the following:

Approved by:

Signature: ______Date: ______

Name: The Honorable Jerry Hunton Title: County Judge Organization: Washington County, Arkansas

Signature: ______Date: ______

Name: The Honorable Jack Ladyman Title: Mayor Organization: City of Elkins, Arkansas

Signature: ______Date: ______

Name: The Honorable Jane Waters Title: Mayor Organization: City of Elm Springs, Arkansas

Signature: ______Date: ______

Name: The Honorable Ernie Penn Title: Mayor Organization: City of Farmington, Arkansas

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 46

Signature: ______Date: ______

Name: The Honorable Dan Coody Title: Mayor Organization: City of Fayetteville, Arkansas

Signature: ______Date: ______

Name: The Honorable Andy Bethell Title: Mayor Organization: City of Goshen, Arkansas

Signature: ______Date: ______

Name: The Honorable John Gray Title: Mayor Organization: City of Greenland, Arkansas

Signature: ______Date: ______

Name: The Honorable Lonnie Barron Title: Mayor Organization: City of Johnson, Arkansas

Signature: ______Date: ______

Name: The Honorable Rob Hulse Title: Mayor Organization: City of Lincoln, Arkansas

Signature: ______Date: ______

Name: The Honorable Sonny Hudson Title: Mayor Organization: City of Prairie Grove, Arkansas

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 47

Signature: ______Date: ______

Name: The Honorable Jerry M. Van Hoose Title: Mayor Organization: City of Springdale, Arkansas

Signature: ______Date: ______

Name: The Honorable Paul Maestri Title: Mayor Organization: City of Tontitown, Arkansas

Signature: ______Date: ______

Name: The Honorable Jeffery T. Baker Title: Mayor Organization: City of West Fork, Arkansas

Signature: ______Date: ______

Name: The Honorable Randy Jarnagan Title: Mayor Organization: City of Winslow, Arkansas

Signature: ______Date: ______

Name: Dr. Robert W. Allen Title: Superintendent Organization: Elkins School District

Signature: ______Date: ______

Name: Mr. Ronnie L. Wright Title: Superintendent Organization: Farmington School District

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 48

Signature: ______Date: ______

Name: Dr. Bobby C. New Title: Superintendent Organization: Fayetteville School District

Signature: ______Date: ______

Name: Mr. Tim N. Passmore Title: Superintendent Organization: Greenland School District

Signature: ______Date: ______

Name: Mr. James L. Lewis, III Title: Superintendent Organization: Lincoln School District

Signature: ______Date: ______

Name: Mr. Tom Louks Title: Superintendent Organization: Prairie Grove School District

Signature: ______Date: ______

Name: Dr. Jim Rollins Title: Superintendent Organization: Springdale School District

Signature: ______Date: ______

Name: Mr. John G. Selph Title: Superintendent Organization: West Fork School District

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 49

RESOLUTION NO. ______

A RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN FOR (City/County)

WHEREAS, certain areas of ______County/City, (State), are subject to periodic flooding and other natural and man-caused hazards with the potential to cause damages to people’s properties within the area; and

WHEREAS, ______County/City desires to prepare and mitigate for such circumstances; and

WHEREAS, under the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000, the United States Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) required that local jurisdictions have in place a FEMA- approved Hazard Mitigation Action Plan as a condition of receipt of certain future Federal mitigation funding after November 1, 2004; and

WHEREAS, to assist cities and counties in meeting this requirement, the (County), with the assistance of Northwest Arkansas Economic Development District, has initiated development of a county wide, multi- jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan the county and all jurisdictions in the county, specifically the cities and school districts;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE City Council/Quorum Court OF THE ______County/City, (STATE):

That ______County/City, (State) hereby adopts those portions of the Plan relating to and protecting its jurisdictional area against all hazards, 2005-2010; and

Appoints the Emergency Management Director to assure that the Hazard Mitigation Plan be reviewed at least annually and that any needed adjustment to the Hazard Mitigation Plan be developed and presented to the governing board for consideration; and

Agrees to take such other official action as may be reasonably necessary to carry out the objectives of the Hazard Mitigation Plan.

APPROVED and ADOPTED on this ____ day of ______, 2005.

APPROVED:

______County Judge Mayor School Superintendent

ATTEST:

______Secretary/Clerk

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 51

Section 3. Planning Process

3.1. Multi-Jurisdictional Planning Participation

IFR REQUIREMENT Multi-jurisdictional plans (e.g., watershed plans) may be 201.6(a)(3): accepted, as appropriate, as long as each jurisdiction has participated in the process … Statewide plans will not be accepted as multi-jurisdictional plans. Explanation: A multi-jurisdictional plan, as prepared by regional planning and development authorities (e.g., watershed/river basin commission), is acceptable as a Local Mitigation Plan under DMA 2000. However, those jurisdictions within the planning area that do not participate in its development will not be eligible for future mitigation project grant assistance from FEMA. Therefore, the plan must document how each jurisdiction requesting FEMA recognition of the plan participated in the planning process.

This Hazard Mitigation Plan is multi-jurisdictional with a planning area that includes all of unincorporated Washington County and thirteen municipalities within the County including the City of Elkins, City of Elm Springs, City of Farmington, City of Fayetteville, City of Goshen, City of Greenland, City of Johnson, City of Lincoln, City of Prairie Grove, City of Springdale, City of Tontitown, City of West Fork, and the City of Winslow. The following school districts in Washington County are also included in this plan: Elkins School District, Farmington School District, Fayetteville School District, Greenland School District, Lincoln School District, Prairie Grove School District, Springdale School District, and West Fork School District.

All twenty-two jurisdictions listed above are actively participating in the planning process. Each jurisdiction provided at least one representative to participate on the planning team, with larger jurisdictions providing more members. Planning team members actively participated in meetings, solicited input from members of their communities, and ensured that all jurisdiction information was reflected in the plan. A description of the planning process, including a list of planning team members from each jurisdiction, is provided in Section 3.2. The following page contains a table summarizing the types of participation for each jurisdiction.

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 52 Summarization of How Each Jurisdiction Participated in the Planning Process

Jurisdiction Nature of Participation/Involvement Washington County Staff in conjunction with NWAEDD hosted the planning meetings. Developed and distributed Assessment Forms. Discussed Historical Data. Developed Unincorporated Washington and distributed Household Natural Hazards Preparedness County Questionnaires to Citizens as well as Planning Partners, Elected Officials, LEPC Members, School Superintendents and News Media. Attended planning meeting held Thursday, May 19, 2005. Completed City Assessment Form. Discussed Historical City of Elkins Data. Passed out Household Natural Hazards Preparedness Questionnaires to Citizens. Coordinated planning efforts in conjunction with NWAEDD and Washington County. Received invitation to planning meeting held Thursday, May 19, 2005. Completed City Assessment Form. Discussed Historical Data. Passed out Household Natural City of Elm Springs Hazards Preparedness Questionnaires to Citizens. Coordinated planning efforts in conjunction with NWAEDD and Washington County. Received invitation to planning meeting held Thursday, May 19, 2005. Completed City Assessment Form. Discussed Historical Data. Passed out Household Natural City of Farmington Hazards Preparedness Questionnaires to Citizens. Coordinated planning efforts in conjunction with NWAEDD and Washington County. Received invitation to planning meeting held Thursday, May 19, 2005. Completed City Assessment Form. Discussed Historical Data. Passed out Household Natural City of Fayetteville Hazards Preparedness Questionnaires to Citizens. Coordinated planning efforts in conjunction with NWAEDD and Washington County. Received invitation to planning meeting held Thursday, May 19, 2005. Has committed to completing city assessment form. (Have not received completed form as of City of Goshen July 15, 2005.) Discussed Historical Data. Received Household Natural Hazards Preparedness Questionnaires. Coordinated planning efforts in conjunction with NWAEDD and Washington County. Received invitation to planning meeting held Thursday, May 19, 2005. Completed City Assessment Form. Discussed Historical Data. Passed out Household Natural City of Greenland Hazards Preparedness Questionnaires to Citizens. Coordinated planning efforts in conjunction with NWAEDD and Washington County.

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 53

Jurisdiction Nature of Participation/Involvement Received invitation to planning meeting held Thursday, May 19, 2005. Completed City Assessment Form. Discussed Historical Data. Passed out Household Natural City of Johnson Hazards Preparedness Questionnaires to Citizens. Coordinated planning efforts in conjunction with NWAEDD and Washington County. Attended planning meeting held Thursday, May 19, 2005. Completed City Assessment Form. Discussed Historical City of Lincoln Data. Passed out Household Natural Hazards Preparedness Questionnaires to Citizens. Coordinated planning efforts in conjunction with NWAEDD and Washington County. Attended planning meeting held Thursday, May 19, 2005. Completed City Assessment Form. Discussed Historical City of Prairie Grove Data. Passed out Household Natural Hazards Preparedness Questionnaires to Citizens. Coordinated planning efforts in conjunction with NWAEDD and Washington County. Attended planning meeting held Thursday, May 19, 2005. Completed City Assessment Form. Discussed Historical City of Springdale Data. Passed out Household Natural Hazards Preparedness Questionnaires to Citizens. Coordinated planning efforts in conjunction with NWAEDD and Washington County. Received invitation to planning meeting held Thursday, May 19, 2005. Has committed to completing city assessment form. Discussed Historical Data. Received City of Tontitown Household Natural Hazards Preparedness Questionnaires. Coordinated planning efforts in conjunction with NWAEDD and Washington County. Received invitation to planning meeting held Thursday, May 19, 2005. Completed City Assessment Form. Discussed Historical Data. Passed out Household Natural City of West Fork Hazards Preparedness Questionnaires to Citizens. Coordinated planning efforts in conjunction with NWAEDD and Washington County. Received invitation to planning meeting held Thursday, May 19, 2005. Completed City Assessment Form. Discussed Historical Data. Passed out Household Natural City of Winslow Hazards Preparedness Questionnaires to Citizens. Coordinated planning efforts in conjunction with NWAEDD and Washington County.

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 54

Jurisdiction Nature of Participation/Involvement Received invitation to planning meeting held Thursday, May 19, 2005. Completed school assessment form. Elkins School District Passed out Household Natural Hazards Preparedness Questionnaires. Coordinated planning efforts in conjunction with NWAEDD and Washington County. Received invitation to planning meeting held Thursday, May 19, 2005. Completed school assessment form. Farmington School District Passed out Household Natural Hazards Preparedness Questionnaires. Coordinated planning efforts in conjunction with NWAEDD and Washington County. Attended planning meeting held Thursday, May 19, 2005. Completed school assessment form. Passed out Household Fayetteville School District Natural Hazards Preparedness Questionnaires. Coordinated planning efforts in conjunction with NWAEDD and Washington County. Received invitation to planning meeting held Thursday, May 19, 2005. Completed school assessment form. Passed out Household Natural Hazards Preparedness Greenland School District Questionnaires. Coordinated planning efforts in conjunction with NWAEDD and Washington County. (The Winslow Schools have consolidated with Greenland School District.) Received invitation to planning meeting held Thursday, May 19, 2005. Has committed to completing School Lincoln School District Assessment form. (Have not received completed form as of July 15, 2005.) Coordinated planning efforts in conjunction with NWAEDD and Washington County. Attended planning meeting held Thursday, May 19, 2005. Completed school assessment form. Passed out Household Prairie Grove School District Natural Hazards Preparedness Questionnaires. Coordinated planning efforts in conjunction with NWAEDD and Washington County. Attended planning meeting held Thursday, May 19, 2005. Completed school assessment form. Passed out Household Springdale School District Natural Hazards Preparedness Questionnaires. Coordinated planning efforts in conjunction with NWAEDD and Washington County. Attended planning meeting held Thursday, May 19, 2005. Completed school assessment form. Passed out Household West Fork School District Natural Hazards Preparedness Questionnaires. Coordinated planning efforts in conjunction with NWAEDD and Washington County.

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 55 3.2. Documentation of the Planning Process

Washington County’s mitigation planning process was initiated when the County, through the efforts of the Washington County Office of Emergency Management (OEM), was awarded a Pre Disaster Mitigation Grant Program (PDM) grant by FEMA through ADEM. In May 2005, Washington County negotiated a subcontract with Northwest Arkansas Economic Development District to facilitate their mitigation planning efforts on May 12, 2005. Northwest Arkansas Economic Development District will be responsible for the development, organization and submission of the Pre-Disaster Mitigation Plan following the regulations as set forth by the FY 2004 Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PDM) grant program through FEMA.

Once all participating cities and school districts for which the Washington County OEM is responsible formally agreed to participate, an initial planning team comprised of representatives from Washington County and each participating jurisdiction was organized. This initial team was instructed to solicit interested persons from their community to participate on the planning team. This solicitation led to the addition of several additional planning team members. The planning team members include representatives from county government, local city governments, public works officials, emergency management officials, fire districts, and school districts. All participating jurisdictions actively participated in the planning process through soliciting input from their communities and participation in meetings.

The initial step in the planning process was the development of a steering committee. The members of this committee consisted of Judge Jerry Hunton, Washington County, John C. Luther, Director of Department of Emergency Management, Daryl J. Pemberton, Washington County Mapping/GIS Specialist, Ann Upton, Washington County Public Works Support Coordinator, Wayne Blankenship, Washington County Grant Administrator and Mike Galligan, NWAEDD Planner. This committee met and outlined the initial planning strategy. After discussion of how to best to approach the task of hazardous mitigation for Washington County, the committee concluded that public input would be a priority in this effort. The following outline was conceived during this steering committee meeting.

I. A letter of invitation to all the jurisdictions of the Washington County.

A. This letter would be personalized and hand signed by Judge Jerry Hunton. B. Letter sent to all mayors, all schools, and members of the LEPC & members of the press.

II. The development of a map showing historical data and events.

A. Information provided by National Climatic Data Center, U.S. Department of Commerce.

III. Date, time and location of initial public meeting.

A. Date: Thursday, May 19, 2005. B. Times: 10:00 a.m. and 1:30 p.m. C. Location: Meeting held in the Northeast Conference Room on the 5th floor of the Washington County Courthouse.

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 56 On the following pages you will find sample letters, notification and mailing list for the public meeting held Thursday, May 19, 2005, Washington County Courthouse.

Sample letter sent to elected officials, mayors, and the LEPC committee members.

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 57

Sample letter sent to school officials.

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 58 Sample press release.

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 59 Letters were sent to the following:

MAYORS: Mayor Jerre Van Hoose City of Springdale Mayor Jack Ladyman 201 N. Spring Street City of Elkins Springdale, AR 72764 P. O. Box 331 Elkins, AR 72727 Mayor Paul Maestri City of Tontitown Mayor Jane Waters P. O. Box 305 City of Elm Springs Tontitown, AR 72770 P. O. Box 74 Elm Springs, AR 72728 Mayor Virgil Blackmon City of West Fork Mayor John Harris P. O. Box 339 City of Farmington West Fork, AR 72774 P. O. Box 150 Farmington, AR 72730 ELECTED OFFICIALS:

Mayor Dan Coody Lee Ann Kizzar City of Fayetteville County Assessor 113 W. Mountain 280 N. College Ave., Suite 250 Fayetteville, AR 72701 Fayetteville, AR 72701

Mayor Andy Bethell David Ruff City of Goshen County Collector P. O. Box 7 280 N. College Ave., Suite 202 Goshen, AR 72735 Fayetteville, AR 72701

Mayor William Yoes Bette Stamps City of Greenland Circuit Clerk P. O. Box 67 280 N. College Ave., Suite 302 Greenland, AR 72737 Fayetteville, AR 72701

Mayor Richard Long Roger Haney City of Johnson County Treasurer P. O. Box 563 280 N. College Ave., Suite 116 Johnson, AR 72741 Fayetteville, AR 72701

Mayor Henry T. Buchanan Karen Combs Pritchard City of Lincoln County Clerk P. O. Box 967 280 N. College Ave., Suite 300 Lincoln, AR 72744 Fayetteville, AR 72701

Mayor Sonny Hudson Tim Helder City of Prairie Grove County Sheriff P. O. Box 944 1155 Clydesdale Drive Prairie Grove, AR 72753 Fayetteville, AR 72701

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 60

LEPC MEMBERS:

Becky Stewart Greg Joyce CEMS/Fire Dispatch Tyson Foods, Inc. 645 S. School P. O. Box 2020 Fayetteville, AR 72701 Springdale, AR 72765

Jim Gilmer Shawn Shrum VA Medical Center County Environmental Affairs 1100 N. College 2615 Brink Drive Fayetteville, AR 72701 Fayetteville, AR 72701

Ted Webber Dr. Miriam Lonon City of Fayetteville EH/SO University of Arkansas 113 West Mountain 521 S. Razorback Road Fayetteville, AR 72701 Fayetteville, AR 72701

John Herring Jay Cantrell WRMC Washington County Sheriff’s Office 1125 N. College Avenue 1155 Clydesdale Fayetteville, AR 72703 Fayetteville, AR 72701

Jeff Cook Fred McLane George’s, Inc. Pinnacle Foods P. O. Drawer G 1647 Tallgrass Drive Springdale, AR 72765 Fayetteville, AR 72701

Chris Lynch, Acting Chief Captain Rick McCurdy Fayetteville Fire Department Fayetteville Fire Department 303 W. Center 303 W. Center Avenue Fayetteville, AR 72701 Fayetteville, AR 72701

Allen Horn Deputy Chief Tracey Risley American Red Cross Fayetteville Police Department 1147 Millsap Avenue 124 S. Church Street Fayetteville, AR 72703 Fayetteville, AR 72701

Jim Highfill Larry Slammons, Director Tyson Mexican Original East U of A Police Department 407 Indian Trail 155 Razorback Road Springdale, AR 72764 Fayetteville, AR 72701

Rick Johnson Jamin Snarr Washington County Health Department NWACC 3270 Wimberly Drive One College Drive Fayetteville, AR 72703 Bentonville, AR 72712

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 61

Ron Skelton, Director Phil Pumphrey RHMRT Ozark Regional Transit 417 S. Holcomb Street 2423 E. Robinson Avenue Springdale, AR 72764 Springdale, AR 72764

Jennifer Taylor Tammy Rodrigoez Springdale Water Utilities Tyson Foods P. O. Box 769 671 Randall Wobbe Lane Springdale, AR 72765 Fayetteville, AR 72764

Anita Frye Denise Collins VA Medical Center Tyson Foods 1100 N. College Avenue 600 N. Berry Street Fayetteville, AR 72703 Springdale, AR 72764

Rev. Earl Adams Tom Miller Washington County Chaplain VA Medical Center 1225 Oleander Lane 1100 N. College Avenue Fayetteville, AR 72704 Fayetteville, AR 72703

Danna Bell Dan Craft Northwest Medical Center Morning News 601 W. Maple Avenue 203 N. College Avenue Springdale, AR 72765 Fayetteville, AR 72701

Henry Mar SCHOOL SUPERINTENDENTS: Northwest Medical Center 601 W. Maple Avenue Dr. Robert W. Allen, Supt. Springdale, AR 72765 Elkins School District #10 P. O. Box 322 Jeff Baker Elkins, AR 72727 Willow Creek Women’s Hospital 4507 Greathouse Springs Road Ron Wright, Supt. Springdale, AR 72762 Farmington School District #6 42 South Double Springs Road Glenn Morgan Farmington, AR 72730 Arkansas Western Gas Company P. O. Box 1328 Dr. Bobby C. New, Supt. Fayetteville, AR 72703-1002 Fayetteville School District #1 1000 W. Stone Street Chris Coker Fayetteville, AR 72701 Ozarks Electric Cooperative P. O. Box 848 Tim Passmore, Supt. Fayetteville, AR 72702 Greenland School District #95 P. O. Box 57 Greenland, AR 72737

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 62

Jim Lewis, Supt. Lincoln School District #48 502 E.P. Rothrock Drive Lincoln, AR 72744

Tom Louks, Supt. Prairie Grove School District #23 824 N. Mock Street Prairie Grove, AR 72753

Dr. Jim D. Rollins, Supt. Springdale School District #50 P. O. Box 8 Springdale, AR 72765-0008

John G. Selph, Supt. West Fork School District #141 359 School Avenue West Fork, AR 72774

NEWS MEDIA:

Press release was faxed to news media from Washington County.

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 63 The planning events included meetings with school districts, cities, LEPC members, and the general public (see 3.2.1 Planning Meeting Documentation). Planning events also includes follow up phone calls and faxes to and with city, county, and school officials that could not attend scheduled meetings to discuss the current planning process. All planning meetings provided the general public (from the County and neighboring communities), local and regional agencies, businesses, academia, nonprofits, as well as LEPC members, input at the beginning, first draft, and final stages of the planning process. The public provided comment by completing a Household Natural Hazards Preparedness Questionnaire (see 3.2.2 Household Natural Preparedness Questionnaire) and indicating what disasters had affected them in the past and what disasters most concern them. There were 1,000 Household Natural Preparedness Questionnaires distributed throughout Washington County in which a voluminous 431 were returned to the Northwest Arkansas Economic Development District Office, a whopping 40 percent return. The public has also been given the opportunity to provide comments on the Mitigation Plan prior to plan submittal at public forums held in Washington County.

The planning process truly began with the meetings held on Thursday, May 19, 2005, in the Washington County Courthouse. The first meeting was held at 10:00 a.m. and the second was held at 1:30 p.m. in the Northeast Conference Room on the 5th floor of the Washington County Courthouse. The minutes can be found in Section 3.2.1 Planning Meeting Documentation.

In summary, the planning process consisted of the following items:

 County appointed steering committee to outline the planning process.  County appointed a planning committee consisting of mayors and city personnel, school personnel, fire department members, emergency workers, planning and development district employees, and LEPC members.  County engaged Northwest Arkansas Economic Development District (NWAEDD), the regional planning organization, to provide staff support in conducting the planning process and preparing the plan.  Meetings were held with committee members to understand and agree on planning processes and steps required, including organizing resources, assess hazards, develop a mitigation plan, and implement the plan and mentor progress.  Northwest Arkansas Economic Development District staff also had numerous subsequent discussions about the planning process with ADEM staff. The NWAEDD staff also discussed planning process issues with others in the state that were involved in the preparation of other hazard mitigation plans such as UALR which prepared the State Hazard Mitigation Plan, other Planning and Development Districts, Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department, Washington County Agent, University of Arkansas Staff and others.

Upon FEMA review and approval of this plan, the following actions will be taken by the Planning Team:

Final Public Planning Team Meeting The Planning Team will schedule, publicize and conduct a final public meeting to discuss and approve the Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan. This will be advertised as the opportunity for the public to comment on the final document that will then be adopted by all the participating jurisdictions.

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 64

3.2.1 Planning Meeting Documentation

Mitigation Planning Meeting May 19, 2005

Description: On May 19, 2005, a Mitigation Plan Team Members Meeting was held at the Washington County Courthouse. The original team members were invited to attend this meeting as well as any citizens who wanted to attend. The minutes of the meetings are as follows:

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Meeting

Location: Northeast Conference Room on the 5th Floor of the Washington County Courthouse

Date/Time: May 19, 2005 at 10:00 a.m.

The following were present:

Judge Jerry Hunton, Washington County Shawn Shrum, LEPC Member John Gibson, Washington County Wayne Blankenship, Washington County Jamin Snarr, LEPC Member Mayor Henry Buchanan, Lincoln Carl Dorman, Prairie Grove Jennifer Enos, LEPC Member Wyman Morgan, City of Springdale Henry Mar, LEPC Member James McClain, LEPC Member Glenn Morgan, LEPC Member Patrick Noggle, LEPC Member Chris Coker, LEPC Member Lt. Brian C. Waters, LEPC Member Terry Lawson, LEPC Member Chris Lynch, LEPC Member Mel Lopes, LEPC Member Mayor Jane Waters, City of Elm Springs Tim Helder, Sheriff, Washington County Karen Pritchard, Washington County Clerk Jeff Barker, LEPC Member Angula McDonald, City of Elkins Meg Smith, City of Elkins David A. Ruff, Washington County Collector John C. Luther, Washington County DEM Ron Wood, Washington County Buildings & Grounds Mike Galligan, NWAEDD Daryl Pemberton, Washington County Mapping/GIS Specialist

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 65

The meeting was opened by Judge Hunton at 10:05 a.m. Judge Hunton welcomed everyone and thanked them for attending. He then gave a brief description of the importance of a Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan for Washington County and the cities, towns and schools in the County.

Judge Hunton then introduced Mike Galligan, NWAEDD and stated Mike will go into more detail about the plan.

Mr. Galligan expanded on the need for the plan, and stated by Washington County having an approved plan the county, cities, and schools would remain eligible for both pre and post disaster grants at the state and federal level.

Mr. Galligan then shared the Events Map created by Daryl Pemberton showing the locations of the events and dollar amount of damages.

This stimulated a great deal of discussion from those attending. A number of personal accounts were shared and the group agreed that planning for future events is necessary and prudent. During the discussion a note worthy comment was made “it is much harder to land a tornado in Washington County and not cause injury or property damage than in the past”, which is a reflection on the growth of Washington County.

The discussion then turned to the importance of public input in the planning process. The information packet and forms were explained, and a voluntary commitment was asked for. A request for city and school assessments for Hazard Mitigation Planning and Household Natural Hazards Preparedness Questionnaires to be distributed filled out and returned to the Northwest Arkansas Economic Development District Office. Mr. Galligan asked that the enclosed return envelopes be utilized, this was met with a positive response. The packets were passed out to those in attendance and the meeting was adjourned.

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 66 Washington County Hazard Mitigation Meeting

Location: Northeast Conference Room on the 5th Floor of the Washington County Courthouse

Date/Time: May 19, 2005 at 1:30 p.m.

The following were present:

Judge Jerry Hunton, Washington County Ginny Wiseman, Fayetteville Public Schools Michael Gray, Fayetteville Public Schools Wayne Blankenship, Washington County Grants Administrator Phil Pumphrey, LEPC Member Ron Bradshaw , Springdale Schools Stephen Gahagans, University of Arkansas Pete Bennett, Prairie Grove Schools Chris Webb, Prairie Grove Schools Joey Walters, West Fork Schools John C. Luther, Washington County DEM Mike Galligan, NWAEDD

The meeting was opened by Judge Hunton at 1:30 p.m. Judge Hunton welcomed everyone and thanked them for attending. He then gave a brief description of the importance of a Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan for Washington County and the cities, towns and schools in the County.

Judge Hunton then introduced Mike Galligan, NWAEDD and stated Mike will go into more detail about the plan.

Mr. Galligan expanded on the need for the plan, and stated by Washington County having an approved plan the county, cities, and schools would remain eligible for both pre and post disaster grants at the state and federal level.

Mr. Galligan then shared the Events Map created by Daryl Pemberton showing the locations of the events and dollar amount of damages.

This stimulated a great deal of discussion from those attending. A number of personal accounts were shared and the group agreed that planning for future events is necessary and prudent. During the discussion individual school emergency plans were discussed. School personnel mentioned they had plans in place for events that required anything from lock downs to emergency evacuations.

The discussion then turned to the importance of public input in the planning process. The information packet and forms were explained, and a voluntary commitment was ask for. A request for city and school assessments for Hazard Mitigation Planning and Household Natural Hazards Preparedness Questionnaires to be distributed, filled out and returned to the Northwest Arkansas Economic Development District Office. Mr. Galligan asked that the enclosed return envelopes be utilized; this was met with a positive response. The packets were passed out to those in attendance and the meeting was adjourned.

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 70 The following pages outline the information requested and show forms that were passed out at the public meeting held Thursday, May 19, 2005. The information packets contained three basic forms - City/School Assessment for Hazard Mitigation Planning, City Assessment for Hazard Mitigation Planning, and the Household Natural Hazards Preparedness Questionnaire.

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 72 CITY/SCHOOL/EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT TEAM MEMBER ASSESSMENT FOR HAZARD MITIGATION PLANNING

WASHINGTON COUNTY

Organization Name: ______Date: ______(City/School/Fire Department etc.)

Contact Name: ______Address:______

Phone Number: ______Email: ______

****************************************************************************** 1. Identify by name and location (use street address), all critical facilities in your community. Critical facilities include emergency services such as law enforcement, fire, and EMS, hospitals/medical care, nursing homes, schools, utilities, key transportation facilities such as bridges, and daycare centers. Note: Cities do not need to provide school information.

Name of Critical Facility Street Address

ATTACH ADDITIONAL SHEET IF NEEDED. OVER

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 73 2. How concerned are you as a City/County/School Official/County Resident about the following disasters affecting your community? Please circle the correct response.

Extremely Very Somewhat Not Natural Disaster Concerned Concerned Concerned Concerned Concerned Drought 1 2 3 4 5 Dust Storm 1 2 3 4 5 Tornado 1 2 3 4 5 Flood 1 2 3 4 5 Landslide/Debris Flow 1 2 3 4 5 Wildfire 1 2 3 4 5 Household Fire 1 2 3 4 5 Wind Storm 1 2 3 4 5 Winter Storm 1 2 3 4 5 Earthquake 1 2 3 4 5 Other ______1 2 3 4 5

3. Please describe what mitigation programs or projects your organization has completed or has planned. Examples are drainage projects, acquisitions of flooded homes, improvements relating to the flood plain management program, bridge replacements that improve drainage, safe rooms, fire wise programs, and building code requirements. ______4. What mitigation projects or programs would you like to see undertaken in your community or school in the near future? ______

Thank you for providing this information. If you have any questions, please call John C. Luther with the Department of Emergency Management at 479-444-1721 – [email protected] or Mike Galligan with the Northwest Arkansas Economic Development District at 870-741-5407 - [email protected].

Please mail or fax your completed assessment to: Northwest Arkansas Economic Development District (NWAEDD) P.O. Box 190 Harrison, Arkansas 72602-0190 Fax: 870-741-1905

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 74 CITY ASSESSMENT FOR HAZARD MITIGATION PLANNING WASHINGTON COUNTY

City Name: ______Date: ______

Contact Name: ______Address: ______

Phone Number: ______Email: ______

****************************************************************************** (Please circle correct response)

1. Has the city adopted any of the following ordinances?

Storm Water Management Ordinance Yes No

Stream Management Ordinance Yes No

Zoning Management Ordinance Yes No

Subdivision Management Ordinance Yes No

Erosion Management Ordinance Yes No

Floodplain Management Ordinance Yes No

2. Does the city have a Floodplain Plan that has been published? Yes No A. If yes, what is the published date?______

3. Does the city maintain Elevation Certificates? Yes No

4. Is the city a member of the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP)? Yes No

A. If so, what was the National Flood Insurance join date? ______B. What is the NFIP Community Number? ______

5. Does the city have a Land Use Plan? Yes No A. If so, when was the Land Use Plan last updated? ______

6. Has the city been zoned? Yes No A. If so, what was the zoned date? ______

7. Has the city established building codes? Yes No A. If so, when were the building codes last updated?______B. Please list the type of building codes used such as Southern Standards, etc.: ______OVER

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 75

3.2.2 Household Natural Hazards Preparedness Questionnaire

Resident Questionnaires

Description: The general public was widely reached by the Household Natural Hazards Preparedness Questionnaire. 1,000 questionnaires were distributed throughout Washington County. An unprecedented 431 questionnaires have been filled out and returned to the Northwest Arkansas Economic Development District.

On the following pages, as an example, is a Household Natural Hazards Preparedness Questionnaire completed by a local resident. The one thousand copies of this questionnaire were distributed throughout the Washington County by county officials, school administrators and principals, cities, rural fire department volunteers, law enforcement personnel and other emergency service providers, and NWAEDD staff at various public meetings.

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 77

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 78

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 79

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 80

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 81

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 82 Fourteen of the 431 questionnaires had written comments. These comments are shown as they were received in the NWAEDD office.

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 83 Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 84 Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 85 Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 86 Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 87 Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 88 Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 89 Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 90 Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 91 Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 92 Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 93 Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 94 Tabulated Results (to date) for Household Questionnaire in Washington County 53 Questionnaires Returned Household Natural Hazards Preparedness Questionnaire

We would appreciate your taking the time to complete this questionnaire. Your responses will contribute to the preparation of the Washington County Pre-Disaster Mitigation Plan. Your answers will help the County gauge household preparedness for disasters and will help in determining how best to reduce risk and loss from natural hazards. The information you provide will be used to improve preparedness activities within your community, county and state. No individual answers will be reported. Answers by respondents will be reported on an aggregated basis only. We ask that you please take a few minutes to complete this questionnaire and submit it to the address listed on the last page.

NATURAL HAZARD INFORMATION

1. In the past ten years, which of the following natural disasters occurring in this area have you or someone in your household experienced? (Please check all that apply)

48 Drought 6 Wildfire 1 Dust Storm 30 Household Fire 84 Tornado 115 Wind Storm 112 Flood 293 Winter Storm (snow, hail, ice) 1 Landslide / Debris Flow 2 Earthquake 8 Other (Specify) Flash Floods, Hail, Wife, Lightning Storm, Spring Storm

2. How concerned are you personally about the following disasters affecting this area? (Circle the corresponding number for each hazard)

Natural Disaster Extremely Very Concerned Somewhat Not Concerned Concerned Concerned Concerned Drought 12 32 81 137 123 Dust Storm 3 4 15 54 298 Tornado 76 108 138 70 30 Flood 29 51 116 110 90 Landslide/Debris Flow 4 11 32 70 264 Wildfire 17 36 71 86 150 Household Fire 81 81 143 69 34 Wind Storm 25 58 112 82 118 Winter Storm 46 88 147 104 49 Earthquake 9 12 40 89 227 Other - Terrorism, Wife, 6 3 8 7 151 Lightning

3. Have you ever received information about how to make your family and home safer from natural disasters?

201 Yes 215 No (If NO skip to Question 4)

3.1 If “YES”, how recently?

63 Within the last 6 months 32 Between 2 and 5 years 44 Between 6 and 12 months 18 5 years or more 49 Between 1 and 2 years

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 95

3.2 From what entities have you received information about how to make your family and home safer from natural disasters? (Please check all that apply)

185 News Media 42 American Red Cross 53 County or City Government 87 Fire Department 101 Insurance Company or Agent 66 Friends, Relatives, Acquaintances 85 Utility Company 16 Other – School, CERT Trng. 20 Arkansas Dept. of Emergency Management 21 Don’t recall 23 Federal Emergency Mgmt. Agency (FEMA)

4. What is the best way for you to receive information about how to make your family and home safer from natural disasters? (Please check all that apply)

235 Newspaper 119 Schools 390 Television 109 Fire Department, Emergency Service Providers 197 Radio 24 Books 177 Mail 58 Magazines 117 Internet 13 Academic Institutions 98 Fact Sheet, Brochure 18 Chamber of Commerce 102 At Work 21 Public workshop/meetings 17 Outdoor advertisements (billboards, etc.) 2 Other (Please explain) Utility Magazine

5. For each of the following activities, check whether you have done, plan to do in the near future, have not done, or are unable to do. (Please check one answer for each preparedness activity)

In your household, have you or someone in your household: Preparedness activity Have Plan To Not Unable Done Do Done To Do A. Attended meetings or received written information on natural 126 16 274 8 disasters or emergency preparedness? B. Talked with members in your household about what to do in 283 36 101 3 case of a natural disaster or emergency? C. Developed a “Household/Family Emergency Plan” in order to decide what everyone would do in the event of a 211 84 143 0 household emergency? D. Prepared a “Disaster Supply Kit” (Stored extra food, water, 81 80 267 3 batteries, or other emergency supplies)? E. In the last two years, has anyone in your household trained in 187 15 213 1 first aid or Cardio-Pulmonary Resuscitation (CPR)?

6. What steps, if any, have you or someone in you household taken to prepare for a natural disaster? (Check all that apply)

Have in place in case of disaster: 102 Stored Food 27 Disaster Supply Kit 109 Stored Water 175 Received First Aid/CPR Training 319 Flashlight(s) 172 Fire escape plan 273 Batteries 62 Utility cutoffs 151 Battery-powered radio 125 A family emergency plan: Know 187 Medical Supplies (First aid kit) actions to take when disaster strikes 257 Fire extinguisher 111 A family reconnection plan: Where 352 Smoke detector on each level of the house to go and who to call 11 Other (please explain) CO2 Detector, None, Have Generator, Extra Bullets

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 96 7. Does your household have insurance coverage for flood events?

96 Yes (If YES skip to Question 8) 314 No

7.1 If “NO”, what is the main reason your household does not have insurance for flood events? (Please check only one)

221 Not located in a floodplain 13 Deductibles too high / not worth it 31 Too expensive 11 Not familiar with it / don’t know about it 34 Not necessary 15 Other - Not offered in plan, Rent, 31 Never considered it No, Lazy, Apartment, Not Available

8. Does your household have insurance coverage for earthquake events?

46 Not available 12 Deductibles too high / not worth it 28 Too expensive 73 Not familiar with it / don’t know about it 80 Not necessary 28 Other - Rent, Don’t Know, Yes, 135 Never considered it Not Sure, Earthquake, Apartment, Not in area, Lazy, No Fault Line NATURAL HAZARD RISK REDUCTION

9. Was the possible occurrence of a natural hazard an issue for you when you were buying or moving into your current home?

64 Yes 359 No

10. What nonstructural or structural modifications for tornados or earthquakes have you made to your home? (Check all that apply)

Nonstructural Structural 17 Anchor bookcases, cabinets to wall 27 Construction of tornado shelter or safe room 21 Secure water heater to wall 56 Secure home to foundation 9 Install latches on drawers & cabinets 10 Installation of hurricane clips to tie-down roof 57 Fit gas appliances with flexible connections 8 Brace unreinforced chimney 20 Others (please explain) 5 Brace unreinforced masonry & concrete walls Rent, Basement, None 4 Brace inside of cripple wall with sheathing 27 Others (please explain) Shelter in new home, house has basement, total new electric, gas, water systems, roofing, only what was required by building code, basement, none, rent

11. Which of the following incentives, if any, would motivate you to take additional steps to better protect you family and home from a natural disaster? (Check all that apply)

328 Insurance discount 298 Tax break or incentive 141 Low interest rate loan 47 None 80 Lower new home construction costs 9 Other (please explain) Rent, 145 Mortgage discount Family Safety, Owning A Home Lists of what to do, for what situation

12. How concerned are you personally about an act of terrorism occurring in this area? (Circle your answer) Extremely Very Somewhat Not Concerned Concerned Concerned Concerned Concerned 19 42 106 151 110

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 97 13. Please check the box indicating your age:

1 Under 20 157 20 - 39 225 40 - 59 39 60 or over

14. Your gender:

160 Male 262 Female

15. Please check the box indicating your level of education:

3 Grade school or less 109 College degree 7 Some high school 94 Postgraduate degree 96 High school graduate / GED 3 Other - NCOAC U.S. Army, 133 Some college / Technical school Juris Doctorate

16. For your place of residence, please provide the following:

Community / City: 1 = Avoca, 1 = Delaney, 1 = Elm Springs, 12 = Elkins, 19 = Farmington, 149 = Fayetteville, 1 = Fayetteville/Greenland, 2 = Goshen, 2 = Hindsville, 1 = Hindsville/Burkshed, 1 = Huntsville, 1 = Kingston, 21 = Lincoln, 5 = Lowell, 1 = Morrow/Cane Hill, 34 = Prairie Grove, 1 = Prairie Grove/Hog Eye Community, 1 = Siloam Springs, 118 = Springdale, 1 = Springdale/Blue Springs Village, 1 = Springdale/Habberton, 1 = Springdale/Har-Ber Meadows, 1 = Springdale/Nob Hill, 1= Summers, 1 = Tontitown, 1 = Tontitown/Harmon, 14 = West Fork, 2 = West Fork/Devil’s Den, 1 = West Fork/Strickler, 17 = Winslow, 1 = Zinniman

Zip Code: 83 = 72701, 2 = 72702, 46 = 72703, 23 = 72704, 1 = 72711, 1 = 72717, 11 = 72727, 20 = 72730, 4 = 72738, 1 = 72740, 20 = 72744, 5 = 72745, 36 = 72753, 1 = 72761, 68 = 72762, 57 = 72764, 1 = 72769, 19 = 72774, 17 = 72959

County: 402 = Washington, 11 = Benton, 4 = Madison

17. How long have you lived in this county?

8 Less than one year 79 10-19 years 66 1-5 years 231 20 or more years 39 5-9 years

18. Do you have access to the Internet and World Wide Web?

373 Yes 38 No

19. Do you own or rent your home?

358 Own 59 Rent

20. Please check one of the following which best describes your home: 378 Single-family home 4 Condominium/Town house 14 Duplex 16 Manufactured or mobile home 4 Apartment (3-4 units in structure) Other 6 Apartment (5 or more units in structure)

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 98 On the following pages you will find examples of follow-up letters and memos sent to planning team members. Follow-up has proven to be a key in receiving needed planning information in a timely manner and has been used to keep team members informed and involved.

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 99

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 100

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 101 3.2.3 Proof of Publication

Publication in Paper about Mitigation Planning – OPPURTUNITY FOR PUBLIC COMMENTS

On September 1, 2006 a public notice was run in The Morning News (a county wide publication) requesting public comment on the Draft of the Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan. Proof of publication is shown below.

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 102 Existing plans, studies, reports, and technical information relevant to mitigation planning were collected and reviewed by planning team members. This information was used to identify existing, planned, and potential mitigation initiatives designed to reduce Washington County’s vulnerability to natural hazards. The State of Arkansas Mitigation Plan goals section has been closely reviewed prior to goals being completed for the Washington County Mitigation Plan. Flood Plans Management Studies were used to identify critical infrastructure facilities located within floodways as well as other permanent structures. Land use and zoning maps were re-examined and used to define future growth areas. Other information and plans reviewed are as follows:

 State of Arkansas Hazard Mitigation Plan  Washington County Emergency Operations Plan  Floodplain Management Studies (Preliminary FEMA Floodplain Maps for Washington County)  School District’s Crisis Plans in Washington County  Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy prepared by Northwest Arkansas Economic Development District  Public Transportation Outlines and Plans for Washington County  City of Fayetteville: Land-use map, zoning map, subdivision rules, zoning regulations, flood plain management ordinances, and building codes  City of Springdale: Land-use map, zoning map, subdivision rules, zoning regulations, flood plain management ordinances, and building codes

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 103 Section 4. Risk Assessment

Risk Assessment, as defined by FEMA, is the process of measuring the potential loss of life, personal injury, economic injury, and property damage resulting from hazards by assessing the vulnerability of people, buildings, and infrastructure to natural hazards. Assessment of risk for this plan followed the methodology described in FEMA publication 386-2 “Understanding Your Risks – Identifying Hazards and Estimating Losses”. This publication outlines a four-step process that was followed in this planning process: 1) Identify Hazards, 2) Profile Hazard Events, 3) Inventory Assets, and 4) Estimate Losses.

Risk assessment provides the foundation for the rest of the mitigation planning process. The risk assessment process focuses attention on areas most in need by evaluating which populations and facilities are most vulnerable to natural hazards and to what extent injuries and damages may occur. It tells you:

 The hazards to which your state or community is susceptible;  What these hazards can do to physical, social, and economic assets;  Which areas are most vulnerable to damage from these hazards; and  The resulting cost of damages or costs avoided through future mitigation projects.

In addition to benefiting mitigation planning, risk assessment information also allows emergency management personnel to establish early response priorities by identifying potential hazards and vulnerable assets.

4.1. Hazard Identification

Hazard Identification, the process of identifying hazards that threaten a given area, is the first step in the risk assessment process. Washington County identified several natural hazards that, because they pose a significant risk to Washington County and its residents, warranted a complete profile in this hazard mitigation plan. These hazards were identified through an extensive process that utilized input from Planning Team members, research of newspapers and other historical records, review of existing plans and reports, discussions with hazard experts, Internet research, the State Mitigation Plan, the FEMA 1997 publication “Multi Hazard – Identification and Risk Assessment”, and information provided by FEMA and ADEM. The hazard types considered by this plan, and how they were identified and why, are listed in Table 4.1-3.

Using research that was compiled by the planning team on past disasters, data was entered into the MitigationPlan.com and a critical priority risk index was calculated (CPRI) for each of the hazards that might affect the county, using the following factors with the numerical weights shown in parentheses:

Probability (.45): Likely (3), Possible (2) or Unlikely (1)

Magnitude (.15): Catastrophic (4), Critical (3), Limited (2), or Negligible (1).

Severity (.25): Catastrophic (4), Critical (3), Limited (2), or Negligible (1).

Warning Time (.15): Less than 6 hours (4), 6 – 12 hours (3), 12 – 24 hours (2), or 24+ hours (1)

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 104

Thus, Probability (.45 x Value) + Magnitude (.15 x Value) + Severity (.25 x Value) + Warning Time (.15 x Value) = CPRI

The MitigationPlan.com CPRI calculation also includes “duration of the event” as an additional factor, but as FEMA plan reviewers pointed out, and the Planning Team agreed, it is not a particularly relevant or useful factor for measuring most hazards’ impacts. Duration was, however, considered as a component of the factors magnitude and severity.

It should also be pointed out that “probability” has only three possible values (likely, possible or unlikely) with respective numerical weights of 3, 2 and 1, whereas the other four factors have four possible values with weights of 4, 3, 2 and 1. Because probability has only a maximum of 3 as its highest value, the maximum extent of its mathematical weight, compared to the other factors taken together, is actually .38, not .45, on a 0 to 1.0 scale. Appropriately adjusting each of the weights so they total 1.00, which more accurately depicts the weighting of the four factors used to calculate the CPRI for the hazards, yields the following actual or true weights:

Factor Nominal Weight Actual Weight

Probability: .45 .38

Magnitude: .15 .17

Severity: .25 .28

Warning Time: .15 .17

Total 1.00 1.00

For the future, this aspect of the CPRI, among others, should be addressed and better explained by those responsible for developing and promulgating the CPRI. For this study, the CPRI for the various hazard events is calculated as set forth on the preceding page and as further detailed in this report.

Following are definitions of the factors’ assignable values as developed by the Planning Team:

Probability: An event’s likeliness (likely, possible, unlikely) is its level of prevalence (i.e., chance of occurrence) relative to other areas of the continental United States, using information from national studies and reports and considering records of actual occurrences of the event in the area. Using tornado disaster as an example, the county and its immediate region are within the top tier of regions in the country most likely to experience tornado events. Plus, the county has actually experienced numerous tornado events. Thus, tornado hazard is assigned a probability of “likely.” For earthquake disaster, on the other hand, the county is located in a region with a .05 to .10 peak ground acceleration (pga) coefficient, which means it has some possibility of seismic hazard but one that is very low compared to places in the country much more prone to earthquakes. Also, there is no record of an earthquake ever affecting the area. Thus, for the county earthquake is assigned a probability of “unlikely.”

Magnitude: An event’s magnitude (catastrophic, critical, limited, or negligible) is a function of the potential extent or intensity of its size (in terms of land area or duration) and affect, and thus its capacity to affect large proportions of the area’s population and property (particularly critical

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 105 facilities) in extremely negative ways. For example, tornado events typically do not directly strike large proportions of a particular area’s population, but can and often do damage critical facilities affecting greater areas of a community. For this reason, tornado is assigned a magnitude of “catastrophic.” A differing example is flood events in the county. With a history and potential for affecting relatively few and geographically limited populations and properties, though occasionally some severely, it is assigned a magnitude of only “limited” due to its limited scope. Another example is severe winter storm hazards. Though they affect the entire county and to varying degrees practically all of its population and facilities, the intensity of their affects has never been as a great (i.e., as seriously damaging) as that of tornados – nor are they ever expected to be – but the damage has been greater than for other disaster types. Thus, severe winter storm is assigned a magnitude of “critical” but not “catastrophic.”

Severity: An event’s severity (catastrophic, critical, limited, or negligible) is its level of potential for loss of life and property damage, particularly critical facilities, relative to that of other disaster events affecting the area. Again using tornado disaster as an example, the area has a documented history of significant property damage and lives lost due to tornado events and, further, the amount of this loss is much greater (i.e., more severe) than for other types of disaster events. Thus, tornado is assigned a severity of “catastrophic.” Conversely, though flood events have in the past affected some properties in the county severely, the total estimated cost of all property damage over the years is minor compared to other hazard events such as severe winter storms and tornados. Accordingly, flood hazard is assigned a severity of “limited.”

Warning Time: An event’s warning time (less than 6 hours, 6-12 hours, 12-24 hours, or 24+ hours) is the notice time the public typically has prior to the event’s actual occurrence. This is based on the area’s past experience.

Assignment of values to each disaster is based on the identification and research process briefly mentioned above, the detailed information for which is presented by the following pages under each hazard’s profile.

The following table (4.1-1) represents the CPRI score calculated for each hazard facing the community. As mentioned, the basis and calculation for these scores are presented in the following pages of this section, if the reader is interested. Albeit a means not necessarily conclusive unto itself, the CPRI does provide a structured way to rank an area’s hazards on the basis of their relative seriousness. The CPRI calculations provide a basis for prioritizing mitigation activities: the higher the CPRI for a disaster type, the higher the level of critical risk it poses for the county. The hazards are listed from top to bottom in descending order based on their CPRI scores – or in other words, what might be considered most serious to least serious.

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 106 Table 4.1-1

Warning Priority Hazard Probability Magnitude Severity Time Risk Index Tornado Likely Catastrophic Catastrophic Less 6 Hours 3.55 Severe Winter Storm Possible Critical Critical 6-12 Hours 2.55 Flood Likely Limited Limited 12-24 Hours 2.45 Severe Thunderstorm Likely Negligible Limited 6-12 Hours 2.45 High Wind Possible Limited Limited Less 6 Hours 2.30 Wildfire Possible Limited Limited Less 6 Hours 2.30 Severe Hailstorm Possible Limited Limited Less 6 Hours 2.30 Drought Likely Limited Limited 24+ Hours 2.30 Extreme Heat Likely Negligible Limited 24+ Hours 2.15 Landslide Possible Negligible Limited 12-24 Hours 1.85 Expansive Soils Possible Negligible Limited 24+ Hours 1.70 Dam Failure Unlikely Negligible Limited 6-12 Hours 1.55 Earthquake Unlikely Negligible Negligible Less 6 Hours 1.45

Another way to identify priority hazards for a community, particularly those hazards with relatively short recurrence intervals, is to examine past Federal Major Disaster Declarations. Since 1990, Washington County has suffered at least one Federally Declared Major Disasters. This disaster declaration was due to a severe winter storms in 2000. The Presidential Declared Disaster occurring in Washington County in 2000 is presented in Table 4.1-2. Smaller, non-Federally declared disasters are much more frequent and are not reflected here but are presented later in the plan.

Table 4.1-2. Presidential Disaster Declarations in Washington County since 1990

Designation Date Declared Incident Type FEMA-1354-DR December 29, 2000 Severe Winter Storms

Based upon the different types of research described above, the list of natural hazards that were considered as potentially affecting Washington County and its residents include tornado, severe winter storm, severe thunderstorm, high wind, wildfire, severe hailstorm, drought, flood, extreme heat, landslide, expansive soils, dam failure and earthquake. A list of these hazards, including how and why they were identified, is presented in Table 4.1-3.

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 107 Table 4.1-3. Hazards identified in Washington County. Hazard How Identified Why Identified Tornado  Review of past disaster declarations  Washington County experiences a tornado event nearly  Review of NCDC Severe Storms Database every year  National Weather Service input and data  Tornadoes have caused extensive damage and loss of  Public input life to County residents Severe Winter Storm  Review of past disaster declarations  Washington County is affected by severe winter storms  Review of NCDC Severe Storms Database every few years  National Weather Service Input and data  Severe ice storms have caused extensive damage to the  Public input county Hailstorm  Review of NCDC Severe Storms Database  Washington County is affected by hailstorms almost  National Weather Service Input and data every year  Public input  Hailstorms cause damage to property and crops in the county

Flood  Review of past disaster declarations  Washington County is affected by flooding every year  Review of FIRM’s  Floods have caused extensive damage and loss of life in  Input from County floodplain manager the County in the past  Public Input Severe Thunderstorm  Review of NCDC Severe Storms Database  Washington County is affected by severe storms every  National Weather Service input and data year that bring heavy rains, hail, lightning, and high  Public input winds.  Severe thunderstorms have caused extensive damage to the county

Extreme Heat  Review of NCDC Severe Storms Database  Washington County is affected by extreme heat almost  National Weather Service Input and data every year  Public input  Extreme heat has potential to cause loss of life through heat strokes and sun strokes.

Wildfire  Wildfire Risk Assessment for Washington County by  Washington County experiences wildfires every year. Dr. Michael Garner, University of Arkansas at Fort  Wildfires can cause damage to the county. Smith  Arkansas Forestry Commission statistics and input  USDA Forest Service Fire, fuel, and WUI mapping  Public input

Expansive Soils  USGS National Swelling Soils Map  Expansive soils exist in Washington County; however,  NRCS State Soil Geographic (STATSGO) Maps they are not geographically pervasive. Occurrences of  Washington County Soil Survey Maps damage related to expansive soils are isolated.

High Wind  Review of NCDC Severe Storms Database  The County experiences several severe high wind events  National Weather Service input and data annually.  Public input  Some events have caused damage to structures and less commonly loss of life.

Drought  National Weather Service Data  A past emergency declaration in the State for drought  NOAA Paleoclimatology Data  State Mitigation Plan

Earthquake  Research by the United State Geological Survey  This event is very unlikely in Washington County but (USGS) not impossible.  Modified Mercalli Scale and pga.  The county is in an area of .05-.10 pga.

Landslide  USGS Landslide Hazard maps  Part of county lies within the moderate landslide  Local geology and topography susceptibility zone on National USGS map

Dam Failure  Information from local governments and State Soil &  Potential for failures exist, although close inspections Water Resources Commission regarding locations and minimize risk of failures conditions of dams  One dam in Fort Smith was declared unsafe and is now being fixed by city.

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 108 An additional perspective was gained from results of a Household Natural Hazards Questionnaire that was distributed throughout the county to determine which natural hazards ordinary citizens perceive as threatening. The questionnaire listed nine of some of the area’s most prevalent kinds of natural disasters and a write-in “other” choice. After the questionnaire was developed and distributed, which was early in the planning process, research by the Planning Team revealed four additional disaster types affecting the area which the questionnaire failed to list: thunderstorms, expansive soils, extreme heat and dam failures. It is unfortunate for consistency’s sake these disaster types were not included among the questionnaire’s list of choices, but even with the questionnaire’s omissions taken into account, its results seem to clearly portray what are citizens’ foremost concerns: tornados and winter storms. This finding is consistent with the CPRI results, which show these two disaster types as the most critical in terms of probability, magnitude, severity and warning time.

The Planning Team will be conducting additional surveys in the future to better address the issue of citizens’ concerns, including a complete listing of disaster types by the questionnaire, and to attain a larger and more representative sample.

The following Table 4.1-4 shows a summary of some of the questionnaire results.

Table 4.1-4. Household Natural Hazards Questionnaire Results

Intended as a means to gain public input into the mitigation planning process, approximately 1,000 questionnaires were distributed to households throughout the county in May 2005 through various means, 421 of which were completed, returned and tabulated, yielding a response rate of approximately 42%. Though not a scientific survey, the questionnaire did provide an opportunity for citizens to have input into the planning process. As mentioned, additional surveys need to be conducted to expand the sample base and improve the survey’s statistical reliability, and the list of disasters needs to mirror the Plan’s.

Following are tallies for two of the questionnaire questions relating to what disasters have been experienced and what disasters are of most concern based on the survey responses.

Q. 1: In the past ten years, which of the following natural disasters occurring in this area have you or someone in your household experienced? (check all that apply)

Disaster Percent Selecting Disaster Winter Storm (snow, hail, ice) 68% Wind Storm 26% Tornado 25% Flood 26% Drought 10% Wildfire 1.4% Dust Storm 0 Landslide / Debris Flow 0 Earthquake 0.5% Other (write-in) 2% Base for calculating percent selecting is all 421 respondents.

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 109

Q. 2: How concerned are you personally about the following disasters affecting this area? (for each disaster listed, circle either “extremely concerned”, “very concerned”, “concerned”, “somewhat concerned” or “not concerned”) Percent Selecting Extremely, Percent Selecting Disaster Very or Concerned Somewhat or Not Concerned Tornado 74% 24% Winter Storm 65% 36% Flood 45% 46% Wind Storm 45% 47% Drought 29% 60% Wildfire 29% 55% Earthquake 14% 74% Landslide / Debris Flow 10% 77% Dust Storm 5% 82% Other (write-in) 4% 36% Base for calculating percent selecting is all 421 respondents. Percentages may not total to 100% due to non-responses.

Based on the responses received from the Household Questionnaire, the disasters citizens are most concerned about are, in order of concern: tornado (74%), winter storm (65%), flood (45%), wind storm (45%), drought (29%), and wildfire (29%). Trailing with less than fifteen percent of the respondents expressing concern were earthquake, landslide/debris flow and dust storm. This array of concerns is consistent with that produced by the CPRI (Table 4.1-1) – with the noted exception of the questionnaire’s omitted disaster types.

It is interesting to note that though tornado was selected in question 1 by 25% of the respondents as having been experienced by them or someone in their household in the last ten years, which is third highest among the hazards experienced, it was selected in question 2 as the hazard of greatest personal concern, with 74% checking extremely concerned, very concerned or concerned, in terms of it affecting the area. This is indicative of residents’ acute awareness of tornados’ devastating effects and ever- present potential.

4.2. Profiling Hazards

Following is a detailed assessment of the risks associated with each of the natural hazards which could potentially affect the area. Included is information on previous occurrences of hazard events and on the probability of future events. Also included is a calculation of the Critical Priority Risk Index (CPRI) for each hazard type, which was presented in summary form by Table 4.1-1. As mentioned, the CPRI provides a means to compare and rank the hazard types on the basis of posed critical risk and thus the priority they might be assigned for mitigation planning purposes.

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 110 4.2.1. Tornado Hazard Profile

A tornado is a rapidly rotating vortex or funnel of air extending from a cumulonimbus cloud to the ground. It is usually spawned by a thunderstorm and produced when cool air overrides a layer of warm air, forcing the warm air to rise rapidly. Often, vortices remain suspended in the atmosphere as funnel clouds. When the lower tip of a vortex touches the ground, it becomes a tornado and a force of destruction.

Tornadoes can cause several kinds of damage to buildings. Tornadoes have been known to lift and move objects weighing more than 300 tons a distance of 30 ft, toss homes more than 300 ft from their foundations, and siphon millions of tons of water from water bodies. However, the less spectacular damage is much more common. Houses and other obstructions in the path of the wind cause the wind to change direction. This change in wind direction increases pressure on parts of the building. The combination of increased pressures and fluctuating wind speeds creates stress on the building that frequently causes connections between building components (e.g., roof, siding, windows, etc.) to fail. Tornadoes also generate a tremendous amount of flying debris or “missiles”, which often becomes airborne shrapnel that causes additional damage. If wind speeds are high enough, missiles can be thrown at a building with enough force to penetrate windows, roofs, and walls.

The Enhanced Fujita Tornado Scale measures tornado-damage severity. The Enhanced Fujita Scale assigns a numerical value based on wind speeds and categorizes tornadoes from EF0 to EF5. Table 4.2-1 shows the Enhanced Fujita Scale values, wind speeds, and damage descriptions.

Most tornadoes are in the EF0-EF2 class. Building to modern wind standards provides significant protection from these hazard events; however, a community in the direct path of a violent tornado may experience extensive damages. Designing buildings to extreme wind speeds, such as those associated with an EF3 or greater tornado is beyond the scope of current building codes.

The path width of a single tornado is generally less than 0.6 mile, although some damage path widths are in excess of one mile. The path length of a single tornado can range from a few hundred yards to over 200 miles. The average tornado in Arkansas moves from southwest to northeast, but tornadoes have been known to move in any direction. The average forward speed of a tornado is 30 mph, but may vary from nearly stationary to greater than 70 mph. The lifespan of a tornado is rarely longer than 30 minutes.

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 111 Table 4.2.1-1 Enhanced Fujita Tornado Scale.

Scale Value Wind Speed Range and Description of Damage

65-85 mph: Light damage. Some damage to chimneys; tree branches broken off; shallow-rooted trees pushed over; EF0 sign boards damaged.

86-110 mph: Moderate damage. Lower limit is beginning of hurricane wind speed. Roof surfaces peeled off; mobile EF1 homes pushed off foundations or overturned; moving autos pushed off roads.

111-135 mph: Considerable damage. Roofs torn off from houses; mobile homes demolished; boxcars pushed over; EF2 large trees snapped or uprooted; light-object missiles generated.

136-165 mph: Severe damage. Roofs and some walls torn off well constructed houses; trains overturned; most trees EF3 in forest uprooted; heavy cars lifted off ground and thrown.

166-200 mph: Devastating damage. Well-constructed houses leveled; structures with weak foundations blown off EF4 some distance; cars thrown; large missiles generated.

Greater than 200 mph: Incredible damage. Houses lifted off foundations and carried considerable distances to EF5 disintegrate; automobile-sized missiles fly through air in excess of 100 yards; trees debarked.

Geographic Area Affected by Tornadoes

Seventeen tornadoes have affected Washington County that have had enough magnitude to be recorded into the NCDC data center since 1950. A significant long-track tornado first touched down 4 miles west of Short, OK, and tracked 39 miles to a point about 7 miles southwest of Fayetteville, AR. Along the way, this tornado passed through portions of four counties, but mainly affected sparsely- populated areas. It reached its peak strength as an F3 tornado in extreme southeast Adair County, OK, but mainly caused F2 damage in Washington County, AR. Fortunately, this tornado lifted before it reached heavily-populated Fayetteville. The tornado's first real property damage took place at a property between the Hogeye and Strickland communities, where the tornado peeled off the roof to a home, shattered windows, uprooted trees, destroyed two barns, and wiped a porch off of its stone foundation. Numerous trees were blown down along County Roads 212 and 214. The Washington County Judge's Office supplied a picture of a church near Cove Creek that was moved off of its foundation. Several poultry buildings along the tornado's path were also damaged. Recent tornadoes that occurred within the county are discussed below. Please see Table 4.2-3 for a breakdown of recorded costs and damages for the tornado events.

Tornadoes in Arkansas are most common along an elongate zone extending from Clark County northeastward to Mississippi County. There appears to be an area from Hope to Jonesboro (approximately along I-30 and U.S. 67) that is slightly more at risk to tornadoes than other parts of Arkansas, especially in a major outbreak. This I-30/US 67 corridor lies along he northeast-trending mountain front of the Ouachita Mountains, Arkansas Valley, and Ozark Highlands (the Interior Highlands). This higher elevation region may force warm moist air from the low-lying Gulf Coastal Plain and Mississippi Alluvial Plain to the southeast upwards assisting in tornado initiation, and then guide the storms along the base of the northeast-trending highlands front.

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 112 Based on the short 50-year dataset, no clear areas of high tornado occurrence occur at any particular county scale. Thus, although tornado risk appears to vary at a statewide scale, variable tornado risk at the county scale cannot be demonstrated. Thus, mapping variations in tornado risk at a local or county scale is not currently possible. For the purpose of this plan, all parts of this plan are considered equally likely to experience a tornado event. This is proven to be the case in tornadoes that have occurred in a wide variety of areas.

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 113 Previous Tornado Occurrences Event Record Details Event: Tornado State: Arkansas Begin Date: 30 Apr 1954, 1210 CST Begin Location: Not Known County: Washington Begin LAT/LON: 35°45'N / 94°19'W End Location: Not Known End LAT/LON: 36°00'N / 94°10'W Length: 19 Miles Width: 440 Yards Magnitude: F3 Fatalities: 0 Injuries: 1 Property Damage: $ 250.0K

Crop Damage: $ 0.0 Description: None Reported ______Event Record Details Event: Tornado State: Arkansas Begin Date: 30 Apr 1954, 1215 CST Begin Location: Not Known County: Washington Begin LAT/LON: 36°00'N / 94°10'W End Location: Not Known End LAT/LON: 36°02'N / 94°03'W Length: 7 Miles Width: 33 Yards Magnitude: F3 Fatalities: 0 Injuries: 0 Property Damage: $ 250.0K

Crop Damage: $ 0.0

Description: None Reported

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 114 Event Record Details Event: Tornado State: Arkansas Begin Date: 30 Apr 1954, 1220 CST Begin Location: Not Known County: Washington 36°02'N / 94°03'W Begin LAT/LON: End Location: Not Known End LAT/LON: 36°06'N / 94°00'W Length: 5 Miles Width: 33 Yards Magnitude: F3 Fatalities: 0 Injuries: 0 $ 250.0K Property Damage:

Crop Damage: $ 0.0

Description: None Reported ______Event Record Details Event: Tornado State: Arkansas Begin Date: 15 Nov 1955, 1930 CST Begin Location: Not Known County: Washington Begin LAT/LON: 36°03'N / 94°00'W End Location: Not Known End LAT/LON: 36°08'N / 93°45'W Length: 15 Miles Width: 220 Yards Magnitude: F2 Fatalities: 0 Injuries: 1 Property Damage: $ 2.5K

Crop Damage: $ 0.0 Description: None Reported

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 115 Event Record Details Event: Tornado State: Arkansas Begin Date: 05 May 1960, 2130 CST Begin Location: Not Known County: Washington Begin LAT/LON: 35°49'N / 94°12'W End Location: Not Known End LAT/LON: 36°00'N / 94°00'W Length: 17 Miles Width: 33 Yards Magnitude: F2 Fatalities: 0 Injuries: 1 Property $ 250.0K Damage: Crop Damage: $ 0.0 Description: None Reported ______Event Record Details Event: Tornado State: Arkansas Begin Date: 11 Jun 1970, 2045 CST Begin Location: Not Known County: Washington Begin LAT/LON: 35°56'N / 94°31'W End Location: Not Known End LAT/LON: 36°12'N / 94°06'W Length: 30 Miles Width: 250 Yards Magnitude: F3 Fatalities: 1 Injuries: 44 Property $ 2.5M Damage: Crop Damage: $ 0.0 Description: None Reported

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 116 Event Record Details Event: Tornado State: Arkansas Begin Date: 19 Nov 1970, 1430 CST Begin Location: Not Known County: Washington Begin LAT/LON: 35°58'N / 94°29'W End Location: Not Known End LAT/LON: 36°10'N / 94°13'W Length: 20 Miles Width: 300 Yards Magnitude: F2 Fatalities: 0 Injuries: 1 Property $ 25.0K Damage: Crop Damage: $ 0.0

Description: None Reported ______Event Record Details Event: Tornado State: Arkansas Begin Date: 10 Jan 1975, 0055 CST Begin Location: Not Known County: Washington 36°11'N / 94°08'W Begin LAT/LON: End Location: Not Known Length: 1 Mile Width: 100 Yards Magnitude: F1 Fatalities: 0 Injuries: 5 Property $ 25.0K Damage: Crop Damage: $ 0.0

Description: None Reported

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 117 Event Record Details Event: Tornado State: Arkansas Begin Date: 26 Mar 1976, 1545 CST Begin Location: Not Known County: Washington Begin LAT/LON: 35°52'N / 94°25'W End Location: Not Known Length: 2 Miles Width: 77 Yards Magnitude: F2 Fatalities: 0 Injuries: 0 Property $ 250.0K Damage: Crop Damage: $ 0.0

Description: None Reported ______Event Record Details Event: Tornado State: Arkansas Begin Date: 20 Apr 1976, 1414 CST Begin Location: Not Known County: Washington Begin LAT/LON: 35°59'N / 94°19'W End Location: Not Known Length: 0 Mile Width: 10 Yards Magnitude: F0 Fatalities: 0 Injuries: 0 Property $ 0.0K Damage: Crop Damage: $ 0.0

Description: None Reported

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 118 Event Record Details Event: Tornado State: Arkansas Begin Date: 11 Apr 1979, 1002 CST Begin Location: Not Known County: Washington Begin LAT/LON: 35°50'N / 94°23'W End Location: Not Known End LAT/LON: 35°59'N / 94°19'W Length: 11 Miles Width: 200 Yards Magnitude: F2 Fatalities: 0 Injuries: 4 Property $ 250.0K Damage: Crop Damage: $ 0.0 Description: None Reported ______Event Record Details Event: Tornado State: Arkansas Begin Date: 02 May 1979, 2335 CST Begin Location: Not Known County: Washington Begin LAT/LON: 36°07'N / 94°05'W End Location: Not Known End LAT/LON: 36°06'N / 94°00'W Length: 5 Miles Width: 50 Yards Magnitude: F1 Fatalities: 0 Injuries: 0 Property $ 250.0K Damage: Crop Damage: $ 0.0 Description: None Reported

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 119 Event Record Details Event: Tornado State: Arkansas Begin Date: 16 Oct 1984, 0330 CST Begin Location: Not Known County: Washington Begin LAT/LON: 35°59'N / 94°29'W End Location: Not Known End LAT/LON: 36°06'N / 94°20'W Length: 10 Miles Width: 200 Yards Magnitude: F1 Fatalities: 0 Injuries: 0 Property $ 25.0K Damage: Crop Damage: $ 0.0 Description: None Reported ______Event Record Details Event: Tornado State: Arkansas Begin Date: 16 Oct 1984, 1015 CST Begin Location: Not Known County: Washington Begin LAT/LON: 35°50'N / 94°20'W End Location: Not Known End LAT/LON: 36°00'N / 94°07'W Length: 15 Miles Width: 200 Yards Magnitude: F1 Fatalities: 0 Injuries: 0 Property $ 2.5M Damage: Crop Damage: $ 0.0 Description: None Reported

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 120

Event Record Details Event: Tornado State: Arkansas Begin Date: 17 Apr 1995, 2313 CST Begin Location: 5 Miles North East of Evansville County: Washington Begin LAT/LON: 35°52'N / 94°28'W End Location: Not Known Length: 1 Mile Width: 75 Yards Magnitude: F0 Fatalities: 0 Injuries: 0 Property $ 50.0K Damage: Crop Damage: $ 0.0 Description:

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 121 Event Record Details Event: Tornado State: Arkansas Begin Date: 04 May 1999, 12:20:00 PM CST Begin Location: 3 Miles West South West of Odell County: Washington Begin LAT/LON: 35°45'N / 94°28'W End Date: 04 May 1999, 12:37:00 PM CST End Location: 7 Miles South West of Fayetteville End LAT/LON: 36°00'N / 94°15'W Length: 22 Miles Width: 175 Yards Magnitude: F3 Fatalities: 0 Injuries: 0 Property $ 80.0K Damage: Crop Damage: $ 0.0 Description:

A significant long-track tornado first touched down 4 miles west of Short, OK, and tracked 39 miles to a point about 7 miles southwest of Fayetteville, AR. Along the way, this tornado passed through portions of four counties but mainly affected sparsely-populated areas. It reached its peak strength as an F3 tornado in extreme southeast Adair County, OK, but mainly caused F2 damage in Washington County, AR. Fortunately, this tornado lifted before it reached heavily-populated Fayetteville. The tornado's first real property damage took place at a property between the Hogeye and Strickland communities, where the tornado peeled off the roof to a home, shattered windows, uprooted trees, destroyed two barns, and wiped a porch off of its stone foundation. Numerous trees were blown down along County Roads 212 and 214. Only a few miles away in the Cove Creek community, south of Prairie Grove, the tornado blew off a home's roof, demolished an enclosed garage, and destroyed a barn. A flagpole was bent almost in half, and a road sign ended up wrapped around a mailbox. The tornado uprooted a 200-year old walnut tree which then fell onto a pickup truck. About a half-dozen other oak and cedar trees on one property dating back at least 150 years were snapped or uprooted. The Washington County Judge's Office supplied a picture of a church near Cove Creek that was moved off of its foundation. Several poultry buildings along the tornado's path were also damaged. The property damage listed in this entry is for just that damage sustained in Washington County, while the F-rating reflects the tornado's peak strength in Adair County, OK. Summary of events for May 4 1999: Following a record tornado outbreak in Oklahoma on May 3-4, a significant severe weather outbreak affected northwest Arkansas on the morning and afternoon of May 4 as a vigorous upper level system continued to move slowly east. While there were many individual storms in the area on May 4, the most outstanding storm of the day was a supercell thunderstorm that spawned a tornado in Sequoyah County, OK, which then moved northeast for 39 miles to near Fayetteville. Other storms produced damaging winds and large hail.

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 122

Event Record Details Event: Tornado State: Arkansas Begin Date: 17 May 1999, 09:59:00 AM CST Begin Location: 3 Miles South West of Farmington County: Washington Begin LAT/LON: 36°00'N / 94°17'W End Date: 17 May 1999, 09:59:00 AM CST End Location: 3 Miles South West of Farmington End LAT/LON: 36°00'N / 94°17'W Length: 1 Mile Width: 50 Yards Magnitude: F0 Fatalities: 0 Injuries: 0 Property $ 0.5K Damage: Crop Damage: $ 0.0

Description:

There was a brief tornado touchdown in a rural area southwest of Farmington. Damage was limited to trees. Summary of events for May 17 1999: A large bow echo, a radar signature associated with high winds, moved out of eastern Oklahoma and across northwest Arkansas early on the morning of May 17. Indeed, this line of storms produced widespread wind gusts strong enough to knock down trees and tree branches. By late morning, scattered thunderstorms re-developed across northwest Arkansas, one of which showed strong rotation and produced a brief tornado touchdown in Washington County. By mid-afternoon, an outflow boundary established itself along the Arkansas River valley and acted as a focus for more thunderstorm development. Training of thunderstorm cells along the outflow boundary led to heavy rainfall, though there were some marginally severe thunderstorms that developed along the outflow boundary.

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 123 Table 4.2.1-2 The following table summarizes the recorded occurrences of this hazard. Note that not all expenses are recorded in the NCDC database, only response and recovery costs.

Response and Recovery Costs Hazard: Tornados (Dollar Amounts in Thousands) Date City Town County State Federal Other Total April 30, 1954 $0 $0 $0 $0 $250 $250 April 30, 1954 $0 $0 $0 $0 $250 $250 April 30, 1954 $0 $0 $0 $0 $250 $250 November 15, 1955 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2.5 $2.5 May 5, 1960 $0 $0 $0 $0 $250 $250 June 11, 1970 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,500 $2,500 November 19, 1970 $0 $0 $0 $0 $25 $25 January 1, 1975 $0 $0 $0 $0 $25 $25 March 2, 1976 $0 $0 $0 $0 $250 $250 April 20, 1976 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 April 11, 1979 $0 $0 $0 $0 $250 $250 May 2, 1979 $0 $0 $0 $0 $250 $250 October 16, 1984 $0 $0 $0 $0 $25 $25 October 16, 1984 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2.5 $2.5 April 17, 1985 $0 $0 $0 $0 $50 $50 May 4, 1999 $0 $0 $0 $0 $80 $80 May 17, 1999 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0.5 $0.5 Totals: $0 $0 $0 $0 $4,460.5 $4,460.5

Probability of Future Tornado Events

Tornadoes are likely to occur in the county. The number of tornadoes affecting individual counties in Arkansas between 1950 and 2003 ranges from 6 to 62. The average Arkansas County experienced approximately 27 tornadoes during this period, with almost seven F2 or greater, which is equivalent to a recurrence interval of approximately one every 7.5 years. The county is located in a region of the country with a particularly high incidence of tornados.

Calculated Priority Risk Index (CPRI)

Probability: 3 - Likely

Magnitude: 4 – Catastrophic

Severity: 4 – Catastrophic

Warning Time: 4 - Less 6 Hours

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 124 The CPRI for the Tornado hazard for the county is:

Probability + Magnitude + Severity + Warning Time = CPRI

3 x .45 + 4 x .15 + 4 x .25 + 4 x .15 = 3.55

Magnitude / Severity of the Tornado Hazard

Over half of the tornado events reported in Washington County fell into the F2 or F3 category as defined by the Fujita Tornado Scale -- reported wind speeds of greater than 112 mph. Twenty-three percent of the tornado events were reported as F1, with three tornados being F0 (40-72 mph). There have been no F5 tornadoes reported in the county (or in Arkansas) since 1950. On the Design Wind Speed Map for Community Shelters in FEMA Publication 320, the county and the entire state of Arkansas lie within Zone IV (250 mph), the highest wind speed designation. The county and region’s history of tornadoes testify to their severity (i.e., amount of damage) and magnitude (i.e., affect on the greater community).

4.2.2. Severe Winter Storm Hazard Profile

Severe winter storms, which may include heavy snowfall, ice storms, winter storms, and/or strong winds, affect every state in the continental United States. Areas where such weather is uncommon, such as Arkansas, are typically disrupted more severely by severe winter storms than are regions that experience this weather more frequently. In addition, winter storms may spawn other hazards such as flooding, severe thunderstorms, tornadoes and extreme winds, or may hamper recovery efforts.

As a hazardous winter weather phenomena, the National Weather Service (NWS) defines snow as a steady fall of snow for several hours or more. Heavy snow is defined as either a snowfall accumulating to 4 inches in depth in 12 hours or less, or snowfall accumulation to 6 inches or more in depth in 24 hours or less. In states such as Arkansas, where lesser accumulations can cause significant impacts, lower thresholds may be used. A blizzard means that the following conditions prevail for a period of three hours or longer: 1) sustained wind or frequent gusts to 35 miles an hour or greater; and 2) considerable falling and/or blowing snow (i.e., reducing visibility to less than 1/4 mile). Sleet is defined as pellets of ice composed of frozen or mostly frozen raindrops or refrozen partially melted snowflakes. These pellets of ice usually bounce after hitting the ground or other hard surfaces. Heavy sleet is a relatively rare event defined as the accumulation of ice pellets covering the ground to a depth of 0.5 inch or more.

Freezing rain or freezing drizzle occurs when rain or drizzle freezes on surfaces such as the ground, trees, power lines, vehicles, streets, highways, etc. Small accumulations of ice can cause driving and walking difficulties while heavy accumulations produce extremely dangerous and damaging conditions. An ice storm is used to describe occasions when damaging accumulations of ice are expected during freezing rain situations. Significant accumulations of ice pull down trees and utility lines resulting in loss of power and communication. These accumulations of ice make walking and driving extremely dangerous. Significant ice accumulations are usually accumulations of 0.25 inches or greater.

A combination of severe winter weather types occurring over a wide area is usually called a winter storm. Winter-storm formation requires below freezing temperatures, moisture, and lift to raise the moist air to form the clouds and cause precipitation. Lift is commonly provided by warm air colliding with cold air along a weather front. Various causes exist for winter storms in the United States. Winter storms in Midwestern and plains states typically develop over southeast Colorado on the lee side of the

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 125 Rockies. These storms move east or northeast and use both the southward plunge of cold air from Canada and the northward flow of moisture from the Gulf of Mexico to produce ice, snow, and sometimes blizzard conditions. These fronts may push deep into the interior regions, sometimes as far south as Florida.

The occurrence of severe winter weather has a substantial impact on communities, utilities, transportation systems, and agriculture, and often results in loss of life due to accidents or hypothermia. Severe winter weather hazards include snowstorms, ice storms, storms with strong winds, and extreme cold. Heavy snow from a snowstorm can immobilize a region and paralyze a city, stranding commuters, stopping the flow of supplies, and disrupting emergency and medical services. In rural areas, homes and farms may be isolated for days, and unprotected livestock may be lost. The cost of snow removal, repairing damages, and loss of business can have large economic impacts on cities and towns.

Heavy accumulations of ice or snow commonly result in collapse of structural damage to buildings. The damage may be caused directly by the excessive weight of the ice/snow accumulation, or by ice-laden trees or branches falling on structures. Homes, business, as well as weaker nonresidential structures commonly sustain structural damage. Poultry houses in Arkansas are particularly at risk. Additional agricultural revenues are lost because of the time it takes to rebuild the poultry houses.

Heavy accumulations of ice from ice storms or heavy snow can also bring down trees, electrical wires, telephone poles and lines, and communication towers. Communications and power can be disrupted for days while utility companies work to repair the damage. Power and communications disruptions are common consequences of ice storms and heavy snow in Washington County. The monetary cost of power and communications losses to businesses is significant but difficult to estimate.

Accumulations of ice and snow may also cause extreme hazards to motorists. Motorists in Washington County are generally unaccustomed to driving on slick roads resulting in an increase in traffic accidents, some of which may result in fatalities. Travel is hampered by ice or heavy snow because the state lacks sufficient snow removal equipment and road treatments (sand, salt) because of the infrequent occurrence of severe winter weather events. The cost of the numerous traffic accidents, as well as the cost of business and school closings that occur due to hazardous travel conditions, are difficult to estimate.

Winter storms are sometimes accompanied by strong winds creating blizzard conditions with blinding wind-driven snow, severe drifting, and dangerous wind chill. Strong winds with these intense storms and cold fronts can knock down trees, utility poles, and power lines.

Geographic Area Affected by Severe Winter Storms

All parts of Washington County are equally susceptible to severe winter storm events. However, not all areas of Arkansas are equally affected. Washington County is affected by severe winter events as is the whole northwest corner of the State.

Counties in the northwest corner of Arkansas experienced the most heavy snow events between 1978 and 2003 (19 or more), while the southern half of the state experienced the fewest events (8 or less). Washington County has also been affected by ice storms; however, ice storms have been more common in parts of central Arkansas. Winter storm events have been most common in the north central and central parts of Arkansas with Washington County also being greatly affected by a wide array of winter storms.

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 126 Previous Severe Winter Storm Occurrences

Event Record Details Event: Ice Storm State: Arkansas Begin Date: 18 Jan 1993, 0000 CST Begin Location: Not Known Forecast Baxter, Benton, Boone, Zones End Date: 19 Jan 1993, CST Carroll, Fulton, Marion, affected: Newton, Randolph, End Location: Not Known Searcy, Sharp, Stone, Magnitude: 0 Washington Fatalities: 0 Injuries: 0 Property $ 500.0K Damage: Crop Damage: $ 0.0

Description:

Freezing rain fell over northern and central Arkansas on the 18th and 19th. Many bridges and overpasses around the area became ice covered as well as a number of secondary roads. A large number of traffic accidents also occurred. Ice accumulation on trees and power lines resulted in power outages across parts of north central and northeast Arkansas. Approximately 8,000 customers were affected by the fallen power lines.

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 127 Event Record Details Event: Ice Storm State: Arkansas Begin Date: 24 Feb 1993, 0000 CST Begin Location: Not Known Forecast Baxter, Benton, Boone, Zones End Date: 25 Feb 1993, CST Carroll, Fulton, Marion, affected: Newton, Randolph, End Location: Not Known Searcy, Sharp, Stone, Magnitude: 0 Washington Fatalities: 0 Injuries: 0 Property $ 5.0M Damage: Crop Damage: $ 0.0

Description:

Northern and Central Arkansas, A combination of snow and freezing rain fell across portions of northern and central Arkansas on the 24th and early on the 25th. Snowfall totals over northern areas of the state generally ranged from 2 to 4 inches. Significant accumulations of ice brought down trees and power lines across the affected area. Approximately 43,000 customers were without power at one point during the storm. Numerous traffic accidents occurred on ice covered roads and bridges.

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 128 Event Record Details Event: Winter Storm State: Arkansas Begin Date: 16 Jan 1994, 0000 CST Begin Location: Northern And Central Forecast Baxter, Benton, Boone, Zones End Date: 17 Jan 1994, ?CST CST Carroll, Clay, Cleburne, affected: Conway, Craighead, End Location: Not Known Crawford, Crittenden, Magnitude: 0 Cross, Faulkner, Fatalities: 0 Franklin, Fulton, Injuries: 0 Garland, Greene, Independence, Izard, Property $ 5.0M Jackson, Johnson, Damage: Lawrence, Lee, Logan, Crop Damage: $ 0.0 Lonoke, Madison, Marion, Mississippi, Monroe, Montgomery, Newton, Perry, Poinsett, Polk, Pope, Prairie, Pulaski, Randolph, Saline, Scott, Searcy, Sebastian, Sharp, St. Francis, Stone, Van Buren, Washington, White, Woodruff, Yell

Description:

A combination of snow, sleet and freezing rain fell over parts of northern and central Arkansas on the 16th and early on the 17th. The areas hardest hit by the storm were across areas of north central and northeast Arkansas. Snow and ice accumulations over the northern sections ranged from one to five inches. However, parts of northeast Arkansas received up to eight inches. A large number of trees and power lines were knocked down by the weight of the ice and snow. Many homes and businesses were damaged by fallen trees. Approximately 15,000 electric customers were without power at the height of the storm. Numerous traffic accidents occurred as a result of icy roads. Snow and ice remained on some roads for several days over northern Arkansas, as temperatures stayed below freezing.

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 129 Event Record Details Event: Winter Storm State: Arkansas Begin Date: 08 Mar 1994, 0600 CST Begin Location: Northern And Central Forecast Arkansas, Baxter, Zones End Date: 09 Mar 1994, 1500CST CST Benton, Boone, Carroll, affected: Clay, Cleburne, Conway, End Location: Not Known Craighead, Crawford, Magnitude: 0 Crittenden, Cross, Fatalities: 0 Faulkner, Franklin, Injuries: 0 Fulton, Garland, Grant, Greene, Hot Spring, Property $ 5.0M Independence, Izard, Damage: Jackson, Jefferson, Crop Damage: $ 0.0 Johnson, Lawrence, Lee, Logan, Lonoke, Madison, Marion, Mississippi, Monroe, Montgomery, Newton, Perry, Phillips, Poinsett, Polk, Pope, Prairie, Pulaski, Randolph, Saline, Scott, Searcy, Sebastian, Sharp, St. Francis, Stone, Van Buren, Washington, White, Woodruff, Yell

Description:

A mixture of snow, sleet, and freezing rain fell over parts of northern and central Arkansas beginning early on the 8th and continuing into the afternoon hours on the 9th. Northern parts of Arkansas were hardest hit where snow accumulated up to 18 inches at some locations. Over central Arkansas, snow, sleet, and freezing rain made roads very hazardous. Numerous power outages occurred in the northern areas of the state as a result of the heavy snow. A number of buildings either collapsed or sustained damage due to the weight of the snow. A large number of poultry houses were destroyed, killing thousands of young chickens. The snow only stayed on the ground a few days as warmer weather quickly moved back into the area.

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 130 Event Record Details Event: Heavy Snow State: Arkansas Begin Date: 13 Mar 1999, 03:00:00 PM CST Forecast Begin Location: Not Known Benton, Carroll, Zones End Date: 14 Mar 1999, 08:00:00 AM CST Madison, Washington affected: End Location: Not Known Magnitude: 0 Fatalities: 0 Injuries: 0 Property $ 20.0K Damage: Crop Damage: $ 0.0

Description:

Summary of winter weather on March 13-14 1999: A powerful upper level storm system moved eastward across southern Oklahoma and southern Arkansas on March 13 and 14. After heavy rains in advance of the system on the 12th, a band of precipitation established itself across the northwest corner of Arkansas on the afternoon of the 13th and then cold air moved in, changing the rain to snow. The band of heavy snow shifted east of the area shortly after sunrise. Visible satellite photos early on March 14 showed the southern extent of significant snow cover to be along the Boston Mountains. The heavy wet snow weighed down and broke many tree limbs. Some of these tree limbs fell into power lines that caused scattered interruptions in electrical service. At the peak of the winter storm, 8,000 electric customers were without power across northwest Arkansas due to broken power lines caused by weighted-down trees breaking. Newspaper reports indicated that the area near Beaver Lake was the hardest-hit area, where whole trees had fallen and had to be cleared off of roadways. Numerous traffic accidents also resulted on Saturday afternoon. Some snowfall totals include: Eureka Springs...16", Lowell...11", Bentonville...10+", Huntsville...10+", Fayetteville...8", and Siloam Springs...8".

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 131 Event Record Details Event: Ice Storm State: Arkansas Begin Date: 28 Nov 2001, 02:00:00 AM CST Forecast Begin Location: Not Known Benton, Carroll, Zones End Date: 29 Nov 2001, 12:00:00 PM CST Madison, Washington affected: End Location: Not Known Magnitude: 0 Fatalities: 0 Injuries: 0 Property $ 1.8M Damage: Crop Damage: $ 0.0

Description:

Surface High Pressure built into the region from the north supplying the cold air at the surface. An upper level storm system out of the southwest supplied the lift for the precipitation. Ice accruals of 1/2 to 1 inch were found across the region. The ice also extended across into Adair County Oklahoma. The ice brought down trees and utility lines/poles across the area. The ice track was fairly narrow due to colder air aloft farther north and west that supported frozen precipitation instead of freezing precipitation.

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 132 The following table summarizes the occurrences, impact and costs of this hazard. Note that many expenses were not recorded in the NCDC database so this table does not include total costs for the county with winter storm events.

Table 4.2.2-1

Response and Recovery Costs Hazard: (Dollar Amounts in Thousands) Name Date City Town County State Federal Other Total Ice Storm January 18, 1993 $0 $0 $0 $0 $500 $500 Ice Storm February 24, 1993 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5 $5 Winter Storm January 16, 1994 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,000 $5,000 Winter Storm March 8, 1994 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,000 $5,000 Heavy Snow March 13, 1999 $0 $0 $0 $0 $20 $20 Ice Storm November 28, 2001 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,800 $1,800 Totals: $0 $0 $0 $0 $12,325 $12,325

Probability of Future Severe Winter Weather Events

Over the past 8 years (1993 through 2001), 6 severe winter weather events have been recorded for Washington County. This includes 3 severe ice storms and 3 severe winter weather events including snow, freezing rain, and sleet. It is possible that Washington County will see winter weather events yearly that include some snow, sleet and ice. However, sever winter storms, such as heavy ice or snow storms causing anything more than moderate disruptions of people’s lives, are infrequent. Also, the county is not located in a region of the country that is prone to frequent severe winter storms.

Calculated Priority Risk Index (CPRI)

Probability: 2 - Possible

Magnitude: 3 - Critical

Severity: 3 - Critical

Warning Time: 3 - 6-12 Hours

The CPRI for the Winter Storms hazard for the county is:

Probability + Magnitude + Severity + Warning Time = CPRI

2 x .45 + 3 x .15 + 3 x .25 + 3 x .15 = 2.55

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 133 Magnitude / Severity of Severe Winter Storm Hazards

According to National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) and National Weather Service Data, typical snow accumulations in Washington County during heavy snow and winter storm events ranges from 1 inch to 8 inches. Typical ice storm accumulations range from 1/10 to one inch plus on rare occasions. Only one severe winter storm event, the December 2000 Severe Winter Storm (FEMA 1354-DR), has resulted in a Presidential Disaster Declaration in Washington County. When severe winter storm events do occur (the worse typically associated with ice), they are usually wide-spread over the area and impede the movement of vehicles – limiting regular movement of traffic, causing accidents and limiting responsiveness of emergency services – and can down power and communications lines and seriously damage some structures, thus creating potentially critical conditions for the entire area.

4.2.3. Flood Hazard Profile

Flooding is defined as the accumulation of water within a water body and the overflow of excess water onto the adjacent floodplain, causing land that is normally dry to be inundated. Flooding is a natural process of over bank flow. Floods may result from many causes. Most floods are caused by heavy rainfall from storms or thunderstorms that generate excessive runoff. A riverine flood is a flood caused by precipitation, runoff or snowmelt over a relatively large watershed causing flooding over wide areas and cresting in over 8 hours. A flash flood is a flood caused by heavy precipitation or snowmelt over a limited watershed (typically less than 50 square miles), crests in eight hours or less, and generally occurs in hilly terrain. Riverine floods have relatively low velocity, cover a large area of land, and take longer to recede, whereas flash floods have a higher velocity and may recede quickly. A flash flood can also occur when extreme amounts of precipitation fall on any terrain if the precipitation accumulates more rapidly than the terrain can allow runoff. (Refer to Flash Flood Guidance on Page 138)

Flash floods pose more significant safety risks than other riverine floods because of the rapid onset, the high velocity of water, the potential for channel scour, and the debris load. Debris carried by floods can damage or destroy structures in its path. In addition, more than one flood crest may result from a series of fast moving storms. Sudden destruction of structures and the washout of access routes may result in the loss of life.

Flood damage is proportional to the volume and the velocity of the water. Floods are extremely dangerous because they destroy through inundation and soaking as well as the incredible force of moving water. High volumes of water can move heavy objects and undermine roads and bridges. Floods often occur without local precipitation as a result of precipitation upstream. Although rural flooding is dangerous to fewer people and may be less costly than urban flooding, it can cause great damage to agricultural operations. Flooding can also facilitate other hazards such as landslides, or cause other hazards such as material hazard events.

A floodplain is the normally dry, flat area of land adjoining the channel of a stream, watercourse or other water body such as a lake or reservoir that is susceptible to inundation by flood water and stream- borne sediments. Floodplains can be managed to mitigate against damage from floodwaters. The floodplain is for overflow of floodwaters, and zoning regulations commonly prohibit development in this area. The floodway is the channel of a watercourse and those portions of the adjoining floodplain providing the passage of the 100-year flood stage waters. The floodway fringe is the portion of the floodplain where complete development will cause significant rise (typically one-foot) in 100-year floodplain. Flood stage is water elevation at which damage to personal property is significant. Damage from flooding depends on the amount of cultural development. Locally heavy precipitation may produce

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 134 flooding in areas other than delineated floodplains or along recognized drainage channels. If local conditions cannot accommodate intense precipitation through a combination of infiltration and surface runoff, water may accumulate and cause flooding problems.

Despite the hazards, scenic floodplains commonly are highly populated. Development occurs on floodplains because there are no topographic constraints on construction (no hills), they contain fertile alluvial soil and abundant water supply, and they provide access to transportation, commerce, energy, and wastewater disposal. Floodplains are too large an area to leave undeveloped, and coupled with ignorance of flood hazards and of floodplain extent, this typically leads to unsound development on floodplain land.

In addition to floodplains, floods occur in low areas where drainage is poor. Impermeable soils and flat terrain are susceptible to flooding when rainfall rates exceed the ability of the soil to carry water away. High groundwater levels may also cause flooding problems even where there is no surface flooding. Basements are susceptible to flooding from high groundwater levels. Seasonally high groundwater is common in many areas of Arkansas, while in other areas groundwater is high only after long periods of above average precipitation.

Floodplains offer many benefits to communities. Floodplains act as natural flood-storage areas, decreasing the destructive force of floodwaters downstream. Biological activity, chemical processes, and filtration of floodwaters on floodplains can reduce flood-generated pollution from agricultural and urban runoff and sewage overflow. Floodplain vegetation reduces soil erosion, reduces velocity of floodwaters, traps floodwater sediment increasing soil fertility, and reduces sediment load downstream. High sediment load reduces biological activity and aesthetic and recreational value. Floodplain vegetation also shades streams reducing water temperature and providing habitat for organisms promoting biodiversity and productivity. Floodplains preserve and recharge groundwater supplies, and provide opportunities for recreation, outdoor education, and scientific study. Urban expansion may encourage development in floodplains that would otherwise be reserved for these benefits.

Geographic Area Affected by Flooding

Washington County is subject to flash flooding. Dam failure flooding is an extremely remote possibility. Research on flooding history in the county included newspaper accounts of floods, data collected by the National Climatic Data Center and the National Flood Insurance Program, and interviews with individual county residents. Though the county’s floodplain maps are badly in need of updating, which should occur through FEMA’s map-modernization program, the county’s FIRMs did provide a fairly accurate picture of areas and structures most vulnerable to flooding.

A variety of factors affect the type and severity of flooding within Washington County, including topography, geology, urban development and infrastructure. Serious flooding in the mountainous areas is unusual because streams tend to be faster flowing and flood waters drain quickly. Also, the mountainous areas of the county are generally less populated and flooding that does occur is not as likely to threaten property or lives. Flash floods are most common in this area due to this area exhibiting high to moderate relief, steep to moderate slopes, and bedrock with low permeability. All factors facilitate rapid runoff and the consequent potential for flash floods. Urban development in this part of the county exacerbates the flash flooding problem. Intense rainfall events, often accompanying the large thunderstorms that occur in Washington County several times a year, may result in water flowing rapidly from higher elevations into valleys, collecting in, and sometimes overtopping the valley streams.

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 135 There have also been issues with the maintenance and clearing of drainage channels in this area that have resulted in obstructions restricting the flow of water during a storm.

A CD entitled PRELIMINARY FEMA Floodplain Maps for Washington County is included in the Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan as a reference to identify the location magnitude and severity of flooding events in Washington County. This Flood Insurance Study (FIS) revises and updates previous FIS/Flood Insurance Maps (FIRM) for, or investigates the existence and severity of flood hazards in the county. This information will be used by Washington County to update existing floodplain regulations as part of the Regular Phase of the NFIP. The information will also be used by local and regional planners to further promote sound land use and floodplain development.

The above referenced Flood Insurance Study produced by Federal Emergency Management Agency is a preliminary study dated August 7, 2006 - Flood Insurance Study Number 05143CV001A.

The charts below will reference where in the FEMA study the information for location and extent can be found on the CD entitled PRELIMINIARY FEMA Floodplain Maps.

INDEX OF PRELIMINARY FEMA FLOODPLAIN MAPS FOR WASHINGTON COUNTY by Jurisdiction

Panel Jurisdiction Numbers City of Elkins 0245, 0400 City of Elm Springs 0035, 0055, 0060 City of Farmington 0185, 0195, 0215 0070, 0090, 0185, 0205, 0210, 0215, City of Fayetteville 0220, 0230, 0235, 0240, 0245, 0360 City of Goshen 0235, 0275 City of Greenland 0215, 0220, 0355, 0360 City of Johnson 0065, 0070, 0205, 0210 City of Lincoln 0305, 0310, 0320 City of Prairie Grove 0330, 0335 City of Springdale 0055, 0060, 0065, 0070, 0080, 0090 City of Tontitown 0035, 0045, 0055, 0065 City of West Fork 0355, 0360, 0365, 0370 City of Winslow 0525, 0550 0025, 0030, 0035, 0040, 0045, 0055, 0065, 0070, 0080, 0085, 0090, 0095, 0125, 0050, 0175, 0180, 0185, 0190, 0195, 0205, 0210, Unincorporated Washington County 0215, 0220, 0230, 0235, 0240, 0245, 0275, 0300, 0305, 0310, 0315, 0320, 0330, 0335, 0340, 0345, 0355, 0360, 0365, 0370, 0400, 0425, 0450, 0475

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 136 INDEX OF PRELIMINARY FEMA FLOODPLAIN MAPS FOR WASHINGTON COUNTY by Named Waterways and Tributaries

Waterway and Tributary Panel Numbers Airport Branch 01-02 Brush Creek 03-05 Brush Creek Tributary 06 Brush Creek Tributary 3 07 Cato Springs Branch 08 Clabber Creek 09-12 Clabber Creek Tributary C1 13 Clabber Creek Tributary C1-A 14 Clabber Creek Tributary C2 15 Clear Creek 16-19 Clear Creek Tributary 20 Clear Creek Tributary 1 21 Clear Creek Tributary 2 22 Faubus Creek 23 Hamestring Creek 24-25 Hamestring Creek Tributary HS1 26-27 Hamestring Creek Tributary HS2 28-29 Hamestring Creek Tributary HS3 30-31 Koger Branch 32 Main Ditch 33 Middle Fork Hamestring Creek 34-35 Middle Fork White River 36-39 Moores Creek 40 Moores Tributary 41 Mud Creek 42-43 Mud Creek Tributary 44-46 Muddy Fork 47-48 North Fork Hamestring Creek 49-50 Owl Creek 51-52 Owl Creek Tributary 1 53-54 Owl Creek Tributary 2 55-56 Scull Creek 57-60 Scull Creek Tributary 1 61 Scull Creek Tributary 2 62 South Fork Hamestring Creek 63-65 Spout Springs Branch 66 Spring Creek 67-68 Stokenbury Creek 69-70 Sublet Creek 71-74 Town Branch 75-78 Tributary 1 79-80 Tributary 2 81 Tributary 4 82-83 Tributary 5 84 White Fork White River 85-88 White River 89-91

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 137

Flash Flood Guidance

Inches of rainfall for specified durations required to produce flash flooding in forecast zones. Lower amounts may cause flash flooding in urban or mountainous areas. Flash Flood Guidance Chart for Washington County includes the four counties adjacent to Washington County, Arkansas.

ID County 1-Hour 3-Hour 6-Hour OKZ069 Ada County, OK 2.4 3.1 4.2 ARZ001 Benton County 2.4 3.5 4.9 ARZ019 Crawford County 2.5 3.0 3.8 ARZ011 Madison County 2.1 2.7 3.3 ARZ010 Washington County 2.5 3.1 4.3

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 138 Previous Flood Occurrences Event Record Details Event: Flash Flood State: Arkansas Begin Date: 09 May 1993, 2100 CST Begin Location: Not Known County: Washington End Location: Not Known Magnitude: 0 Fatalities: 0 Injuries: 0 Property $ 50.0K Damage: Crop Damage: $ 0.0

Description:

Several parts of Highway 16 were washed out by heavy rains that occurred in Washington County.

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 139 Event Record Details Event: Flash Flood State: Arkansas Begin Date: 04 Jan 1998, 10:00:00 AM CST Begin Location: Countywide County: Washington End Date: 04 Jan 1998, 02:00:00 PM CST End Location: Countywide Magnitude: 0 Fatalities: 0 Injuries: 0 Property $ 10.0K Damage: Crop Damage: $ 0.0

Description:

Van drove into running water over Hwy. 45 south of Lincoln and became trapped. Occupants rescued safely. Many streets closed in Fayetteville area. A strongly baroclinic, southwest-northeast oriented front pulled up stationary over eastern Oklahoma on Jan. 4- 5. A series of upper level disturbances in southwest flow aloft caused heavy rains to break out across the region. Rainfall totals of three to six inches were common. Fayetteville's Drake Field had a two-day rainfall total of 6.33 inches, coming on top of already-saturated grounds caused by heavy rains during the week before Christmas. Most creeks and rivers overflowed their banks, and numerous low-water bridges were covered with water. Unfortunately, this led to the death of Madison County's sheriff when he unsuccessfully tried to cross one such bridge near St. Paul in his patrol car on a routine patrol. His car overturned in the fast and high water, and he was unable to escape.

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 140 Event Record Details Event: Urban/sml Stream Fld State: Arkansas Begin Date: 25 May 1998, 03:00:00 AM CST Begin Location: Fayetteville County: Washington End Date: 25 May 1998, 04:00:00 AM CST End Location: Fayetteville Magnitude: 0 Fatalities: 0 Injuries: 0 Property $ 5.0K Damage: Crop Damage: $ 0.0

Description:

AQ Chicken reported severe flooding and had to be closed until they could reclaim all of the dead chickens that floated away. There was an unofficial report of 1.5 inches in Wedington Woods falling in less than one hour. Debris was washed from ditches into streets in the city of Fayetteville. Summary of events for May 25, 1998: Several severe thunderstorms moved out of northeast Oklahoma and into northwest Arkansas during the early morning hours of May 25 between 300 AM CDT and 530 AM CDT, producing hail as large as quarters, marginally severe wind gusts, and high rainfall rates. These thunderstorms moved east-southeast along an outflow boundary produced by earlier thunderstorms in southwest Missouri. The first cluster of severe thunderstorms moved across Benton, Carroll, and extreme northern Madison Counties. As one storm moved across northern Madison County, it acquired strong rotation, and this storm produced severe wind gusts in northern Madison and Carroll Counties. A second cluster of severe storms moved across Washington County after 400 AM, weakening briefly over the far southeastern part of the county, and then reintensying over northern Franklin County.

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 141 Event Record Details Event: Flash Flood State: Arkansas Begin Date: 30 Jun 1999, 05:30:00 AM CST Begin Location: North Portion County: Washington End Date: 30 Jun 1999, 06:30:00 AM CST End Location: North Portion Magnitude: 0 Fatalities: 0 Injuries: 0 Property $ 450.0K Damage: Crop Damage: $ 0.0

Description:

In Springdale, US Hwy 71B was flooded. High water forced the closing of Gutensohn Road just north of Sunset Avenue and bridges at Silent Grove and Shady Grove Roads. In Fayetteville, creeks overflowed into several neighborhoods, including the low-lying Willow Springs subdivision in west Fayetteville, where several homes sustained several thousand dollars in flood damage. The area near 18th Street and Beechwood Avenue, which connects to AR Hwy 16, was also flooded. Garland Avenue, which becomes AR Hwy 112, was flooded in places. The corner of AR Hwy 16 and AR Hwy 265 also flooded. Damage to roads throughout Washington County was estimated at $400,000. Initial assessments showed damage to 50 miles of county roads with four bridges destroyed, impassable or needing significant repairs. Among the worst hit was a low-water bridge over the War Eagle River on Washington County Road 526, also known as Gar Hole Road, which collapsed after being undermined by raging flood waters. Other bridges damaged include a bridge on County Road 872 near the Harmon community, a low-water bridge on County Road 203 and a small bridge on County Road 2002 near the Black Oak community. Summary of events for June 30 1999: Major flash flooding resulted across northwest Arkansas when a line of thunderstorms, containing torrential rainfall and associated with a nocturnal MCS, moved slowly southeastward across northwest Arkansas on the morning of June 30. Major flash flooding was reported in several locations, most notably in the Fort Smith area and western Benton County. The following are rainfall amounts measured at major airports across the region: NW Arkansas Regional Airport (Highfill)...3.20", Fort Smith Regional Airport...2.62", and Drake Field (Fayetteville)...2.39". This came on top of an already-wet spring and measurable rainfall in the two days preceding this event.

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 142 Event Record Details Event: Flash Flood State: Arkansas Begin Date: 17 Jun 2000, 06:00:00 AM CST Begin Location: Countywide County: Washington End Date: 17 Jun 2000, 06:00:00 AM CST End Location: Countywide Magnitude: 0 Fatalities: 0 Injuries: 0 Property $ 40.0K Damage: Crop Damage: $ 0.0

Description:

Heavy rains including 2.90 inches at Springdale caused several roads to be flooded across Washington county. Water also entered a few homes in Lincoln.

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 143 Event Record Details Event: Flash Flood State: Arkansas Begin Date: 21 Jun 2000, 02:45:00 AM CST Begin Location: Countywide County: Washington End Date: 21 Jun 2000, 12:00:00 PM CST End Location: Countywide Magnitude: 0 Fatalities: 0 Injuries: 0 Property $ 450.0K Damage: Crop Damage: $ 0.0

Description:

Heavy thunderstorm rains including 3.44 inches at Cincinnati and 3.38 inches at Prairie Grove caused widespread flooding across Washington county. The main damage was to roads and bridges. However, three homes were flooded in the south part of Fayetteville.

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 144 Event Record Details Event: Flash Flood State: Arkansas Begin Date: 22 Apr 2004, 07:45:00 PM CST Begin Location: Countywide County: Washington End Date: 24 Apr 2004, 05:00:00 PM CST End Location: Countywide Magnitude: 0 Fatalities: 0 Injuries: 0 Property $ 7.0M Damage: Crop Damage: $ 0.0

Description:

Several rounds of thunderstorms pelted Washington county during the April 20s. For the 72 hour period ending a 7 am cdt Fayetteville and Prairie Grove has 7.41 and 7.33 inches of rain respectively. This heavy rain caused rounds of flash flooding from the evening of April 22nd to the daytime hours of April 24th. Numerous county roads were flooded and damaged during that time span. Damage to the roads was estimated to be in excess of $6 million. Roads were not the only things damaged. A train track near Greenland was washed out. Several 40 foot metal shipping containers were washed into the Illinois river near Hogeye. As many as 40 to 50 homes sustained damage. Many of those homes were in the Goshen and Elkins areas. On April 25th, the governor of Arkansas declared the county a disaster area.

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 145 Event Record Details Event: Flash Flood State: Arkansas Begin Date: 03 Jul 2004, 02:20:00 AM CST Begin Location: Countywide County: Washington End Date: 03 Jul 2004, 04:00:00 AM CST End Location: Countywide Magnitude: 0 Fatalities: 0 Injuries: 0 Property $ 100.0K Damage: Crop Damage: $ 0.0

Description:

Heavy thunderstorm rains which totaled 3.55 inches at Fayetteville caused several county roads to be flooded and damaged across Washington county. The high water from the rain also damaged War Eagle Marina which is just northeast of Fayetteville.

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 146

Table 4.2.3-1

The following table summarizes the occurrences, impact and costs of this hazard. Note that many expenses were not recorded in the NCDC database so this table does not include total costs for the county with flood events.

Response and Recovery Costs Hazard (Dollar Amounts in Thousands) Name Date City Town County State Federal Other Total Flash Flood May 8, 1993 $0 $0 $0 $0 $50 $50 Flash Flood January 4, 1998 $0 $0 $0 $0 $10 $10 Urban/Small May 25, 1998 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5 $5 Stream Flood Flash Flood June 30, 1999 $0 $0 $0 $0 $450 $450 Flash Floods June 17, 2000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $40 $40 Flash Floods June 21, 2000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $450 $450 Flash Floods April 22, 2004 $0 $0 $0 $0 $7,000 $7,000 Flash Floods July 3, 2004 $0 $0 $0 $0 $100 $100 Totals: $0 $0 $0 $0 $8,105 $8,105

Probability of Future Flood Events

The probability of occurrence is expressed as the percent chance that a flood of a specific magnitude will occur in any given year. Table 4.2.3-1 summarizes the associated chance of occurrence for each type of flood the County may experience.

Table 4.2.3-2: Flood Probability of Occurrence Flood Return Chance of Occurrence Intervals in Any Given Year 10-Year 10% 50-Year 2% 100-Year 1% 500-Year 0.2%

Washington County has experienced 8 flooding events over the period of the last 11 years. It is likely the county will experience more than one flooding event or flash flood each year. However, flood events which might cause high levels of threats to property, critical facilities and people’s lives are infrequent. Compared to other areas of the country, the county has only a moderate incidence of flooding and flood damage. Based on just this information, in light of the Plan’s definition of “probability”, the chances of the county experiencing loss of life or serious property damage, either in terms of absolute dollar amount or relative to other areas of the country, due to flood events would be considered limited. There are, however, specific but notable exceptions relating to the likelihood of future, severe flood damage events in the county.

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 147 With continued development and urbanization in Fayetteville, Springdale, and other growing communities adjacent to I-540 Corridor in the county, flooding occurrences at various locations can and should be expected. For that reason, the probability of future flooding events that result in serious property damage – although be it of limited magnitude and severity – should be considered likely.

Calculated Priority Risk Index (CPRI)

Probability: 3 - Likely

Magnitude: 2 - Limited

Severity: 2 - Limited

Warning Time: 2 – 12-24 Hours

The CPRI for the Flood Hazard for the county is:

Probability + Magnitude + Severity + Warning Time = CPRI

3 x .45 + 2 x .15 + 2 x .25 + 2 x .15 = 2.45

Magnitude / Severity of the Flood Hazard

There have been no current federal disaster declarations for Washington County that has been due to flooding. Washington County has experienced 7 flooding events over the period of the last 11 years. There are no repetitive flood losses in Washington County listed on FEMA’s Repetitive Flood Loss List. Damages to structures caused by flooding in recent years have not been wide-spread, but specific to particular neighborhoods and limited locations in the county. Also, the reported cumulative response and recovery cost, as reported by the NCDC database, is well below that for other disaster events affecting the county. Thus, the probable magnitude and severity of flood events are considered limited. A CD entitled PRELIMINARY FEMA Floodplain Maps for Washington County Flood with Insurance Study Number 05143CV001A is included.

The charts below will reference where in the FEMA study the information for location, magnitude and severity can be found on the CD entitled PRELIMINIARY FEMA Floodplain Maps.

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 148 INDEX OF PRELIMINARY FEMA FLOODPLAIN MAPS FOR WASHINGTON COUNTY by Jurisdiction

Panel Jurisdiction Numbers City of Elkins 0245, 0400 City of Elm Springs 0035, 0055, 0060 City of Farmington 0185, 0195, 0215 0070, 0090, 0185, 0205, 0210, 0215, City of Fayetteville 0220, 0230, 0235, 0240, 0245, 0360 City of Goshen 0235, 0275 City of Greenland 0215, 0220, 0355, 0360 City of Johnson 0065, 0070, 0205, 0210 City of Lincoln 0305, 0310, 0320 City of Prairie Grove 0330, 0335 City of Springdale 0055, 0060, 0065, 0070, 0080, 0090 City of Tontitown 0035, 0045, 0055, 0065 City of West Fork 0355, 0360, 0365, 0370 City of Winslow 0525, 0550 0025, 0030, 0035, 0040, 0045, 0055, 0065, 0070, 0080, 0085, 0090, 0095, 0125, 0050, 0175, 0180, 0185, 0190, 0195, 0205, 0210, Unincorporated Washington County 0215, 0220, 0230, 0235, 0240, 0245, 0275, 0300, 0305, 0310, 0315, 0320, 0330, 0335, 0340, 0345, 0355, 0360, 0365, 0370, 0400, 0425, 0450, 0475

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 149 INDEX OF PRELIMINARY FEMA FLOODPLAIN MAPS FOR WASHINGTON COUNTY by Named Waterways and Tributaries

Waterway and Tributary Panel Numbers Airport Branch 01-02 Brush Creek 03-05 Brush Creek Tributary 06 Brush Creek Tributary 3 07 Cato Springs Branch 08 Clabber Creek 09-12 Clabber Creek Tributary C1 13 Clabber Creek Tributary C1-A 14 Clabber Creek Tributary C2 15 Clear Creek 16-19 Clear Creek Tributary 20 Clear Creek Tributary 1 21 Clear Creek Tributary 2 22 Faubus Creek 23 Hamestring Creek 24-25 Hamestring Creek Tributary HS1 26-27 Hamestring Creek Tributary HS2 28-29 Hamestring Creek Tributary HS3 30-31 Koger Branch 32 Main Ditch 33 Middle Fork Hamestring Creek 34-35 Middle Fork White River 36-39 Moores Creek 40 Moores Tributary 41 Mud Creek 42-43 Mud Creek Tributary 44-46 Muddy Fork 47-48 North Fork Hamestring Creek 49-50 Owl Creek 51-52 Owl Creek Tributary 1 53-54 Owl Creek Tributary 2 55-56 Scull Creek 57-60 Scull Creek Tributary 1 61 Scull Creek Tributary 2 62 South Fork Hamestring Creek 63-65 Spout Springs Branch 66 Spring Creek 67-68 Stokenbury Creek 69-70 Sublet Creek 71-74 Town Branch 75-78 Tributary 1 79-80 Tributary 2 81 Tributary 4 82-83 Tributary 5 84 White Fork White River 85-88 White River 89-91

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 150 4.2.4. Earthquake Hazard Profile

An earthquake is the shaking or vibration of the earth caused by the sudden release of energy, usually as a result of rupture and movement of rocks along a fault. The rupture and slippage processes generate seismic waves that radiate from the fault surface in all directions. If the energy of the seismic waves is strong enough, people and structures along the earth’s surface will be affected. The focus of an earthquake is the point within the earth where the initial rupture of the rock occurs in the earth and where the seismic waves are first released. The epicenter of an earthquake is the point on the ground surface directly above the focus.

Most earthquakes (e.g., those occurring in California, Alaska, and Japan) occur along the boundaries between rigid tectonic plates that are in slow but constant motion near the surface of the earth. Much less commonly, earthquake zones develop within the rigid plate itself resulting in “intraplate” seismicity. Such intraplate earthquakes must arise from a more localized system of forces. The New Madrid Seismic Zone (NMSZ), an area of high seismic activity within the central United States (including northeastern Arkansas), is the most important example of intraplate seismicity in North America.

The Size of Earthquakes: Two scales usually express the size of an earthquake. One scale measures the cause, which is known as the magnitude of the earthquake. A second scale measures the effects and is known as the intensity of the earthquake. Magnitude is a measure of the energy released from the source beneath the earth’s surface where a fault has suddenly ruptured. The magnitude scale is objective, measured by instruments at various distances and directions from the epicenter of an earthquake. A single magnitude value can be calculated for any given earthquake from seismograph readings at stations near and far from the source, even through the amplitudes of the measured waves usually diminish with distance. Magnitude scales are expressed in Arabic numbers to one decimal place. Because the magnitude classification is based on a logarithmic scale, a magnitude 8 earthquake is not twice as big as a magnitude 4 earthquake, but rather, 10,000 times larger. The amplitude of ground motion for any scale unit (e.g., 5.0) is ten times larger then the unit before it (4.0). In terms of energy, each unit on the magnitude scale represents approximately 32 times more energy released at the source than the next lower unit. Hence, a magnitude 6.5 earthquake is actually 32 times larger than a magnitude 5.5. At present, at least four different magnitude scales are in common use for classifying earthquakes.

Earthquake Intensity is a measure of the severity of the ground shaking as reflected in the degree of damage to man-made structures, the amount of disturbance to the surface of the ground, and the reaction of animals to the shaking. Intensity is measured in the United States by the Modified Mercalli Scale (Table 4.2.4-1). This scale, composed of 12 increasing levels of intensity that range from imperceptible shaking to catastrophic destruction, is designated by Roman numerals. It does not have a mathematical basis; instead it is an arbitrary ranking based on observed effects. Although earthquakes have only one magnitude, they have variable intensities that generally decrease with increasing distance away from the source. However, other factors such as local geology, shallow ground water, and building type may affect the intensities of earthquakes at a site. For example, greater intensities are associated with poorly consolidated alluvial soils, high ground water levels and poor construction practices such as unreinforced masonry structures.

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 151 Table 4.2.4-1: Abbreviated description of the twelve levels of Modified Mercalli intensity. The average peak acceleration is given (in parenthesis) for each scale value.

Mercalli Damage Description Intensity

I Not felt except by a very few under especially favorable conditions. (Negligible) Felt only by a few persons at rest, especially on upper floors of buildings. Delicately suspended II objects may swing. (Negligible) Felt quite noticeably by persons indoors, especially on upper floors of buildings. Many people do III not recognize it as an earthquake. Standing cars may rock slightly. Vibrations similar to the passing of a truck. Duration estimated. (Negligible)

Felt indoors by many, outdoors by few during the day. At night, some awakened. Dishes, windows, doors disturbed; walls make cracking sound. Sensation like heavy truck striking building. IV Standing motorcars rocked noticeably. (0.015g-0.02g)

Felt by nearly everyone; many awakened. Some dishes, windows broken; cracked plaster in a few places; unstable objects overturned. Disturbances of trees, poles, and other objects sometimes V noticed. Pendulum clocks may stop. (0.03g-0.04g)

Felt by all, many frightened. Some heavy furniture moved; a few instances of fallen plaster and VI damage chimneys. Damage slight. (0.06g-0.07g) Everybody runs outdoors. Damage negligible in buildings of good design and construction; slight VII to moderate in well built ordinary structures; considerable damage in poorly built or badly designed structures; some chimneys broken. Noticed by persons driving cars. (0.10g-0.15g) Damage slight in specially designed structures; considerable damage in ordinary substantial buildings with partial collapse. Damage great in poorly built structures. Panel walls thrown out of VIII frame structures. Fall of chimneys, factory stacks, columns, monuments, and walls. Heavy furniture overturned. Sand and mud ejected in small amounts. Changes in well water. Persons driving cars disturbed. (025g-0.30g) Damage considerable in specially designed structures; well-designed frame structures thrown out of IX plumb. Damage great in substantial buildings, with partial collapse. Buildings shifted off foundations. Ground cracked conspicuously. Underground pipes broken. (0.50g-0.55g) Some well-built wooden structures destroyed; most masonry and frame structures destroyed with X foundations; ground badly cracked. Rails bent. Landslides considerable from riverbanks and steep slopes. Shifted sand and mud. Water splashed, slopped over banks. (More then 0.60g) Few, if any (masonry) structures remain standing. Bridges destroyed. Broad fissures in ground. XI Underground pipelines completely out of service. Earth slumps and land slips in soft ground. Rails bent greatly. Damage total. Waves seen on ground. Lines of sight and level are distorted. Objects thrown into XII the air.

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 152 Geographic Area Affected by Earthquakes

There is an uneven distribution of earthquakes in the geographic area affected by earthquakes in Arkansas and not all counties have experienced a felt or recorded earthquake. Earthquake distributions can be misleading because, unlike other hazards, the event does not have to occur in a jurisdiction for that jurisdiction to be affected by it. For example, a large earthquake in the New Madrid Seismic Zone of northeastern Arkansas can cause damage in another county. Also, earthquakes in Arkansas are infrequent having recurrence intervals on the order of hundreds of years or more. This relatively short earthquake record is therefore incomplete, and even areas that have not experienced a historical earthquake should be considered vulnerable to the effects of earthquakes. It is clear, however, that northeast Arkansas has the most earthquake activity in the State. The cluster of earthquakes in northeast Arkansas in Mississippi, Craighead, and Poinsett Counties is the southern end of the New Madrid Seismic Zone (NMSZ), makes this the most seismically active region in United States east of the Rocky Mountains.

Washington County is located in an area with a .05 to .10 peak ground acceleration (pga) coefficient, which means it has some possibility of seismic hazard. However, the County has no documented historical record of earthquakes. Though Washington County is vulnerable to the effects of a major earthquake in the region, it is unlikely that an earthquake will affect the area at a significant level. Washington County is located in level VI of the XII levels of Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale based on an 8.6 Richter earthquake – the likely epicenter of which would be across the state near Memphis. In other words, the damage in western Arkansas would be slight, even from an intense, 8.6 Richter event. Refer to map on page 151.

Previous Earthquake Occurrences

There have been no earthquake occurrences recorded for the county.

Probability of Future Earthquake Events

Based on geological studies and reports and on historical records, it can safely be said that it is unlikely that an earthquake will occur in or near the county, nor should the county ever expect any damages from earthquakes.

Calculated Priority Risk Index (CPRI)

Probability: 1 - Unlikely

Magnitude: 1 - Negligible

Severity: 1 - Negligible

Warning Time: 4 – Less than 6 hours

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 153

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 154 The CPRI for the Earthquake Hazard for the county is:

Probability + Magnitude + Severity + Warning Time = CPRI

1 x .45 + 1 x .15 + 1 x .25 + 4 x .15 = 1.45

Magnitude / Severity of the Earthquake Hazard

As mentioned, Washington County is located in an area with a .05 to .10 peak ground acceleration (pga) coefficient, which means it has some possibility of seismic hazard. But the county has no documented historical record of earthquakes. Though the county is theoretical vulnerable to the effects of a major earthquake in the region, it is very unlikely that an earthquake will affect the area at a significant level; thus, its potential magnitude and severity are considered negligible. Refer to Table 4.2.4-1 on Page 152

4.2.5. Wildfire Hazard Profile

A wildfire is an uncontrolled fire spreading through vegetative fuels, exposing and possibly consuming structures. They often begin unnoticed and spread quickly and are usually signaled by dense smoke that fills the area for miles around. Naturally occurring and non-native species of grasses, brush, and trees fuel wildfires. A wildland fire is a wildfire in an area in which development is essentially nonexistent, except for roads, railroads, power lines and similar facilities. A Wildland- Urban Interface (WUI) fire is a wildfire in a geographical area where structures and other human development meet or intermingle with wildland or vegetative fuels. Areas with a large amount of wooded, brush and grassy areas are at highest risk of wildfires. Additionally, areas anywhere that have experienced prolonged droughts or are excessively dry are also at risk of wildfires.

Wildfire behavior is based on three primary factors: fuel, topography, and weather. The type, and amount of fuel, as well as its burning qualities and level of moisture affect wildfire potential and behavior. The continuity of fuels, expressed in both horizontal and vertical components is also a factor, in that it expresses the pattern of vegetative growth and open areas. Topography is important because it affects the movement of air (and thus the fire) over the ground surface. The slope and shape of terrain can change the rate of speed at which the fire travels. Weather affects the probability of wildfire and has a significant effect on its behavior. Temperature, humidity and wind (both short and long term) affect the severity and duration of wildfires.

The Arkansas Forestry Commission completes a fire report on each fire its Rangers and Foresters suppress. Information on a fire report includes the location of the fire, what caused the fire, whose land it was on, and how large it was. The Forestry Commission classifies fire origins into one of nine causes (Table 4.2.5-1). Based on statewide data from 1992 through 2003, it was found that the majority of fires in Arkansas are incendiary. Almost 44% of fires and nearly 58% of acres burned over this twelve-year period were maliciously set. The next most common cause of fires was debris burning which caused 28% of the fires and almost 23% of acres burned. Lighting was the cause of only 3.6% of the fires in Arkansas (Table 4.2.5-1).

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 155

Table 4.2.5-1: Causes of fires in Arkansas based on data collected from 1992-2003.

Fire Cause Number of Fires Acres Burned

Incendiary 10,150 (43.8%) 169,857 (55.7%)

Debris Burning 6,509 (28.1%) 69,310 (22.7%)

Smokers 548 (2.4%) 4,529 (1.5%)

Railroad 433 (1.9%) 3,960 (1.3%) Campfires 248 (1.1%) 2,852 (0.9%)

Equipment Use 1,403 (6.0%) 10,731 (3.52%) Children 393 (1.7%) 2,459 (0.8%)

Lightning 837 (3.6%) 9,763 (3.2%) Miscellaneous 2,644 (11.4%) 31,528 (10.3%)

Geographic Area Affected by Wildfires

To assess jurisdictions most at risk to wildland fires, one must consider the wildland-urban interface. Refer to Wildland Urban Interface 2000 Page 157-158. Population deconcentration in the U.S. has resulted in rapid development in the outlying fringe of metropolitan areas and in rural areas with attractive recreational and aesthetic amenities, especially forests. This demographic change is increasing the size of the wildland-urban interface (WUI), defined as the area where structures and other human development meet or intermingle with undeveloped wildland. The expansion of the WUI in recent decades has significant implications for wildfire management and impact. The WUI creates an environment in which fire can move readily between structural and vegetation fuels. Its expansion has increased the likelihood that wildfires will threaten structures and people.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service and the University of Wisconsin (Madison) recently released new scientific maps depicting the communities and lands within the wildland-urban interface (WUI). This is the first consistent nationwide representation of the WUI as defined in the Federal Register (Volume 66:751, 2001) and makes possible mapping and analysis at national, state and local levels. WUI maps are intended to illustrate where the WUI was located in 2000. Two types of WUI were mapped: intermix and interface. Intermix WUI are areas where housing and vegetation intermingle; interface WUI are areas with housing in the vicinity of contiguous wildland vegetation.

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 156

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 157

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 158 Previous Wildfire Occurrences

Washington County reported 178 wildfires that burned 1,954 acres with an average fire size of 11.0 acres.

Probability of Future Wildfire Events

Although fires occur at all times of the year in Arkansas, February through April is the peak fire season with March having the largest average number of fires statewide. The period of least fire activity is during May and June (Figure 4.2.5-3). The following graph represents the average number of fires occurring in Arkansas by month based upon Arkansas Forestry Commission data between 1940 and 2003. In the county, the likelihood of wildfires is greater in rural or rural/urban interface locations and minimal to non-existent within the more urban parts, which is where most of the county’s structures and people are located.

Average Number of Fires in Arkansas by Month between 1940 and 2003

700 600 500 400 300 200 Number of Fires of Number 100 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Month

Figure 4.2.5-3

Although wildfires are a regular occurrence, particularly in the rural areas of the county during certain times of the year, most are grass and brush fires which, though sometimes potentially threatening to structures and people, do not cause serious or severe damage. Though wildfires, if not brought under controlled, have the potential to cause serious damage, current fire-fighting capacities make it possible that seriously damaging wildfires will occur in the county.

Calculated Priority Risk Index (CPRI)

Probability: 2 - Possible

Magnitude: 2 - Limited

Severity: 2 - Limited

Warning Time: 4 – Less than 6 hours

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 159 The CPRI for the Wildfire Hazard for the county is:

Probability + Magnitude + Severity + Warning Time = CPRI

2 x .45 + 2 x .15 + 2 x .25 + 4 x .15 = 2.30

Magnitude / Severity of the Wildfire Hazard

Short-term loss caused by a wildland fire can include the destruction of timber, wildlife habitat, scenic vistas, and watersheds. Vulnerability to flooding increases due to the destruction of watersheds. The removal of vegetation may also increase vulnerability to landslides. Long -term effects include smaller timber harvests, reduced access to affected recreational areas, and destruction of cultural and economic resources and community infrastructure.

Based on the wildfire risk assessment for Washington County that was completed by Dr. Michael Garner with the University of Arkansas at Fort Smith on June 30, 2004, overall Washington County has good fire protection. Many districts have entered into mutual agreements and automatic aid to provide better response and service to rural home owners and are engaged in improvement programs such as acquisition of equipment including tanker trucks, Arkansas’ Firewise program, GIS E-911 mapping support through Washington County Office of Emergency Management, and the County Master Fire Plan program.

Wildfire hazard in the county is considered limited in its severity and magnitude. From a landscape perspective, burn severity is defined as the degree of environmental change caused by fire. Heterogeneity in burn severity is a result of the spatial variation of factors such as fire intensity, topography and vegetation type. Burn severity can be broken down into several categories, useful in gauging post burn ecological responses:

 Unburned  Low Severity Burn  Medium Low Severity Burn  Medium High Severity Burn  High Severity Burn

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 160 Rank Burn Description Characteristics Severity 0 Unburned Fire extinguished before reaching microsite • Leaf litter from previous years intact and uncharred • No evidence of char around base of trees and shrubs • Pre-burn seedlings and herbaceous vegetation present. 1 Low Severity Surface fire which consumes litter yet has little • Burned with partially consumed litter present Burn effect on trees and understory vegetation. • Evidence of low flame heights around base of trees and shrubs (<0.5 m) • No significant decreases in overstory & understory basal area, diversity or species richness from pre-burn assessments • Usually burning below 80 ° C 2 Medium-Low No significant differences in overstory density and • No litter present and 100% of the area covered by duff Severity Burn basal area, & no significant differences in species • Flame lengths < 2 m richness. However, understory density, basal area, • Understory mortality present, little or no overstory mortality and species richness declined. 3 Medium-High Flames that were slightly taller than those of • Soil exposure on l-50% of the area Severity Burn Medium-low intensity fires, but these fires had • Flame lengths <6m occasional hot spots that killed large trees, With • High understory mortality with some overstory trees affected significant reduction in the understory 4 High Severity Crown fires, usually a stand replacing burn with • Soil exposure >50% Burn relatively high overstory mortality • Flame lengths >6m • Higher overstory mortality >20% • Usually burning above 800 ° C

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 161 4.2.6. Landslide Hazard Profile

Studies by FEMA and others have found that landslides occur in every state and cause over $2 billion in building and highway losses and approximately 25 to 50 deaths annually in the United States. It has been estimated that about 40 percent of the United State’s population has been exposed to the direct and indirect effects of landslides. Although landslides may not be preventable, their devastating effect on humans and their property is avoidable and can be mitigated.

However, because significant landslide events are not known to have affected Washington County, the extent or severity of the landslide hazard for the county is not well known or determinable. Because of the low frequency of landslides reported, the extent or severity is believed to be low.

“Landslide” is a term that encompasses many phenomena involving lateral and down slope movement of earth materials such as, rock, soil, and/or artificial fill. The term covers a broad category of events, including mudflows, mudslides, and debris flows, rock falls, rock slides, debris slides, earth flows, and soil creep. Landslides can occur as sudden, short-lived events, or as a slow moving slide mass or as soil creep. In fact, most of the landslide damage does not occur in rugged mountain country. Most losses from landslides and soil creep occur in cities developed on gently sloping hillsides. Although a landslide may occur almost anywhere, from man-made slopes to natural, pristine ground, most slides often occur in areas that have experienced sliding in the past. All landslides are triggered by similar causes. These can be weaknesses in the rock and soil, earthquake activity, the occurrence of heavy rainfall or snowmelt, or construction activity changing some critical aspect of the geological environment.

Landslides may also be triggered by other natural hazards. For example, the safety of a dam can be severely compromised by upstream landslides or collapse of slopes bordering the reservoir or dam abutments. Landslides and flooding are closely related because both involve precipitation, runoff, and ground saturation. Debris flows usually occur in small, steep channels and are often mistaken for floods. Landslides and lateral spreads often result from seismic activity. The simultaneous or sequential occurrence of interactive hazards may produce cumulative effects that differ significantly from those expected from any one event.

The principal natural factors contributing to landslide susceptibility are topography, geology, and rainfall. The human activities include cut-and-fill construction for highways, construction of buildings and railroads, and mining operations. Topography influences stream erosion that, in turn, influence slope angle and gradient. The steeper the slope the more susceptible it is to sliding. The strength of rocks, that is, their resistance to erosion, is an important geologic factor in the landslide process. Rainfall has a pronounced effect on landscape (slope) development. It has the capacity to erode and undermine slope surfaces, and that which is absorbed increases pore water pressure and weight, and lubricates inherently weak zones of rock and soil. Generally, it is assumed that unusually high precipitation or changes in existing conditions can initiate landslide movement in areas where rocks and soils have experienced landslides in the past.

Previous Landslide Occurrences

There have been no previous landslide occurrences of any significance recorded for the county.

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 162 Probability of Future Landslide Events

Based on information from a 1982 published study by Radbruch-Hall and others, the county is located within an area of the country that has a “low incidence” and “moderate susceptibility” for landslides. Landslide events in the county are considered a low possibility, based on historical experience. Any occurring would be geographically isolated incidents with highly localized damage.

Calculated Priority Risk Index (CPRI)

Probability: 2 - Possible

Magnitude: 1 – Negligible

Severity: 2 - Limited

Warning Time: 2 – 12-24 Hours

The CPRI for the Landslide Hazard for the county is:

Probability + Magnitude + Severity + Warning Time = CPRI

2 x .45 + 1 x .15 + 2 x .25 + 2 x .15 = 1.85

Magnitude / Severity of the Landslide Hazard

Landslides have occurred in nearly every county in Arkansas. They have destroyed or damaged roads, railroads, bridges, mining facilities, parks and recreational areas, residential and commercial buildings, sewers, dams, reservoirs, forests, fisheries, and farms. Damage caused directly by landslides is largely undocumented or often mis-reported. The devastating effects of landslides often are attributed to the triggering event such as a flood, earthquake, or storm.

Because of the limited significant landslide events that have affected the county, the extent or severity of the landslide hazard is not well known. Because of the low frequency of significant landslides – and the likeliness they would be isolated events if they did occur – this event’s potential magnitude is considered negligible and its severity limited. (Refer to map pg.164-165)

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 163

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 164 Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 165 4.2.7. Expansive Soil Hazard Profile

Expansive soil (or swelling soil) is soil or soft rock that increases in volume when the moisture content of the soil increases and decreases in volume when moisture content decreases. The clay mineral montmorillonite, as well as other minerals of the smectite clay mineral group within the soil, is nearly always the cause of the volume change. When water is added to these expansive clay minerals, the water molecules are pulled or adsorbed into gaps between the clay plates. As more water is adsorbed, the plates are forced further apart, leading to an expansion of the soil’s volume or an increase in soil pressure. In pure form, montmorillonite clays may swell to over fifteen times their dry volume. Most soils, however, contain only small amounts of montmorillonite so that expansion of more than 1.5 times the dry soil volume is rare. The force of expansion is capable of exerting pressures of over 20,000 pounds per square foot. Although not well known to the general public, expansive soils are responsible for major economic losses. Various studies estimate that expansive soils result in somewhere between $2 and $11 billion in annual losses in the United States, significantly more than other natural hazards. Other studies have suggested that approximately 10% of the new homes constructed annually in the United States are subjected to significant damage during their useful lives by expansive soils, and an additional 60% of homes sustain minor damage.

Expansive soils cause differential movement and horizontal pressure on structures resulting in cracked driveways, cracked sidewalks and basement floors, heaving of roads and highway structures, and disruption of pipelines and sewer lines. Damage to homes can range from hairline plaster cracks and sticking doors to condemnation or complete destruction. Expansive soils occurring on slopes can also result in slow but damaging down slope movement of material (creep) or even landslides.

Geographic Area Affected by Expansive Soils

Expansive soils exist in the county; however, they are not geographically pervasive. Occurrences of damages related to expansive soils are isolated. The presence of expansive soils can be determined by professionally conducted soils test; the tests, however, are not always required nor performed for lower- cost, privately financed structures, such as single-family residential houses.

Previous Expansive Soil Occurrences

Although expansive soils are present throughout the county, the soils are rarely highly expansive; therefore the average citizen does not notice their effects. There are no documented expansive soil events for the county causing substantial damage. Refer to General Soil Map on Page 159.

Probability of Future Expansive Soil Events

Unlike other natural hazards discussed in this plan, expansive soil is a long-term condition that often causes incremental damage to a structure over a period of many years. It therefore cannot easily be attributed to an event or occurrence. When there is a significant natural or human induced excursion in expansive soil moisture content near a structure, accelerated damage may occur.

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 166 Although little noticed, soil expansion and contraction in the state is a high frequency & high probability event as it occurs daily and therefore causes damage to structures on a daily basis. However, this incremental damage is not known to lead to significant damages in this county. Also worth noting, a study by Olive and others published in 1989 places western Arkansas in an area of “slight to moderate clay swelling potential,” which means the county generally has a modest likelihood for having expansive soils as compared to other areas of the U.S.

Calculated Priority Risk Index (CPRI)

Probability: 2 - Possible

Magnitude: 1 – Negligible

Severity: 2 - Limited

Warning Time: 1 – 24+ Hours

The CPRI for the Expansive Soils Hazard for the county is:

Probability + Magnitude + Severity + Warning Time = CPRI

2 x .45 + 1 x .15 + 2 x .25 + 1 x .15 = 1.70

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 167 Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 168 Magnitude / Severity of the Expansive Soil Hazard

Throughout the United States expansive or reactive clay soils are known to cause adverse effects on structures. Expansive soil expands and contracts due to changes in the moisture content of the soil, causing structural problems through differential movement of the structure. Therefore, the presence of surface cracks is usually an indication of an expansive soil. If the moisture content and or soil type differs at various locations under the foundation, localized or non-uniform movement may occur in the structure. This isolated movement of sections of the structure can cause damage to the foundation and framing, evidenced by cracking of the slab or foundation, diagonal cracking in the exterior or interior wall covering (indicating movement of the framing), uneven floors and/or misaligned doors and windows.

A second effect of expansive soils is additional horizontal pressure applied to foundation walls found in basements and crawlspaces. Increased moisture in the soils adjacent to the foundation wall will cause the soils to expand and increase the lateral pressure applied to the foundation wall. If the foundation wall does not have sufficient strength, minor cracking, bowing or movement of the wall may occur. Serious structural damage to, or failure of, the wall may also occur.

A third effect associated with claystone soil (a type of expansive soil) is the movement of soils on unstable slopes. Expansive claystone soil, found as a layer under a more rigid top layer of soils, become unstable as the moisture content increases, allowing the claystone and the top layers of soils to move. If the soil is located on a slope, the top layer of soil can creep (slow movement) down hill or even cause a landslide (sudden and dramatic movement). Consequently, a house with an inadequate foundation built on unstable slopes can be subject to creeping of the structure down slope, or to failure of the structure in a landslide.

Cost of repair work can easily exceed the original cost of the foundation. In driveways, sidewalks, and streets if concrete slabs were used look to see if the slab joints are at the same level. If not, heaving caused by swelling soils has probably occurred. Wavy, "roller-coaster" surfaces may indicate swelling at certain layers or an uneven distribution of swelling soils. Excessive patching or cracking of the asphalt is also a sign of swelling soils. Refer to Swelling Clays Map on Page 170-171.

Typically, soils composed only of sand and gravel have no potential for volume change due to moisture change. Soils containing clays have variable potential for volume changes. Such soils are generally classified into three expansive soils classes with low, moderate, and high potential for volume changes:

* Low - This soils class includes sands and silts with relatively low amounts of clay minerals. Sandy clays may also have low expansion potential, if the clay is kaolinite. Kaolinite is a common clay mineral. * Moderate - This class includes silty clay and clay textured soils if the clay is kaolinite and also includes heavy silts, light sandy clays, and silty clays with mixed clay minerals. * High - This class includes clays and clay with mixed montmorillonite, a clay mineral that expands and contracts more than kaolinite.

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 169 Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 170

U.S. Geological Survey Swelling Clays Map Of The Conterminous U.S. Soil Map of Arkansas

Unit contains abundant clay having high swelling potential

Part of unit (generally less than 50%) consists of clay having high swelling potential

Unit contains abundant clay having slight to moderate swelling potential

Part of unit (generally less than 50%) consists of clay having slight to moderate swelling potential Unit contains little or no swelling clay

These maps are sourced from the U.S. Geological Survey publication "Swelling Clays Map Of The Conterminous United States" by W.W. Olive, A.F. Chleborad, C.W. Frahme, Julius Schlocker, R.R. Schneider, and R.L Shuster; 1989

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 171

4.2.8. High Wind Hazard Profile

High wind, also referred to as straight-line wind, is any wind that is not associated with rotation. This term is used mainly to differentiate thunderstorm winds from tornadic winds. High winds originate as a downdraft of rain-cooled air, which reaches the ground and spreads out rapidly, producing a potentially damaging gust of wind up to and sometimes over 100 mph. In recent years, there have been several occasions in Arkansas on which winds greater than 100 mph have been measured. Winds of 58 mph (50 knots) or more are considered severe. The horizontal component of near-surface wind phenomena is the most significant aspect of the hazard.

Geographic Area Affected by High Winds

Based on data from the National Climatic Data Center’s (NCDC) Severe Storms Database from 1950 through 2004, all counties in Arkansas have experienced severe (>58 mph) high winds and high wind damage, although not all counties appear to be evenly affected. The northwest corner and central part of the state are most often affected by severe high winds. All areas within Washington County are equally likely to experience a severe high wind event.

Previous High Wind Occurrences

Numerous high wind events have affected Washington County, although there has not been a significant number that have been extremely damaging. NCDC data indicates that one event May 14, 1986 resulted in a fatality and a small number of events have recorded up to $500,000 in property damages. Wind events reported by NCDC in Washington County are listed below. The affects of most wind events have been specific to particular locations and properties.

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 172

Event Record Details Event: Tstm Wind State: Arkansas Begin Date: 14 May 1986, 2135 Begin Location: Not Known County: Washington Begin LAT/LON: 36°04'N / 94°10'W End Location: Not Known Magnitude: 0 Fatalities: 1 Injuries: 0 Property $ 0.0 Damage: Crop Damage: $ 0.0

Description:

None Reported ______Event Record Details Event: Tstm Wind State: Arkansas Begin Date: 06 Aug 1988, 1630 Begin Location: Not Known County: Washington Begin LAT/LON: 36°11'N / 94°08'W End Location: Not Known Magnitude: 0 Fatalities: 0 Injuries: 1 Property $ 0.0 Damage: Crop Damage: $ 0.0

Description:

None Reported

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 173 Event Record Details Event: Tstm Wind State: Arkansas Begin Date: 22 May 1989, 0320 Begin Location: Not Known County: Washington Begin LAT/LON: 36°04'N / 94°10'W End Location: Not Known Magnitude: 0 Fatalities: 0 Injuries: 3 Property $ 0.0 Damage: Crop Damage: $ 0.0

Description:

None Reported ______Event Record Details Event: Tstm Wind State: Arkansas Begin Date: 21 Jun 1990, 1820 Begin Location: Not Known County: Washington Begin LAT/LON: 36°04'N / 94°10'W End Location: Not Known Magnitude: 0 Fatalities: 0 Injuries: 1 Property $ 0.0 Damage: Crop Damage: $ 0.0

Description:

None Reported

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 174 Event Record Details Event: Thunderstorm Winds State: Arkansas Begin Date: 30 Mar 1993, 0430 CST Begin Location: 3 Miles North East of Cincinnati County: Washington End Location: Not Known Magnitude: 61 Fatalities: 0 Injuries: 0 Property $ 50.0K Damage: Crop Damage: $ 0.0

Description:

Thunderstorm winds destroyed a chicken house and blew the doors off another poultry house. ______Event Record Details Event: Thunderstorm Winds State: Arkansas Begin Date: 13 Nov 1993, 2310 CST Begin Location: Springdale County: Washington End Location: Not Known Magnitude: 0 Fatalities: 0 Injuries: 0 Property $ 500.0K Damage: Crop Damage: $ 0.0

Description:

Thunderstorm winds knocked down several large trees. Some of the trees fell onto vehicles. Several buildings also sustained roof damage.

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 175

Event Record Details Event: Thunderstorm Winds State: Arkansas Begin Date: 11 Apr 1994, 1635 CST Begin Location: 2 Miles North East of Cincinnati County: Washington End Location: Not Known Magnitude: 0 Fatalities: 0 Injuries: 0 Property $ 50.0K Damage: Crop Damage: $ 0.0

Description:

Thunderstorm winds uprooted several trees and destroyed several outbuildings. ______Event Record Details Event: Thunderstorm Winds State: Arkansas Begin Date: 27 Apr 1994, 1400 CST Begin Location: Fayetteville County: Washington End Location: Not Known Magnitude: 0 Fatalities: 0 Injuries: 0 Property $ 50.0K Damage: Crop Damage: $ 0.0

Description:

Several homes and businesses sustained roof damage.

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 176 Event Record Details Event: Thunderstorm Winds State: Arkansas Begin Date: 27 Apr 1994, 1430 CST Begin Location: Fayetteville County: Washington End Location: Not Known Magnitude: 0 Fatalities: 0 Injuries: 0 Property $ 500.0K Damage: Crop Damage: $ 0.0

Description:

Thunderstorm winds blew down several trees and a small sign at the University of Arkansas. Some buildings also had a few windows blown out. ______Event Record Details Event: Thunderstorm Winds State: Arkansas Begin Date: 07 Jun 1994, 1730 CST Begin Location: Fayetteville County: Washington End Location: Not Known Magnitude: 0 Fatalities: 0 Injuries: 0 Property $ 50.0K Damage: Crop Damage: $ 0.0

Description:

Thunderstorm winds blew down some trees and power lines.

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 177 Event Record Details Event: Thunderstorm Winds State: Arkansas Begin Date: 07 Jun 1994, 1812 CST Begin Location: Fayetteville County: Washington End Location: Not Known Magnitude: 0 Fatalities: 0 Injuries: 0 Property $ 500.0K Damage: Crop Damage: $ 0.0

Description:

Thunderstorm winds knocked down some trees. Several of the trees fell onto homes and cars. ______Event Record Details Event: Tstm Wind State: Arkansas Begin Date: 17 Apr 1995, 2305 CST Begin Location: Morrow County: Washington End Location: Not Known Magnitude: 0 Fatalities: 0 Injuries: 0 Property $ 50.0K Damage: Crop Damage: $ 0.0

Description:

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 178 Event Record Details Event: Tstm Wind State: Arkansas Begin Date: 17 Apr 1995, 2325 CST Begin Location: Nr Elm Springs County: Washington End Location: Not Known Magnitude: 0 Fatalities: 0 Injuries: 0 Property $ 5.0K Damage: Crop Damage: $ 0.0

Description: ______Event Record Details Event: Thunderstorm Winds State: Arkansas Begin Date: 23 May 1995, 2330 CST Begin Location: Fayetteville County: Washington End Location: Not Known Magnitude: 0 Fatalities: 0 Injuries: 0 Property $ 50.0K Damage: Crop Damage: $ 0.0

Description:

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 179 Event Record Details Event: Thunderstorm Winds State: Arkansas Begin Date: 08 Jun 1995, 1820 CST Begin Location: 6 Miles South East of Strickler- County: Washington End Location: Not Known Magnitude: 56 Fatalities: 0 Injuries: 0 Property $ 3.0K Damage: Crop Damage: $ 0.0

Description: ______Event Record Details Event: Thunderstorm Winds State: Arkansas Begin Date: 04 Jul 1995, 1835 CST Begin Location: Nr Springdale County: Washington End Location: Not Known Magnitude: 0 Fatalities: 0 Injuries: 0 Property $ 5.0K Damage: Crop Damage: $ 0.0

Description:

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 180 Event Record Details Event: Tstm Wind State: Arkansas Begin Date: 17 Jan 1996, 08:45:00 PM CST Begin Location: Fayetteville County: Washington Begin LAT/LON: 36°04'N / 94°10'W End Date: 17 Jan 1996, 08:45:00 PM CST End Location: Fayetteville End LAT/LON: 36°04'N / 94°10'W Magnitude: 0 Fatalities: 0 Injuries: 0 Property $ 1.0K Damage: Crop Damage: $ 0.0

Description:

A severe thunderstorm produced strong winds which downed street signs, trees, and power lines in Fayetteville. ______Event Record Details Event: Tstm Wind State: Arkansas Begin Date: 20 Feb 1997, 08:55:00 PM CST Begin Location: Fayetteville County: Washington Begin LAT/LON: 36°04'N / 94°10'W End Date: 20 Feb 1997, 08:55:00 PM CST End Location: Fayetteville End LAT/LON: 36°04'N / 94°10'W Magnitude: 0 Fatalities: 0 Injuries: 3 Property $ 150.0K Damage: Crop Damage: $ 0.0 Description:

None Reported

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 181 Event Record Details Event: Tstm Wind State: Arkansas Begin Date: 20 Feb 1997, 08:57:00 PM CST Begin Location: 1 Mile East North East of Fayetteville County: Washington Begin LAT/LON: 36°04'N / 94°09'W End Date: 20 Feb 1997, 08:57:00 PM CST End Location: 1 Mile East North East of Fayetteville End LAT/LON: 36°04'N / 94°09'W Magnitude: 0 Fatalities: 0 Injuries: 0 Property $ 6.0K Damage: Crop Damage: $ 0.0 Description: None Reported ______Event Record Details Event: Tstm Wind State: Arkansas Begin Date: 20 Feb 1997, 09:05:00 PM CST Begin Location: 5 Miles East of Springdale County: Washington Begin LAT/LON: 36°11'N / 94°03'W End Date: 20 Feb 1997, 09:05:00 PM CST End Location: 5 Miles East South East of Springdale End LAT/LON: 36°11'N / 94°03'W Magnitude: 0 Fatalities: 0 Injuries: 0 Property $ 30.0K Damage: Crop Damage: $ 0.0 Description: None Reported

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 182 Event Record Details Event: Tstm Wind State: Arkansas Begin Date: 29 Mar 1997, 11:40:00 PM CST Begin Location: 6 Miles South East of Strickler County: Washington Begin LAT/LON: 35°46'N / 94°15'W End Date: 29 Mar 1997, 11:40:00 PM CST End Location: 6 Miles South East of Strickler End LAT/LON: 35°46'N / 94°15'W Magnitude: 0 Fatalities: 0 Injuries: 0 Property $ 8.0K Damage: Crop Damage: $ 0.0

Description: None Reported ______Event Record Details Event: Tstm Wind State: Arkansas Begin Date: 26 May 1997, 10:00:00 PM CST Begin Location: 2 Miles North North East of Elkins County: Washington Begin LAT/LON: 36°02'N / 93°59'W End Date: 26 May 1997, 10:00:00 PM CST End Location: 2 Miles North North East of Elkins End LAT/LON: 36°02'N / 93°59'W Magnitude: 0 Fatalities: 0 Injuries: 0 Property $ 5.0K Damage: Crop Damage: $ 0.0 Description: None Reported

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 183 Event Record Details Event: Tstm Wind State: Arkansas Begin Date: 13 Jun 1997, 04:00:00 AM CST Begin Location: Fayetteville County: Washington Begin LAT/LON: 36°04'N / 94°10'W End Date: 13 Jun 1997, 04:00:00 AM CST End Location: Fayetteville End LAT/LON: 36°04'N / 94°10'W Magnitude: 0 Fatalities: 0 Injuries: 0 Property $ 5.0K Damage: Crop Damage: $ 0.0 Description: None Reported ______Event Record Details Event: Tstm Wind State: Arkansas Begin Date: 13 Jun 1997, 04:10:00 AM CST Begin Location: 11 Miles East of Fayetteville County: Washington Begin LAT/LON: 36°04'N / 93°58'W End Date: 13 Jun 1997, 04:10:00 AM CST End Location: 11 Miles East South East of Fayetteville End LAT/LON: 36°04'N / 93°58'W Magnitude: 0 Fatalities: 0 Injuries: 0 Property $ 35.0K Damage: Crop Damage: $ 0.0 Description: None Reported

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 184 Event Record Details Event: Tstm Wind State: Arkansas Begin Date: 16 Jun 1997, 11:10:00 PM CST Begin Location: Springdale County: Washington Begin LAT/LON: 36°11'N / 94°08'W End Date: 16 Jun 1997, 11:10:00 PM CST End Location: Springdale End LAT/LON: 36°11'N / 94°08'W Magnitude: 0 Fatalities: 0 Injuries: 0 Property $ 3.0K Damage: Crop Damage: $ 0.0

Description: None Reported

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 185 Event Record Details Event: Tstm Wind State: Arkansas Begin Date: 07 Mar 1998, 03:20:00 PM CST Begin Location: Lincoln County: Washington Begin LAT/LON: 35°57'N / 94°25'W End Date: 07 Mar 1998, 03:20:00 PM CST End Location: Lincoln End LAT/LON: 35°57'N / 94°25'W Magnitude: 0 Fatalities: 0 Injuries: 0 Property $ 0.5K Damage: Crop Damage: $ 0.0

Description:

Pieces of barn on road near Lincoln A powerful early spring storm system moved across Oklahoma and Arkansas during the day on March 7. Severe thunderstorms developed during the mid-afternoon over extreme eastern Oklahoma and then moved into western Arkansas around 3:00 PM.

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 186 Event Record Details Event: High Wind State: Arkansas Begin Date: 27 Mar 1998, 08:00:00 AM CST Begin Location: Not Known Forecast Benton, Carroll, Zones End Date: 27 Mar 1998, 03:00:00 PM CST Crawford, Franklin, affected: Madison, Sebastian, End Location: Not Known Washington Magnitude: 0 knots Fatalities: 0 Injuries: 0 Property $ 5.1K Damage: Crop Damage: $ 0.0

Description:

A powerful spring storm moved quickly across Kansas and Missouri on March 27. High winds from the south developed across northwestern Arkansas during the late morning and early afternoon in advance of, but not directly associated with, a band of showers. (The showers themselves were non-severe and did not produce cloud-to-ground lightning until they got into central Arkansas.) For up to three hours in advance of the showers, widespread gradient winds were sustained above 30 miles an hour with frequent gusts over 40 miles an hour. Gusts of 50 to 60 miles an hour were not uncommon. Fayetteville's Drake Field had a peak gust for the day of 45 miles an hour and the Fort Smith Regional Airport had a peak gust for the day of 49 miles an hour. Power lines were blown down in Benton County around 11:00 am. A large tree was blown over in front of a house on Dyer Street in Springdale around 11:30 am.

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 187 Event Record Details Event: High Wind State: Arkansas Begin Date: 10 Jun 1998, 02:30:00 AM CST Forecast Begin Location: Not Known Franklin, Madison, Zones End Date: 10 Jun 1998, 03:30:00 AM CST Washington affected: End Location: Not Known Magnitude: 44 knots Fatalities: 0 Injuries: 0 Property $ 3.1K Damage: Crop Damage: $ 0.0

Description:

Locally high winds developed from the Oklahoma state line eastward along the Boston Mountains as a result of rapidly sinking air to the north of a thunderstorm complex along the Arkansas River valley. Winds gusted to 51 mph at Drake Field in Fayetteville (KFYV) at 353 AM CDT. Trees and power lines were blown down in Ozark (Franklin County) between 345 and 415 AM CDT. Summary of events for June 9 PM-June 10 AM 1998: An isolated severe thunderstorm developed over Franklin County on the evening of June 9 around 1030 PM CDT, dropping hail to the size of quarters between Ozark and Cass. Later during the early morning of June 10, a line of thunderstorms moving across southeast Oklahoma strengthened as it entered western Arkansas along the Arkansas River valley. These storms brought marginally severe wind gusts to the Fort Smith-Van Buren area. Well to the north of these storms, rapidly sinking air brought locally strong winds generally along and north of the Boston Mountains between 330 and 430 AM CDT.

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 188 Event Record Details Event: Tstm Wind State: Arkansas Begin Date: 10 Nov 1998, 12:30:00 AM CST Begin Location: 2 Miles North of Springdale County: Washington Begin LAT/LON: 36°13'N / 94°08'W End Date: 10 Nov 1998, 12:30:00 AM CST End Location: 2 Miles North of Springdale End LAT/LON: 36°13'N / 94°08'W Magnitude: 0 Fatalities: 0 Injuries: 0 Property $ 1.0K Damage: Crop Damage: $ 0.0

Description:

A tree, reportedly 2 feet in diameter, fell onto a power line near US Hwy 71B and Cooper Drive, causing a power outage for 1,900 customers as far north as Lowell. Summary of events for November 9-10 1998: A solid line of severe thunderstorms raced across northwest and west central Arkansas on the evening and early morning of Nov 9-10. This line of storms was in association with the cold front trailing from a powerful "Colorado low" moving across the central and northern plains. This line of storms produced strong to severe wind gusts along its entire length. However, an isolated supercell thunderstorm developed within the line of storms southwest of Fort Smith and produced an F1 tornado as it traveled across the southern part of Fort Smith. The same storm produced an F0 tornado further east in Franklin County. Fortunately, no deaths or injuries were associated with the severe weather.

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 189 Event Record Details Event: Tstm Wind State: Arkansas Begin Date: 10 Nov 1998, 12:45:00 AM CST Begin Location: 3 Miles South of Fayetteville County: Washington Begin LAT/LON: 36°01'N / 94°10'W End Date: 10 Nov 1998, 12:45:00 AM CST End Location: 3 Miles South West of Fayetteville End LAT/LON: 36°01'N / 94°10'W Magnitude: 0 Fatalities: 0 Injuries: 0 Property $ 1.0K Damage: Crop Damage: $ 0.0

Description:

Numerous trees were blown down from 2-5 miles south of Fayetteville. Summary of events for November 9-10 1998: A solid line of severe thunderstorms raced across northwest and west central Arkansas on the evening and early morning of Nov 9-10. This line of storms was in association with the cold front trailing from a powerful "Colorado low" moving across the central and northern plains. This line of storms produced strong to severe wind gusts along its entire length. However, an isolated supercell thunderstorm developed within the line of storms southwest of Fort Smith and produced an F1 tornado as it traveled across the southern part of Fort Smith. The same storm produced an F0 tornado further east in Franklin County. Fortunately, no deaths or injuries were associated with the severe weather.

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 190 Event Record Details Event: Tstm Wind State: Arkansas Begin Date: 30 Nov 1998, 12:40:00 AM CST Begin Location: 5 Miles East of Springdale County: Washington Begin LAT/LON: 36°11'N / 94°03'W End Date: 30 Nov 1998, 12:40:00 AM CST End Location: 5 Miles East South East of Springdale End LAT/LON: 36°11'N / 94°03'W Magnitude: 0 Fatalities: 0 Injuries: 0 Property $ 5.0K Damage: Crop Damage: $ 0.0

Description:

A large tree was blown onto the roof of a home on Rustic Drive near the small community of Little Flock. Summary of events for November 30 1998: An approaching upper level disturbance/cold pool and a weak pacific front caused a solid line of thunderstorms to move across northwest Arkansas early on the morning of November 30. The storms were non-severe as they moved across the northwest corner of Arkansas, mainly producing winds gusts of 35 to 45 miles an hour. However, the line of storms bowed out over Crawford and Sebastian Counties, causing marginally severe wind gusts and even dime- sized hail in Fort Smith.

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 191 Event Record Details Event: High Wind State: Arkansas Begin Date: 30 Jan 1999, 11:00:00 AM CST Begin Location: Not Known Forecast Zones End Date: 30 Jan 1999, 12:00:00 PM CST WASHINGTON affected: End Location: Not Known Magnitude: 43 knots Fatalities: 0 Injuries: 0 Property $ 4.0K Damage: Crop Damage: $ 0.0

Description:

Strong gradient winds gusting near 50 to 60 mph blew over several trees and power lines in the Fayetteville and Springdale areas. The ASOS at Fayetteville's Drake Field measured a peak wind gust of 43 knots (49 mph) from the east at 1128 AM. Summary for January 30 1999: Low pressure at the surface and in the upper atmosphere over southern Oklahoma caused a conveyor belt of rain and embedded thunderstorms to move from south to north across northwest Arkansas on January 30. One of the embedded thunderstorms produced an isolated report of marginally severe hail. The tight pressure gradient in advance of the low pressure center also caused a brief period of high winds in Washington County.

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 192 Event Record Details Event: Tstm Wind State: Arkansas Begin Date: 17 May 1999, 02:15:00 AM CST Begin Location: Harmon County: Washington Begin LAT/LON: 36°09'N / 94°17'W End Date: 17 May 1999, 02:20:00 AM CST End Location: Tontitown End LAT/LON: 36°11'N / 94°14'W Magnitude: 0 Fatalities: 0 Injuries: 0 Property $ 10.0K Damage: Crop Damage: $ 0.0

Description:

High winds uprooted several trees and damaged power lines in Harmon around 315 AM CDT. The wind snapped nine poles and damaged at least three transformers. In Tontitown, around 320 AM CDT, a restaurant had its awning blown off, and a tree fell onto a mobile home. Several other trees were blown down in Tontitown. Summary of events for May 17 1999: A large bow echo, a radar signature associated with high winds, moved out of eastern Oklahoma and across northwest Arkansas early on the morning of May 17. Indeed, this line of storms produced widespread wind gusts strong enough to knock down trees and tree branches. By late morning, scattered thunderstorms re- developed across northwest Arkansas, one of which showed strong rotation and produced a brief tornado touchdown in Washington County. By mid-afternoon, an outflow boundary established itself along the Arkansas River valley and acted as a focus for more thunderstorm development. Training of thunderstorm cells along the outflow boundary led to heavy rainfall, though there were some marginally severe thunderstorms that developed along the outflow boundary.

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 193 Event Record Details Event: Tstm Wind State: Arkansas Begin Date: 17 May 1999, 02:25:00 AM CST Begin Location: Cincinnati County: Washington Begin LAT/LON: 36°02'N / 94°30'W End Date: 17 May 1999, 02:25:00 AM CST End Location: Cincinnati End LAT/LON: 36°02'N / 94°30'W Magnitude: 0 Fatalities: 0 Injuries: 0 Property $ 0.6K Damage: Crop Damage: $ 0.0

Description:

Several large trees were uprooted, and many large tree limbs were blown down. Summary of events for May 17 1999: A large bow echo, a radar signature associated with high winds, moved out of eastern Oklahoma and across northwest Arkansas early on the morning of May 17. Indeed, this line of storms produced widespread wind gusts strong enough to knock down trees and tree branches. By late morning, scattered thunderstorms re- developed across northwest Arkansas, one of which showed strong rotation and produced a brief tornado touchdown in Washington County. By mid-afternoon, an outflow boundary established itself along the Arkansas River valley and acted as a focus for more thunderstorm development. Training of thunderstorm cells along the outflow boundary led to heavy rainfall, though there were some marginally severe thunderstorms that developed along the outflow boundary.

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 194 Event Record Details Event: Tstm Wind State: Arkansas Begin Date: 17 May 1999, 02:25:00 AM CST Begin Location: Prairie Grove County: Washington Begin LAT/LON: 35°59'N / 94°19'W End Date: 17 May 1999, 02:25:00 AM CST End Location: Prairie Grove End LAT/LON: 35°59'N / 94°19'W Magnitude: 0 Fatalities: 0 Injuries: 0 Property $ 0.5K Damage: Crop Damage: $ 0.0

Description:

Trees were blown down in Prairie Grove. Summary of events for May 17 1999: A large bow echo, a radar signature associated with high winds, moved out of eastern Oklahoma and across northwest Arkansas early on the morning of May 17. Indeed, this line of storms produced widespread wind gusts strong enough to knock down trees and tree branches. By late morning, scattered thunderstorms re-developed across northwest Arkansas, one of which showed strong rotation and produced a brief tornado touchdown in Washington County. By mid-afternoon, an outflow boundary established itself along the Arkansas River valley and acted as a focus for more thunderstorm development. Training of thunderstorm cells along the outflow boundary led to heavy rainfall, though there were some marginally severe thunderstorms that developed along the outflow boundary.

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 195 Event Record Details Event: Tstm Wind State: Arkansas Begin Date: 17 May 1999, 02:30:00 AM CST Begin Location: Fayetteville County: Washington Begin LAT/LON: 36°04'N / 94°10'W End Date: 17 May 1999, 02:30:00 AM CST End Location: Fayetteville End LAT/LON: 36°04'N / 94°10'W Magnitude: 0 Fatalities: 0 Injuries: 0 Property $ 20.0K Damage: Crop Damage: $ 0.0

Description:

High winds blew the roof off of a clothing store in the 2300 block of College Avenue in Fayetteville. The ASOS at the Fayetteville Regional Airport (Drake Field) measured a peak wind gust of 47 knots (54 mph). Summary of events for May 17 1999: A large bow echo, a radar signature associated with high winds, moved out of eastern Oklahoma and across northwest Arkansas early on the morning of May 17. Indeed, this line of storms produced widespread wind gusts strong enough to knock down trees and tree branches. By late morning, scattered thunderstorms re-developed across northwest Arkansas, one of which showed strong rotation and produced a brief tornado touchdown in Washington County. By mid-afternoon, an outflow boundary established itself along the Arkansas River valley and acted as a focus for more thunderstorm development. Training of thunderstorm cells along the outflow boundary led to heavy rainfall, though there were some marginally severe thunderstorms that developed along the outflow boundary.

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 196 Event Record Details Event: Tstm Wind State: Arkansas Begin Date: 17 May 1999, 02:45:00 AM CST Begin Location: Elkins County: Washington Begin LAT/LON: 36°00'N / 94°00'W End Date: 17 May 1999, 02:45:00 AM CST End Location: Elkins End LAT/LON: 36°00'N / 94°00'W Magnitude: 0 Fatalities: 0 Injuries: 0 Property $ 0.5K Damage: Crop Damage: $ 0.0

Description:

Trees and tree limbs were blown down near Elkins. Summary of events for May 17 1999: A large bow echo, a radar signature associated with high winds, moved out of eastern Oklahoma and across northwest Arkansas early on the morning of May 17. Indeed, this line of storms produced widespread wind gusts strong enough to knock down trees and tree branches. By late morning, scattered thunderstorms re-developed across northwest Arkansas, one of which showed strong rotation and produced a brief tornado touchdown in Washington County. By mid-afternoon, an outflow boundary established itself along the Arkansas River valley and acted as a focus for more thunderstorm development. Training of thunderstorm cells along the outflow boundary led to heavy rainfall, though there were some marginally severe thunderstorms that developed along the outflow boundary.

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 197 Event Record Details Event: Tstm Wind State: Arkansas Begin Date: 17 May 1999, 10:00:00 AM CST Begin Location: Fayetteville County: Washington Begin LAT/LON: 36°04'N / 94°10'W End Date: 17 May 1999, 10:00:00 AM CST End Location: Fayetteville End LAT/LON: 36°04'N / 94°10'W Magnitude: 0 Fatalities: 0 Injuries: 0 Property $ 10.0K Damage: Crop Damage: $ 0.0

Description:

Siding was blown off several houses in Fayetteville. Tree limbs were also blown down. Summary of events for May 17 1999: A large bow echo, a radar signature associated with high winds, moved out of eastern Oklahoma and across northwest Arkansas early on the morning of May 17. Indeed, this line of storms produced widespread wind gusts strong enough to knock down trees and tree branches. By late morning, scattered thunderstorms re-developed across northwest Arkansas, one of which showed strong rotation and produced a brief tornado touchdown in Washington County. By mid-afternoon, an outflow boundary established itself along the Arkansas River valley and acted as a focus for more thunderstorm development. Training of thunderstorm cells along the outflow boundary led to heavy rainfall, though there were some marginally severe thunderstorms that developed along the outflow boundary.

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 198 Event Record Details Event: Tstm Wind State: Arkansas Begin Date: 17 May 1999, 10:10:00 AM CST Begin Location: Elkins County: Washington Begin LAT/LON: 36°00'N / 94°00'W End Date: 17 May 1999, 10:10:00 AM CST End Location: Elkins End LAT/LON: 36°00'N / 94°00'W Magnitude: 0 Fatalities: 0 Injuries: 0 Property $ 0.5K Damage: Crop Damage: $ 0.0

Description:

Trees and tree limbs were blown down in Elkins. Summary of events for May 17 1999: A large bow echo, a radar signature associated with high winds, moved out of eastern Oklahoma and across northwest Arkansas early on the morning of May 17. Indeed, this line of storms produced widespread wind gusts strong enough to knock down trees and tree branches. By late morning, scattered thunderstorms re-developed across northwest Arkansas, one of which showed strong rotation and produced a brief tornado touchdown in Washington County. By mid-afternoon, an outflow boundary established itself along the Arkansas River valley and acted as a focus for more thunderstorm development. Training of thunderstorm cells along the outflow boundary led to heavy rainfall, though there were some marginally severe thunderstorms that developed along the outflow boundary.

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 199 Event Record Details Event: Tstm Wind State: Arkansas Begin Date: 21 May 1999, 04:30:00 AM CST Begin Location: Fayetteville County: Washington Begin LAT/LON: 36°04'N / 94°10'W End Date: 21 May 1999, 04:30:00 AM CST End Location: Fayetteville End LAT/LON: 36°04'N / 94°10'W Magnitude: 52 Fatalities: 0 Injuries: 0 Property $ 0.5K Damage: Crop Damage: $ 0.0

Description:

Numerous large tree branches were blown down in Fayetteville. Summary of events for May 21 1999: A line of thunderstorms moved out of eastern Oklahoma and into northwest Arkansas during the early morning of May 21. This line of storms was responsible for producing strong winds in Fayetteville. Later in the morning, the line became stationary in Washington County, causing localized flooding there.

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 200 Event Record Details Event: Tstm Wind State: Arkansas Begin Date: 23 May 1999, 02:30:00 AM CST Begin Location: Springdale County: Washington Begin LAT/LON: 36°11'N / 94°08'W End Date: 23 May 1999, 02:30:00 AM CST End Location: Springdale End LAT/LON: 36°11'N / 94°08'W Magnitude: 0 Fatalities: 0 Injuries: 0 Property $ 0.5K Damage: Crop Damage: $ 0.0

Description:

Several trees were blown down in Springdale. Summary of events for May 23 1999: A nocturnal bow-echo MCS moved south out of Kansas and Missouri early on the morning of May 23. These storms were gradually weakening as they moved southeast and dropped below severe levels by the time they moved south of the Boston Mountains. The primary threats from these storms were marginally severe wind gusts.

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 201 Event Record Details Event: Tstm Wind State: Arkansas Begin Date: 03 Jan 2000, 04:15:00 AM CST Begin Location: 6 Miles South East of Strickler County: Washington Begin LAT/LON: 35°46'N / 94°15'W End Date: 03 Jan 2000, 04:15:00 AM CST End Location: 6 Miles South East of Strickler End LAT/LON: 35°46'N / 94°15'W Magnitude: 0 Fatalities: 0 Injuries: 0 Property $ 2.0K Damage: Crop Damage: $ 0.0 Description: Thunderstorm winds blew down several trees and large tree limbs at Devil's Den State Park. ______Event Record Details Event: Tstm Wind State: Arkansas Begin Date: 20 Apr 2000, 12:04:00 AM CST Begin Location: 2 Miles East of Cincinnati County: Washington Begin LAT/LON: 36°02'N / 94°28'W End Date: 20 Apr 2000, 12:04:00 AM CST End Location: 2 Miles East South East of Cincinnati End LAT/LON: 36°02'N / 94°28'W Magnitude: 0 Fatalities: 0 Injuries: 0 Property $ 10.0K Damage: Crop Damage: $ 0.0 Description: Thunderstorm winds destroyed a porch and blew the roof off a garage. Trees were also blown down.

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 202 Event Record Details Event: Tstm Wind State: Arkansas Begin Date: 20 Apr 2000, 12:30:00 AM CST Begin Location: Fayetteville County: Washington Begin LAT/LON: 36°04'N / 94°10'W End Date: 20 Apr 2000, 12:30:00 AM CST End Location: Fayetteville End LAT/LON: 36°04'N / 94°10'W Magnitude: 0 Fatalities: 0 Injuries: 0 Property $ 50.0K Damage: Crop Damage: $ 0.0

Description: Thunderstorm winds blew a semi truck over. ______Event Record Details Event: Tstm Wind State: Arkansas Begin Date: 09 Feb 2001, 04:34:00 AM CST Begin Location: 2 Miles East of Cincinnati County: Washington Begin LAT/LON: 36°02'N / 94°28'W End Date: 09 Feb 2001, 04:34:00 AM CST End Location: 2 Miles East South East of Cincinnati End LAT/LON: 36°02'N / 94°28'W Magnitude: 0 Fatalities: 0 Injuries: 0 Property $ 5.0K Damage: Crop Damage: $ 0.0

Description: Thunderstorm winds blew a small shed over.

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 203 Event Record Details Event: Tstm Wind State: Arkansas Begin Date: 24 Feb 2001, 01:32:00 PM CST Begin Location: Fayetteville County: Washington Begin LAT/LON: 36°04'N / 94°10'W End Date: 24 Feb 2001, 01:32:00 PM CST End Location: Fayetteville End LAT/LON: 36°04'N / 94°10'W Magnitude: 0 Fatalities: 0 Injuries: 0 Property $ 10.0K Damage: Crop Damage: $ 0.0

Description: Thunderstorm winds blew down a tree which damaged three cars. ______Event Record Details Event: Tstm Wind State: Arkansas Begin Date: 24 Feb 2001, 01:45:00 PM CST Begin Location: 2 Miles East of Spring Vly County: Washington Begin LAT/LON: 36°08'N / 94°02'W End Date: 24 Feb 2001, 01:45:00 PM CST End Location: 2 Miles East South East of Spring Vly End LAT/LON: 36°08'N / 94°02'W Magnitude: 0 Fatalities: 0 Injuries: 0 Property $ 0.5K Damage: Crop Damage: $ 0.0

Description: Thunderstorm winds blew down power lines.

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 204 Event Record Details Event: Tstm Wind State: Arkansas Begin Date: 10 Aug 2001, 03:20:00 PM CST Begin Location: Lincoln County: Washington Begin LAT/LON: 35°57'N / 94°25'W End Date: 10 Aug 2001, 03:20:00 PM CST End Location: Lincoln End LAT/LON: 35°57'N / 94°25'W Magnitude: 61 Fatalities: 0 Injuries: 0 Property $ 1.0K Damage: Crop Damage: $ 0.0

Description: Thunderstorm winds estimated at 70 miles an hour blew down trees. The trees fell onto power lines. ______Event Record Details Event: Tstm Wind State: Arkansas Begin Date: 07 Sep 2001, 11:45:00 PM CST Begin Location: Countywide County: Washington Begin LAT/LON: 35°58'N / 94°12'W End Date: 07 Sep 2001, 11:45:00 PM CST End Location: Countywide End LAT/LON: 35°58'N / 94°12'W Magnitude: 61 Fatalities: 0 Injuries: 0 Property $ 5.0K Damage: Crop Damage: $ 0.0 Description: Thunderstorm winds estimated at 70 miles an hour blew trees and power lines down across Washington county.

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 205 Event Record Details Event: Tstm Wind State: Arkansas Begin Date: 10 Oct 2001, 02:46:00 PM CST Begin Location: 3 Miles West of Goshen County: Washington Begin LAT/LON: 36°06'N / 94°03'W End Date: 10 Oct 2001, 03:10:00 PM CST End Location: 2 Miles North West of Goshen End LAT/LON: 36°07'N / 94°02'W Magnitude: 61 Fatalities: 0 Injuries: 0 Property $ 10.0K Damage: Crop Damage: $ 0.0

Description:

Thunderstorm winds estimated at 70 miles an hour blew down several tree limbs and trees. A few limbs fell on houses but no major structural damage was found. One limb fell on a car causing some damage. The fallen limbs and trees caused some power lines to be knocked down causing a few power outages.

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 206 Event Record Details Event: Tstm Wind State: Arkansas Begin Date: 23 Nov 2001, 10:03:00 PM CST Begin Location: Fayetteville County: Washington Begin LAT/LON: 36°04'N / 94°10'W End Date: 23 Nov 2001, 10:03:00 PM CST End Location: Fayetteville End LAT/LON: 36°04'N / 94°10'W Magnitude: 61 Fatalities: 0 Injuries: 0 Property $ 5.0K Damage: Crop Damage: $ 0.0 Description: Thunderstorm winds estimated at 70 miles an hour blew down trees and power lines. ______Event Record Details Event: Tstm Wind State: Arkansas Begin Date: 12 Jun 2002, 12:00:00 PM CST Begin Location: Fayetteville County: Washington Begin LAT/LON: 36°04'N / 94°10'W End Date: 12 Jun 2002, 12:00:00 PM CST End Location: Fayetteville End LAT/LON: 36°04'N / 94°10'W Magnitude: 61 Fatalities: 0 Injuries: 0 Property Damage: $ 50.0K Crop Damage: $ 0.0 Description: Thunderstorm winds estimated at 70 miles an hour downed trees and power lines. The wind also damaged the roof of an apartment building. Twelve residents of the apartment building were displaced as water poured through the damaged roof and through their ceilings.

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 207 Event Record Details Event: Tstm Wind State: Arkansas Begin Date: 13 Aug 2002, 09:00:00 AM CST Begin Location: Fayetteville County: Washington Begin LAT/LON: 36°04'N / 94°10'W End Date: 13 Aug 2002, 09:00:00 AM CST End Location: Fayetteville End LAT/LON: 36°04'N / 94°10'W Magnitude: 52 Fatalities: 0 Injuries: 0 Property $ 5.0K Damage: Crop Damage: $ 0.0 Description: Thunderstorm winds estimated at 60 miles an hour blew down two main line power poles along Garland Avenue. This caused power to be cut off to 1400 customers. ______Event Record Details Event: High Wind State: Arkansas Begin Date: 16 Apr 2003, 08:45:00 AM CST Begin Location: Not Known Forecast Zones End Date: 16 Apr 2003, 01:00:00 PM CST WASHINGTON affected: End Location: Not Known Magnitude: 52 knots Fatalities: 0 Injuries: 0 Property $ 100.0K Damage: Crop Damage: $ 0.0 Description: Strong non-thunderstorm winds blew across Washington county from mid morning to the early in the afternoon on the 16th. Average wind speeds at Drake Field near Fayetteville approached 40 miles an hour while wind gusts exceeded 50 miles an hour at times. These high winds produced significant damage. In Lincoln, the wind blew parts of the roofs off a hair salon, a flower shop and a branch of the state revenue office. In Fayetteville, part of the roof was blown off a jewelry shop.

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 208 Event Record Details Event: Tstm Wind State: Arkansas Begin Date: 22 Aug 2003, 06:15:00 PM CST Begin Location: Farmington County: Washington Begin LAT/LON: 36°02'N / 94°15'W End Date: 22 Aug 2003, 06:15:00 PM CST End Location: Farmington End LAT/LON: 36°02'N / 94°15'W Magnitude: 61 Fatalities: 0 Injuries: 0 Property $ 3.0K Damage: Crop Damage: $ 0.0 Description: Thunderstorm winds estimated at 70 miles an hour blew down trees and power lines. ______Event Record Details Event: Tstm Wind State: Arkansas Begin Date: 04 Mar 2004, 06:05:00 PM CST Begin Location: 20 Miles East of West Fork County: Washington Begin LAT/LON: 35°56'N / 93°50'W End Date: 04 Mar 2004, 06:05:00 PM CST End Location: 20 Miles East South East of West Fork End LAT/LON: 35°56'N / 93°50'W Magnitude: 61 Fatalities: 0 Injuries: 0 Property $ 10.0K Damage: Crop Damage: $ 0.0

Description: Thunderstorm winds estimated at 70 miles an hour destroyed a shed and blew the roof off a barn. Numerous trees and power lines were also blown down.

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 209 Event Record Details Event: Tstm Wind State: Arkansas Begin Date: 22 Apr 2004, 06:20:00 PM CST Begin Location: 2 Miles South East of Morrow County: Washington Begin LAT/LON: 35°50'N / 94°21'W End Date: 22 Apr 2004, 06:20:00 PM CST End Location: 2 Miles South East of Morrow End LAT/LON: 35°50'N / 94°21'W Magnitude: 61 Fatalities: 0 Injuries: 0 Property $ 25.0K Damage: Crop Damage: $ 0.0 Description: Thunderstorm winds estimated at 70 miles an hour rolled over a mobile home and did damage to poultry buildings. This damage was originally thought to be associated with a tornado but a storm survey team determined it was due to the rear flank downdraft of the supercell storm that produced a tornado northeast of Strickler a few minutes later. ______Event Record Details Event: Tstm Wind State: Arkansas Begin Date: 02 Jul 2004, 11:35:00 PM CST Begin Location: Goshen County: Washington Begin LAT/LON: 36°06'N / 94°00'W End Date: 02 Jul 2004, 11:35:00 PM CST End Location: Goshen End LAT/LON: 36°06'N / 94°00'W Magnitude: 52 Fatalities: 0 Injuries: 0 Property Damage: $ 2.0K Crop Damage: $ 0.0 Description: Thunderstorm winds estimated at 60 miles an hour blew down a large tree limb. The tree limb fell on a barn causing damage to its roof.

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 210 Event Record Details Event: Tstm Wind State: Arkansas Begin Date: 21 Feb 2005, 01:55:00 AM CST Begin Location: 1 Mile South East of Winslow County: Washington Begin LAT/LON: 35°47'N / 94°07'W End Date: 21 Feb 2005, 01:55:00 AM CST End Location: 1 Mile South East of Winslow End LAT/LON: 35°47'N / 94°07'W Magnitude: 61 Fatalities: 0 Injuries: 0 Property $ 1.0K Damage: Crop Damage: $ 0.0 Description: Thunderstorm winds estimated at 70 miles an hour blew down large tree limbs and peeled several shingles off the roof of a home.

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 211 Table 4.2.8-1

The following table summarizes the occurrences that had significant impact and costs. Note that many expenses were not recorded in the NCDC database so this table does not include total costs for the county with wind events.

Response and Recovery Costs Hazard (Dollar Amounts in Thousands) Name Date City Town County State Federal Other Total Winds March 30, 1993 $0 $0 $0 $0 $50 $50 Winds November 13, 1993 $0 $0 $0 $0 $500 $500 Winds April 11, 1994 $0 $0 $0 $0 $50 $50 Winds April 27, 1994 $0 $0 $0 $0 $50 $50 Winds April 27, 1994 $0 $0 $0 $0 $500 $500 Winds June 7, 1994 $0 $0 $0 $0 $50 $50 Winds June 7, 1994 $0 $0 $0 $0 $500 $500 Winds April 17, 1995 $0 $0 $0 $0 $50 $50 Winds April 17, 1995 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5 $5 Wind May 23, 1995 $0 $0 $0 $0 $50 $50 Winds June 8, 1995 $0 $0 $0 $0 $3 $3 Winds July 4, 1995 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5 $5 Wind January 17, 1996 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1 $1 Wind February 20, 1997 $0 $0 $0 $0 $150 $150 Winds February 20, 1997 $0 $0 $0 $0 $6 $6 Winds February 20, 1997 $0 $0 $0 $0 $30 $30 Winds March 29, 1997 $0 $0 $0 $0 $8 $8 Winds May 26, 1997 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5 $5 Winds June 13, 1997 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5 $5 Winds June 13, 1997 $0 $0 $0 $0 $35 $35 Winds June 16, 1997 $0 $0 $0 $0 $3 $3 Winds March 7, 1998 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0.5 $0.5 Winds March 27, 1998 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5.1 $5.1 Winds June 10, 1998 $0 $0 $0 $0 $3.1 $3.1 Winds November 10, 1998 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1 $1 Winds November 10, 1998 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1 $1 Winds November 30, 1998 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5 $5 Winds January 30, 1999 $0 $0 $0 $0 $4 $4 Winds May 17, 1999 $0 $0 $0 $0 $10 $10 Winds May 17, 1999 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0.6 $0.6 Winds May 17, 1999 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0.5 $0.5 Winds May 17, 1999 $0 $0 $0 $0 $20 $20 Winds May 17, 1999 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0.5 $0.5 Winds May 17, 1999 $0 $0 $0 $0 $10 $10 Winds May 17, 1999 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0.5 $0.5

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 212 Response and Recovery Costs Hazard (Dollar Amounts in Thousands) Name Date City Town County State Federal Other Total Winds May 21, 1999 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0.5 $0.5 Winds May 23, 1999 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0.5 $0.5 Winds January 3, 2000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2 $2 Winds April 20, 2000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $10 $10 Winds April 20, 2000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $50 $50 Winds February 9, 2001 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5 $5 Winds February 24, 2001 $0 $0 $0 $0 $10 $10 Winds February 24, 2001 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0.5 $0.5 Winds August 10, 2001 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1 $1 Winds September 7, 2001 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5 $5 Winds October 10, 2001 $0 $0 $0 $0 $10 $10 Winds November 23, 2001 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5 $5 Winds June 12, 2002 $0 $0 $0 $0 $50 $50 Winds August 13, 2002 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5 $5 Winds April 16, 2003 $0 $0 $0 $0 $100 $100 Winds August 22, 2003 $0 $0 $0 $0 $3 $3 Winds March 4, 2004 $0 $0 $0 $0 $10 $10 Winds April 22, 2004 $0 $0 $0 $0 $25 $25 Winds July 2, 2004 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2 $2 Winds February 21, 2005 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1 $1 Totals: $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,413.3 $2,413.3

Probability of Future High Wind Events

The National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Association’s (NOAA) National Severe Storms Laboratory (NSSL) addressed the total annual threat of high winds in the United States. The mean number of days per year with one or more >50 knot (>58 mph) events within 25 miles of a point is shown in Figure 4.2.8-2. Note that the county lies within the 7 wind days per year interval. The county can expect between 0.5 and 0.75 wind days per year when the mean number of days per year with one or more >65 knots (>79 mph) events are considered (Figure 4.2.8-3). Within the context of the total U.S., in terms of very high wind events (>65 knots), this places the county in an area of relatively low susceptibility. Further, data from the American National Standards Institute, published in 1982, places the state in a region of the country that has the lowest wind-speeds at 33 feet above ground level, “0 to 70 mph.”

Though the state and the county have occasional high wind events – more often than not associated with thunderstorms – this data indicate the likelihood of its being severe is low compared to other areas of the country. Thus, seriously damaging, high wind events are considered possible but not likely.

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 213

Figure 4.2.8-2: The total annual threat of high or thunderstorm winds in the U.S. based on NOAA NSSL data between 1980 and 1999. The mean number of days per year with one or more >50 knot (>58 mph) wind events within 25 miles of a point is shown.

Figure 4.2.8-3: The total annual threat of high or thunderstorm winds in the U.S. based on NOAA NSSL data between 1980 and 1994. The mean number of days per year with one or more >65 knot (>79 mph) events within 25 miles of a point is shown.

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 214 Calculated Priority Risk Index (CPRI)

Probability: 2 - Possible

Magnitude: 2 - Limited

Severity: 2 - Limited

Warning Time: 4 – Less than 6 Hours

The CPRI for the High Winds Hazard for the county is:

Probability + Magnitude + Severity + Warning Time = CPRI

2 x .45 + 2 x .15 + 2 x .25 + 4 x .15 = 2.30

Magnitude / Severity of the High Wind Hazard

Since 1950, fifty-nine wind events have had enough impact on Washington County to have been logged into the NCDC database. Further, the affects of most wind events in the country were specific to particular locations and properties. Also, cumulative property damage over the years from high wind has been relatively significant compared to other disasters affecting the county. However, the potential magnitude and severity of high wind events are considered to be limited.

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 215 The Beaufort Wind Scale

In 1806 Admiral Sir Francis Beaufort of the British Navy devised a wind velocity scale to enable the captains of sailing ships to accurately assess wind speeds at sea. Though the original scale dealt with purely maritime effects, it has since been modified for land.

The Beaufort Scale for use on land

Beaufort Speed Description Effects on land Force knots km/h mph Less Less 0 Calm Smoke rises vertically. Less than 1 than 1 than 1 Direction of wind shown by smoke drift, but not by wind 1 Light Air 1 - 3 1 - 5 1 - 3 vanes. Wind felt on face; leaves rustle; ordinary vanes moved by 2 Light breeze 4 -6 6 - 11 4 -7 wind. Gentle Leaves and small twigs in constant motion; wind extends 3 7 - 10 12 - 19 8 - 12 breeze light flag. Moderate 4 Raises dust and loose paper; small branches are moved. 11 - 16 20 - 29 13 - 18 breeze Fresh Small trees in leaf begin to sway; crested wavelets form on 5 17 - 21 30 - 39 19 - 24 breeze inland waters. Strong Large branches in motion; whistling heard in telegraph wires; 6 22 - 27 40 - 50 25 - 31 breeze umbrellas used with difficulty. Whole trees in motion; inconvenience felt when walking 7 Near gale 28 - 33 51 - 61 32 - 38 against the wind.

8 Gale Breaks twigs off trees; generally impedes progress. 34 - 40 62 - 74 39 - 46

Slight structural damage occurs (chimney-pots and slates 9 Strong gale 41 - 47 75 - 87 47 - 54 removed). Seldom experienced inland; trees uprooted; considerable 10 Storm 48 - 55 88 - 101 55 - 63 structural damage occurs. Violent Very rarely experienced; accompanied by wide-spread 102 - 11 56 - 63 64 - 73 storm damage. 117 12 Hurricane Whole hangars disappear. >64 >119 >74

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 216 4.2.9. Drought Hazard Profile

Drought is a normal, recurrent feature of climate. In the most general sense, drought originates from a deficiency of precipitation over an extended period of time, resulting in a water shortage for some activity, group, or environmental sector. This deficiency results in a water shortage for some activity, group, or environmental sector. Drought is a temporary aberration; it differs from aridity, which is restricted to low rainfall regions and is a permanent feature of climate.

Drought should be considered relative to some long-term average condition of balance between precipitation and evapotranspiration (i.e., evaporation + transpiration) in a particular area, a condition often perceived as “normal”. It is also related to the timing (i.e., principal season of occurrence, delays in the start of the rainy season, occurrence of rains in relation to principal crop growth stages) and the effectiveness (i.e., rainfall intensity, number of rainfall events) of the rains. Other climatic factors such as high temperature, high wind, and low relative humidity are often associated with it in many regions of the world and can significantly aggravate its severity.

When drought begins, the agricultural sector is usually the first to be affected because of its heavy dependence on stored soil water. Soil water can be rapidly depleted during extended dry periods. If precipitation deficiencies continue, then people dependent on other sources of water will begin to feel the effects of the shortage. Those who rely on surface water (i.e., reservoirs and lakes) and subsurface water (i.e., ground water), for example, are usually the last to be affected. A short-term drought that persists for 3 to 6 months may have little impact on these sectors, depending on the characteristics of the hydrologic system and water use requirements.

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 217 In 1965, W.C. Palmer developed an index to measure the departure of the moisture supply (Palmer, 1965). Palmer based his index on the supply-and-demand concept of the water balance equation, taking into account more than just the precipitation deficit at specific locations. The objective of the Palmer Drought Severity Index (PDSI), as this index is now called, was to provide measurements of moisture conditions that were standardized so that comparisons using the index could be made between locations and between months (Palmer 1965).

The Palmer Index is most effective in determining long-term drought—a matter of several months—and is not as good with short-term forecasts (a matter of weeks). It uses a 0 as normal, and drought is shown in terms of minus numbers; for example, minus 2 is moderate drought, minus 3 is severe drought, and minus 4 is extreme drought (Table 4.2.9-1). The advantage of the Palmer Index is that it is standardized to local climate, so it can be applied to any part of the country to demonstrate relative drought or rainfall conditions.

Table 4.2.9-1 Palmer Drought Severity Index (PDSI).

Palmer Classifications 4.0 or more extremely wet 3.0 to 3.99 very wet 2.0 to 2.99 moderately wet 1.0 to 1.99 slightly wet 0.5 to 0.99 incipient wet spell 0.49 to -0.49 near normal -0.5 to -0.99 incipient dry spell -1.0 to -1.99 mild drought -2.0 to -2.99 moderate drought -3.0 to -3.99 severe drought -4.0 or less extreme drought

Scientists don’t know how to predict drought a month or more in advance for most locations. Predicting drought depends on the ability to forecast two fundamental meteorological surface parameters, precipitation and temperature. From the historical record we know that climate is inherently variable. We also know that anomalies of precipitation and temperature may last from several months to several decades. How long they last depends on air–sea interactions, soil moisture and land surface processes, topography, internal dynamics, and the accumulated influence of dynamically unstable synoptic weather systems at the global scale.

Geographic Area Affected by Drought

Based on the Historical Palmer Drought Severity Indices reconstructed by tree rings (since 1700) and instrumentally (since 1895), as well as recent experiences, the area has been affected by drought numerous times. Based on composite PDSI reconstructions between 1895 and 1995, Washington County

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 218 located in Western Arkansas experiences severe and extreme drought more often than Central and Eastern Arkansas. Within Washington County, all parts of the county are equally likely to experience drought.

Previous Drought Occurrences

2000 Late Summer Heat Wave and Drought: A dry period began at the beginning of July and continued through October in most of Arkansas. This was part of a long-term drought that began in the spring of 1998. A heat wave set in by mid-August with widespread 100-degree temperatures across the state through early September. On September 8th, the Governor of Arkansas asked that all 75 counties in Arkansas be declared agricultural disaster areas. With foliage drying, grass fires became numerous.

The Droughts of 1953 and 1954: A statewide drought during the summer and fall of 1953 resulted in 100-degree weather through the month of September and even into early October in some areas. In 1954, a heat wave covered Arkansas from June 7 through September 10 and there was an accompanying drought. There were a record 46 days of 100-degree weather and 115 days of 90-degree weather. There was 100-degree weather on 16 out of 17 days and 10 consecutive 100-degree days during that period.

The Dust Bowl Drought: Arkansas was involved in a prolonged drought during the 1930’s that resulted in dust storms and much economic misery to go along with the depression. Many summers from 1930 through 1939 were hot and dry. The worst dust storms in Arkansas came during 1934. The first dust storm was on April 11 and several others followed through the spring and summer.

Probability of Future Drought Events

Since 1930, there have been eight recorded significant droughts in Washington County. The county has also been identified by the PDSI (mention above) and by data from the Geological Survey and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers as within a region of the country which is highly prone to drought conditions. For this reason, it is quite likely the area will in the future experience droughts of various degrees of severity and somewhat likely that some will be extreme.

Calculated Priority Risk Index (CPRI)

Probability: 3 - Likely

Magnitude: 2 - Limited

Severity: 2 - Limited

Warning Time: 1 - 24+ Hours

The CPRI for the Drought Hazard for the county is:

Probability + Magnitude + Severity + Warning Time = CPRI

3 x .45 + 2 x .15 + 2 x .25 + 1 x .15 = 2.30

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 219 Magnitude / Severity of the Drought Hazard

Severe droughts periodically affect Arkansas and the county, causing crop damage and elevating the potential for wildfires, with drought periods having occurred on average every seven years since 1950. Effects are generally limited to agriculture losses, the inconveniences of water rationing and, as mentioned, elevation of the potential for wildfires. In terms of the affects of droughts on municipal water supplies, a particularly critical issue, the area’s water impoundments are designed and managed with 100-year drought conditions in mind. Thus, the magnitude and severity of droughts, even those that are severe, are considered limited.

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 220 Drought Severity Classification

Source: U.S. National Drought Mitigation Center.

D0-D4: The Drought Monitor summary map identifies general drought areas, labeling droughts by intensity, with D1 being the least intense and D4 being the most intense. D0, drought watch areas, are either drying out and possibly heading for drought, or are recovering from drought but not yet back to normal, suffering long-term impacts such as low reservoir levels.

Drought Severity Classification RANGES Category Description Possible Impacts Palmer CPC Soil USGS Percent Standardized Satellite Drought Moisture Weekly of Precipitation Vegetation Index Model Streamflow Normal Index (SPI) Health (Percentiles) (Percentiles) Precip Index D0 Abnormally Going into drought: short-term -1.0 to 21-30 21-30 <75% -0.5 to 36-45 Dry dryness slowing planting, -1.9 for 3 -0.7 growth of crops or pastures; months fire risk above average. Coming out of drought: some lingering water deficits; pastures or crops not fully recovered. D1 Moderate Some damage to crops, -2.0 to 11-20 11-20 <70% -0.8 to 26-35 Drought pastures; fire risk high; streams, -2.9 for 3 -1.2 reservoirs, or wells low, some months water shortages developing or imminent, voluntary water use restrictions requested D2 Severe Crop or pasture losses likely; -3.0 to 6-10 6-10 <65% -1.3 to 16-25 Drought fire risk very high; water -3.9 for 6 -1.5 shortages common; water months restrictions imposed D3 Extreme Major crop/pasture losses; -4.0 to 3-5 3-5 <60% -1.6 to 6-15 Drought extreme fire danger; -4.9 for 6 -1.9 widespread water shortages or months restrictions D4 Exceptional Exceptional and widespread -5.0 or 0-2 0-2 <65% -2.0 or less 1-5 Drought crop/pasture losses; exceptional less for 12 fire risk; shortages of water in months reservoirs, streams, and wells, creating water emergencies

Additional indices used, mainly during the growing season, include the USDA/NASS Topsoil Moisture, Crop Moisture Index (CMI), and Keetch Byram Drought Index (KBDI). Indices used primarily during the snow season and in the West include the River Basin Snow Water Content, River Basin Average Precipitation, and the Surface Water Supply Index (SWSI).

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 221

4.2.10. Thunderstorm Hazard Profile

A thunderstorm is an electrical storm accompanied with heavy rain and in some cases hail. The National Weather Service (NWS) estimates that over 100,000 thunderstorms occur each year in the United States. Out of this 100,000, 10% are severe thunderstorms. Thunderstorms can produce tornados, hail, high winds, lightning, and flash floods. Thunderstorms spawn as many as 1,000 tornados each year. The NWS classifies a thunderstorm as severe if its winds reach or exceed 58 Mph, produces a tornado, or drops surface hail at least 0.75 inches in diameter.

Thunderstorm events are generated by atmospheric imbalance and turbulence due to the combination conditions of unstable warm air rising rapidly into the atmosphere, sufficient moisture to form clouds and rain, and upward lifts of air currents caused by colliding weather fronts (cold and warm), sea breezes, or mountains.

Thunderstorm hazard as profiled here relates primarily to the affects of lightning. High winds, hail and floods – which can result from or be associated with thunderstorms – are profiled in this report as separate events.

Geographic Area Affected by Thunderstorms

All counties in Arkansas have experienced severe thunderstorms. All areas within Washington County are equally likely to experience a severe thunderstorm event.

Previous Thunderstorm Occurrences

Washington County has been affected by thunderstorms yearly. The NCDC database for the county does not report any severe thunderstorms; however, hundreds of events are listed for hail, lightning, and thunderstorm winds. (Refer to Table 4.2.8-1) Thunderstorms are a very common occurrence for Washington County and negative impacts can include lightning, which can cause wildfires and structure fires and damage electrical equipment, and strong wind (covered in this report as “High Wind”). The cost of property damage in the county that is caused by thunderstorms, specifically lightning, is not well documented, though records available indicate it is tens of thousands of dollars annually and over one million dollars since 1950. Plus, there have been a few injuries due to lightning.

Probability of Future Thunderstorm Events

Data from a study by Changnon, published in 1988, place western Arkansas in about the middle, compared to other areas of the country, in terms of the average number of thunder storms events per year (70 to 80) and in terms of average duration of the events (100 to 120 minutes). Also, data from a 1984 study by MacGorman places the areal extent and severity of lightning hazard based on annual lightning strike density at between 14 to 16 flashes per square kilometer, which is high compared to most other areas of the country. The county’s history of thunderstorm events also indicates that the probability is high for the county to have several thunderstorm events yearly. Thus, the probability of thunderstorm events in the county is considered likely.

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 222 Calculated Priority Risk Index (CPRI)

Probability: 3 - Likely

Magnitude: 1 - Negligible

Severity: 2 - Limited

Warning Time: 3 – 6-12 Hours

The CPRI for the Thunderstorm Hazard for the county is:

Probability + Magnitude + Severity + Warning Time = CPRI

3 x .45 + 1 x .15 + 2 x .25 + 3 x .15 = 2.45

Magnitude / Severity of the Thunderstorm Hazard

Thunderstorm events in Washington County since 1950 have caused property damage and a few human injuries. Most of the damage was due to resultant fires, damage to electrical apparatus due to lightning and associated winds. This damage cost figure is thought to be low, however, based on the county’s own knowledge of damages to county equipment received from lightning. A lightning flash is composed of a series of strokes with an average of about four. The length and duration of each lightning stroke vary, but typically average about 30 microseconds. (The average peak power per stroke is about 1012 watts.) Severe thunderstorm events occur on average once or twice per year, but rarely result in any more than limited property damage at specific sties. (See Figure 4.2.8-2 and Figure 4.2.8-3 on Page 214)

4.2.11. Hailstorm Hazard Profile

A hailstorm is an outgrowth of a severe thunderstorm in which balls or irregularly shaped lumps of ice greater than 0.75 inches in diameter fall with rain. Early in the developmental stages of a hailstorm, ice crystals form within a low-pressure front due to warm air rising rapidly into the upper front due to warm air rising rapidly into the upper atmosphere and the subsequent cooling of the air mass. Frozen droplets gradually accumulate on the ice crystals until, having developed sufficient weight, they fall as precipitation.

The size of a hailstone is a direct function of the severity and size of the storm. High velocity updraft winds are required to keep hail in suspension in thunderclouds. The strength of the updraft is a function of the intensity of heating at the Earth’s surface. Higher temperature gradients relative to elevation above the surface result in increased suspension time and hailstone size. (Refer to Hail Scale on Page 229)

Hailstorms develop from severe thunderstorms. Although they occur in every state on the mainland United States, hailstorms occur primarily in the Midwestern States. Most inland regions experience hailstorms at least 2 or more days each year.

Hailstorms cause nearly $1 billion in property and crop damage annually, as peak activity coincides with the Midwest’s peak agricultural seasons. Long-stemmed vegetation is particularly vulnerable to damage

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 223 by hail impact and accompanying winds. Severe hailstorms also cause considerable damage to buildings and automobiles, but rarely result in loss of life.

According to data from the FEMA 1997 publication “Multi-Hazard - Identification and Risk Assessment,” Arkansas is within a part of the country that averages two to three hailstorms annually. However, the NCDC data center has recorded from 1950 through 2005 a total of five hailstorms in Washington County. Further, these events were scattered throughout the county, with no discernable spatial pattern. Thus, the county should be considered likely to receive future hailstorms with all areas of the county susceptible.

According to the NCDC records, there were no deaths or injuries associated with hailstorms in the county, no crop damage were recorded, and property damage totaled nearly 60 million dollars, the bulk of the damage be on July 13, 2003. Based on discussions by a Planning Team member with an insurance adjuster in the area, property and crop damage from hailstorms is considerably more than the amounts recorded by NCDC, though more research would be necessary to determine the exact amounts. For whatever reasons, though hailstorm events seem to have been routinely reported to the NCDC, associated damage was not. NCDC’s recent listings of events in 2004 and 2005 indicate this inadequacy in record-keeping persists. It is worth noting that according to the “Multi-Hazard” publication, specific loss information associated with hailstorms is primarily held by private claims services and is not always readily available.

Geographic Area Affected by Hailstorms

All areas within Washington County are equally likely to experience a hailstorm event.

Previous Hailstorm Occurrences

A number of hailstorm events have affected Washington County, although there has not been a significant number that have been extremely damaging. NCDC data indicate that the most significant event resulted in an estimated 50 million dollars in damages in the City of Fayetteville. Hailstorm events that had enough impact on Washington County to cause notable damages are listed below.

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 224

Event Record Details Event: Hail State: Arkansas Begin Date: 15 May 1989, 1700 Begin Location: Not Known County: Washington Begin LAT/LON: 35°48'N / 94°32'W End Location: Not Known Magnitude: 1.75 inches Fatalities: 0 Injuries: 1 Property $ 0.0 Damage: Crop Damage: $ 0.0

Description:

None Reported ______Event Record Details Event: Hail State: Arkansas Begin Date: 10 Apr 1995, 1640 CST Begin Location: 4 Miles South of Fayetteville County: Washington End Location: Not Known Magnitude: 1.00 inches Fatalities: 0 Injuries: 0 Property $ 5.0K Damage: Crop Damage: $ 0.0

Description:

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 225 Event Record Details Event: Hail State: Arkansas Begin Date: 13 May 1995, 2215 CST Begin Location: 2 Miles East of Springdale County: Washington End Location: Not Known Magnitude: 1.75 inches Fatalities: 0 Injuries: 0 Property $ 5.0K Damage: Crop Damage: $ 0.0

Description: ______Event Record Details Event: Hail State: Arkansas Begin Date: 22 Apr 1996, 12:12:00 AM CST Begin Location: Fayetteville County: Washington Begin LAT/LON: 36°04'N / 94°10'W End Date: 22 Apr 1996, 12:12:00 AM CST End Location: Fayetteville End LAT/LON: 36°04'N / 94°10'W Magnitude: 1.75 inches Fatalities: 0 Injuries: 0 Property $ 9.0M Damage: Crop Damage: $ 0.0

Description:

None Reported

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 226

Event Record Details Event: Hail State: Arkansas Begin Date: 13 Jul 2003, 05:20:00 AM CST Begin Location: Fayetteville County: Washington Begin LAT/LON: 36°04'N / 94°10'W End Date: 13 Jul 2003, 05:20:00 AM CST End Location: Fayetteville End LAT/LON: 36°04'N / 94°10'W Magnitude: 2.75 inches Fatalities: 0 Injuries: 0 Property $ 50.0M Damage: Crop Damage: $ 0.0

Description:

Hail up to the size of baseballs did damage did extensive damage across a large part of Fayetteville. Cars and roofs of buildings were especially devastated.

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 227 Probability of Future Hailstorm Events

It is possible that the county will experience hailstorms in the future. Few, however, are severe enough to cause serious damage and all are limited in geographic extent. Thus, severe hailstorms (i.e., those causing significant damage) are considered possible but not likely.

Calculated Priority Risk Index (CPRI)

Despite incomplete information about hailstorms in the county, specifically the value of property damage caused, enough is believed known to calculate a reasonably valid CPRI.

Probability: 2 - Possible

Magnitude: 2 - Limited

Severity: 2 - Limited

Warning Time: 4 – Less than 6 hours

The CPRI for the Hailstorm Hazard for the county is:

Probability + Magnitude + Severity + Warning Time = CPRI

2 x .45 + 2 x .15 + 2 x .25 + 4 x .15 = 2.30

Magnitude / Severity of the Hailstorm Hazard

From 1950 through 2005, a total of five hailstorm events have been logged into the NCDC database. Though the database is weak in its listing of property and crop damage, it’s known locally that damage is regularly associated with hailstorms in the area.

However, the damage is rarely serious, usually amounting to dented vehicle bodies that require body- work and repainting, damaged roof shingles that might require replacement, and damaged crops that can result in reduced production and sometimes total loss. Damage is also typically localized and not wide- spread. There has never been a loss of life or known, serious injury due to a hailstorm in the county.

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 228

Hail Scale HAIL CONVERSION CHART Diameter of Hailstones (Inches) Description 0.50 Marble 0.70 Dime 0.75 Penny 0.88 Nickel 1.00 Quarter 1.25 Half Dollar 1.50 Walnut 1.75 Golf Ball 2.00 Hen Egg 2.50 Tennis Ball 2.75 Baseball 3.00 Tea Cup 4.00 Grapefruit 4.50 Softball

4.2.12. Extreme Heat

The major threat of extreme summer weather or heat waves is heatstroke, a medical emergency that can be fatal. Most at risk are outdoor laborers, the elderly, children, and people in poor physical health. The combined effects of high temperature and high humidity are more intense in urban centers than in rural areas. Arkansas is one of the states with a higher degree of exposure to this hazard. According to the NWS, Arkansas is one of the few states located within the second-highest heat index tier, as shown by the following thematic map. This shows that for the state there is a 5 percent chance of experiencing a heat index range of 115 to 120 degrees in any given year.

Extreme summer weather is characterized by a combination of very high temperatures and exceptionally humid conditions. When persisting over a period of time, it is called a heat wave. Many areas of the United States are susceptible to heat waves and Arkansas is certainly one of these.

An estimation of the heat index is a relationship between dry bulb temperatures at different humidities and the skin’s resistance to heat and moisture transfer. Because skin resistance is directly related to skin temperature, a relation between ambient temperature and relative humidity versus skin or apparent temperature can be determined. If the relative humidity is higher or lower then the base value, then the apparent temperature is higher or lower than the ambient temperature.

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 229 In a normal year, approximately 175 Americans die from extreme heat. As a method of informing the public to the dangers of extreme heat, the National Weather Service (NWS) devised the “Heat Index (HI)” and initiates alert procedures when the HI is expected to exceed 105-110 degrees.

There were no records available to the Planning Team documenting any deaths in the county which were attributable to extreme heat, although it is doubtful there have not been some over the years, though perhaps not recorded as such or attributed directly to the weather.

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 230 Geographic Area Affected by Extreme Heat

All areas within Washington County are equally likely to experience an extreme heat event.

Previous Extreme Heat Occurrences

One extreme heat event has been recorded on the NCDC database that has affected Washington County. NCDC data indicate that the worst event resulted with 2 infant deaths in neighboring Benton County. This event occurred in July 1998. Extreme Heat events that had enough impact on Washington County to be listed on the NCDC website are listed below.

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 231

Event Record Details Event: Excessive Heat State: Arkansas Begin Date: 20 Jul 1998, 12:00:00 AM CST Begin Location: Not Known Forecast Benton, Carroll, Zones End Date: 31 Jul 1998, 11:59:00 PM CST Crawford, Franklin, affected: Madison, Sebastian, End Location: Not Known Washington Magnitude: 0 Fatalities: 2 Injuries: 0 Property $ 0.0 Damage: Crop Damage: $ 0.0

Description:

A blistering heat wave struck the south-central part of the nation in July 1998, including much of western and northwestern Arkansas. The second half of the month also saw little, if any, rainfall in northwest Arkansas. This was all brought about by a persistent upper level ridge of high pressure over the south-central and southwestern parts of the nation. In the Arkansas River valley at Fort Smith, the temperature rose to at least 100 degrees Fahrenheit on 12 of the last 14 days of the month and reached as high as 107 on the 30th. Further north at Fayetteville, the temperature rose to at least 95 degrees on 12 of the last 14 days of the month and reached as high as 101 on the 30th. 100+ degree temperatures are certainly unusual in the higher elevations of northwest Arkansas. Neither Fort Smith nor Fayetteville saw measurable rainfall from the 13th through the end of the month. Two deaths in northwest Arkansas are blamed on the heat. According the Arkansas Department of Health's Center for Health Statistics, two Benton County infants died from the heat. Newspaper articles did not list the gender of the victims, nor did they list the date or location of their deaths.

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 232 Probability of Future Extreme Heat Events

Based on historical records for the county and the region’s location within one of the country’s highest exposures to an extreme heat index, it is very likely the county will, sometime in the near future, face extreme heat conditions.

Calculated Priority Risk Index (CPRI)

Probability: 3 - Likely

Magnitude: 1 - Negligible

Severity: 2 - Limited

Warning Time: 1 – 24+ Hours

The CPRI for the Extreme Heat Hazard for the county is:

Probability + Magnitude + Severity + Warning Time = CPRI

3 x .45 + 1 x .15 + 2 x .25 + 1 x .15 = 2.15

Magnitude / Severity of Extreme Heat Hazard

Residents, medical practitioners and human service agencies in the area are well aware of the risk of heatstroke and sunstroke. Because of this awareness, people generally anticipate and avoid the problem, no doubt contributing to the lack of known fatalities. Nonetheless, heat waves, which commonly occur during the summer months, pose a serious threat to people’s lives, and most susceptible seem to be the elderly who live alone and don’t have air conditioning. But despite the occasionally threatening conditions, though uncomfortable, extreme heat’s severity (i.e., potential for loss of life and property damage) is limited and its magnitude (i.e., capacity to affect large proportions of the population and property in extremely negative ways) is negligible. (See Heat Index pg 230)

4.2.13. Dam Failure

A dam is defined as a barrier constructed across a watercourse for the purpose of storage, control, or diversion of water. Dams typically are constructed of earth, rock, concrete, or mine tailings. A dam failure is the collapse, breach, or other failure resulting in down stream flooding.

A dam impounds water in the upstream area, referred to as the reservoir. The amount of water impounded is measured in acre-feet. An acre-foot is the volume of water that covers an acre of land to a depth of one foot. As a function of upstream topography, even a very small dam may impound or detain many acre-feet of water. Two factors influence the potential severity of a full or partial dam failure: the amount of water impounded, and the density, type, and value of development and infrastructure located downstream.

Dam failures can result from natural events, human-induced events, or a combination. Failures due to natural events such as earthquakes or landslides are significant because there is generally little or no advance warning. The most common cause of dam failure is prolonged rainfall that produces flooding.

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 233

According to data from the Arkansas Soil and Water Conservation Commission Dam Safety Program, no failure of a permitted dam has occurred in Washington County or anywhere in the State of Arkansas. Permitted dams are those that exceed 25 feet in height and impound at least 50 acre-feet of water. Smaller, non-permitted dams have failed or been overtopped on occasion in Arkansas, although records of these events are not kept. These non-permitted dams are generally low hazard dams that lacked engineering design and have not caused significant damage in the past. Based on this limited data and considering current design and inspection requirements, failure of permitted dams is an extremely unlikely event. Failure of small, non-permitted dams may occur, but the effects are not expected to be significant.

Geographic Area Affected by Dam Failure

There is no significant geographic area that could be affected by dam failure in Washington County. See National Inventory of Dams Page 236-237.

Previous Dam Failure Occurrences

There have been no dam failure occurrences recorded for the county.

Probability of Future Dam Failure Events

There is no history of failures of permitted dams anywhere in the state. All sizable dams in the state were professionally designed, are maintained by responsible public entities, and are permitted and regularly inspected by the state; it is extremely unlikely that one would fail due to natural causes.

Calculated Priority Risk Index (CPRI)

Probability: 1 – Unlikely

Magnitude: 1 – Negligible

Severity: 2 - Limited

Warning Time: 3 – 6-12 Hours

The CPRI for the Dam Failure hazard for Washington County is:

Probability + Magnitude + Severity + Warning Time = CPRI

1 x .45 + 1 x .15 + 2 x .25 + 3 x .15 = 1.55

Magnitude / Severity of Dam Failure Hazards

There is no history of dam failure flood events in Washington County. The possibility is so remote and the potential area affected so geographically limited that the severity of such an event is considered limited and the magnitude negligible. Review the Washington County Dam Location Page 235 and National Inventory of Dams Page 236-237.

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 234 Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 235

Number of Dam(s) Found 22

Year Other Dam NID NID Drainage Owner Owner Record Dam Name NID ID River Compl Hazard Longitude Latitude NID ID Name Height Storage Area Type Name eted ARBOR LITLE HINSHAW AR0027 Jerry E. 1748 ACRES WILDCAT 17.00 118.00 1961 1.00 S P -94.2378 36.1436 AR00279 LAKE DAM 9 Hinshaw LAKE DAM CREEK-TR HEFLIN AR0028 MILL CREEK- William 1749 18.00 72.00 1952 0.00 L P -94.1233 35.9067 AR00280 LAKE DAM 0 OS Thomas Prairie PRAIRIE Grove MUDDY AR0028 1750 GROVE BLAIR CREEK 78.00 4977.00 1967 7.90 H L Water -94.3358 35.9369 AR00281 FORK SITE 4 1 LAKE DAM Departme nt RODGERS AR0028 MOORES Forrest 1751 16.00 270.00 1966 0.30 L P -94.3933 35.9417 AR00282 LAKE DAM 2 CREEK-TR Rodgers MUDDY LAKE AR0028 MOORE City of 1752 80.00 7002.00 1963 13.10 S L -94.4189 36.0036 AR00283 FORK SITE 2 LINCOLN 3 CREEK Lincoln ADAMS AR0028 WARD Danny 1753 23.00 260.00 1955 0.00 S P -94.1833 36.0000 AR00284 LAKE DAM 4 SLOUGH-TR Thomas City of WILSON AR0028 WHITE 1754 28.00 20.00 1941 0.00 S L Fayettevill -94.1350 36.0000 AR00285 LAKE DAM 5 RIVER-TR e Washingto n County MUDDY KINION AR0028 KINION Soil and 1755 FORK SWCD 36.00 1397.00 1963 4.00 H L -94.3800 36.0519 AR00286 LAKE 6 CREEK Water SITE 1 Conservati on District LAKE AR0028 CHAMBERS 1756 WEDINGTO 49.00 1260.00 1935 4.00 L F -999.9990 -999.9990 AR00287 7 SPRINGS N City of LAKE AR0028 1757 WHITE RIVER 40.00 6000.00 1960 180.00 L L Fayettevill -94.0686 36.0667 AR00288 SEQUOYAH 8 e

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 236 LAKE City of AR0028 CLEAR 1758 FAYETTEVIL 49.00 6566.00 1949 9.10 H L Fayettevill -94.1383 36.1367 AR00289 9 CREEK LE e Arkansas LAKE Game and AR0029 1759 ELMDALE BUSH CREEK 46.00 2050.00 1952 7.70 H S Fish -94.2183 36.1983 AR00290 0 DAM Commissi on DBL BAR AR0051 WEDDINGTO 1953 RANCH 18.00 62.00 1966 0.00 L P Pat Massy -94.4683 36.0800 AR00512 2 N-TR LAKE DAM MEADOWS AR0051 CINCINNATI Fred 1954 25.00 38.00 1966 0.00 L P -94.4950 36.0533 AR00513 LAKE DAM 3 CREEK-TR Sweeter CANTRELL AR0051 Lloyd 1955 BUSH CREEK 20.00 80.00 1966 0.00 L P -94.4183 35.9333 AR00515 LAKE DAM 5 Loginbuel Lake Lucille LAKE AR0051 SUBLETT Property 1956 LUCILLE 46.00 92.00 1964 0.29 S P -94.1517 36.0783 AR00516 6 CREEK Owners DAM Associatio n BROCCARD AR0051 MUD CREEK- Bill 1957 35.00 52.00 1968 0.00 S P -94.1083 36.0867 AR00517 O LAKE DAM 7 OS Whitfield TENENBAU AR0051 FRIENDSHIP 1958 M LAKE 28.00 26.00 1956 0.00 S P Leo Kate -94.0519 36.1678 AR00518 8 CREEK-TR DAM OSAGE HEDA LAKE AR0052 Auton 1960 CREEK-TR- 25.00 51.00 1968 0.00 L P -94.3217 36.2117 AR00522 DAM 2 Patrick OS Arkansas Game and MUDDY BUDD KIDD AR0110 BUDD KIDD 2379 50.00 4767.00 1975 3.90 H S Fish -94.3506 35.9700 AR01101 FORK SITE 3 DAM 1 CREEK Commissi on ARKNO ARKNONAM AR0111 HICKORY Ozark 2388 14.00 56.00 1964 0.00 L P -94.2131 35.9889 AR01110 NAME 350 E 350 0 CREEK-TR Milling Inc. HUNTON AR0144 Jerry F. 2633 BLAIR CREEK 29.00 125.00 1979 3.00 L P -94.3519 35.9097 AR01449 LAKE DAM 9 Hunton

HAZARD Codes H = High S = Significant L = Low U = Undetermined

OWNER TYPE Codes F = Federal Government S = State Government L = Local Government U = Public Utility P = Private

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 237 Graph of Dams by Downstream Potential Hazard

Dams Seach Parameter(s) :

STATE = AR COUNTY = Washington

Hazard Categories Number of Dams High 5 Significant 7 Low 10 Undetermined 0 Total 22

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 238 4.3. Vulnerability Assessment

4.3.1. Assessing Vulnerability: Overview

This section of the plan attempts to present a determination of the county’s vulnerability to the hazards described in the earlier sections of the plan. Specifically, it is a summary of the hazards’ impacts to the area’s vulnerable structures.

It should be noted that for this study, the County’s Planning Team lacked the data sets necessary to fully determine vulnerability of the county’s structures, community assets and critical facilities.

As these data limitations are remedied – which they will be – this aspect of the County’s mitigation planning will improve.

4.3.1.1. Washington County Exposure Summary

Exposure data for Washington County structure to be addressed by the County’s Planning Team.

4.3.1.2. Hazard Vulnerability Summary

Vulnerability of Structures to Tornado

A profile of the tornado hazard in Washington County is provided in Section 4.2.1. All structures in Washington County are vulnerable to tornadoes. The most vulnerable to tornadoes are wood structures and manufactured homes. Utilities most vulnerable to tornado winds include electrical power (e.g., power generation facility, above ground transmission lines, and substations) and communication structures (e.g., radio towers, cell phone towers). Most transportation systems (highways, railways) are not highly vulnerable to tornados. Nearly all of the critical facilities in the planning area are vulnerable to tornados. These include vulnerable populations (e.g., retirement homes, schools, and child care centers), water and wastewater treatment facilities, and historic properties. Because they are essential to responding to a tornado and other disasters, the vulnerability of emergency response and medical facilities to hazards should be a priority for disaster mitigation planning and mitigation measures.

Vulnerability of Structures to Severe Winter Storm

A profile of the severe winter storm hazard in Washington County is provided in Section 4.2.2. The occurrence of severe winter storms can have a substantial impact on Washington County’s buildings, utility systems, transportation systems, and agriculture. Heavy accumulations of ice or snow commonly result in collapse of structural damage to buildings. The damage may be caused directly by the excessive weight of the ice/snow accumulation, or by ice-laden trees or branches falling on structures. Homes, business, as well as weaker nonresidential structures are most vulnerable to this type of structural damage. The abundant wood structures and manufactured houses in the planning area are much more vulnerable than steel, concrete, or masonry structures. Experiences from past storms indicate that poultry houses are particularly vulnerable. Heavy accumulations of ice from ice storms or heavy snow can also bring down trees, electrical wires, telephone poles and lines, and communication towers. Communications and power can be disrupted for days or weeks while utility companies work to repair the damage. Power and communications disruptions are common consequences of ice storms and heavy snow in Washington County. Winter storms are sometimes

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 239 accompanied by strong winds. These winds can knock down trees, utility poles, and power lines.

Washington County’s transportation systems are also vulnerable to severe winter storms. Although the storms rarely result in hazardous structural damage, accumulations of ice and snow may cause extreme hazards to motorists. Motorists in Washington County are generally unaccustomed to driving on icy roads resulting in an increase in traffic accidents, some of which may result in fatalities. Travel is hampered by ice or heavy snow because the County lacks sufficient snow removal equipment and road treatments (sand, salt) because of the infrequent occurrence of severe winter storm events.

Severe winter storm events typically affect the entire county. Even when portions may not be hit as bad as others, when major road networks are affected, it can affect travel flow and the availability of essential services throughout the county.

Vulnerability of Structures to Hailstorm

A profile of Hailstorm hazards is provided in Section 4.2.11. Hailstorm events are frequent in the county and can cause damage to structures, namely roof shingles which can lead to roof leaks and further damage to the structure interiors. Hail damage to roofs may require all or portions of a roof to be replaced.

Hailstorm events can and do occur anywhere in the county, though individual occurrences are usually limited geographically to limited areas of the county.

Structure Vulnerability to High Winds

A profile of the High Wind hazards in Washington County is provided in Section 4.2.8. All areas of the County are equally vulnerable to damaging straight-line, high wind events. Types of structures most vulnerable to high winds include wood structures, manufactured housing, electrical power lines and poles, communication towers, airports and airport facilities, and windows in buildings of any construction type.

As the county improves its database of structure types, it will be better able to determine vulnerability levels for various communities and neighborhoods.

Vulnerability of Structures to Wildfire

A profile of the wildfire hazard in Washington County is provided in Section 4.2.5. Structure location is the primary control on vulnerability to wildfire. Structures most vulnerable to wildfire are those located within the wildland-urban interface and wildland-urban intermix. These are areas where structures and other human development meet or intermix with undeveloped wildland. The WUI creates an environment in which fire can move readily between structural and vegetation fuels. Its expansion in recent years has increased the likelihood that wildfires will threaten structures and people. Although all building construction types within the WUI are vulnerable, the most vulnerable construction type is wood frame.

Please see Section 4.2.5 Wildfire Previous Occurrences to see specific locations of higher vulnerability to wildfire events. Most vulnerable are those structures in urban-rural interface areas, where build-up has occurred adjacent to previously rural land which is subject to wildfire, due namely to natural fuel characteristics in the vicinity.

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 240

Vulnerability of Structures to Severe Thunderstorms

Structures in the county are subject to damage from the thunderstorms, which occur on an occasional basis. The causes are lighting, sometimes resulting in fires and damages to electrical devices, and accompanying high winds, resulting in structure damage and damage to essential utility services. All structures in the county and their contents are vulnerable to damage by thunderstorms. Of most concern and the most likely to occur due to thunderstorms, are damages to electrical devices and electrical outages affecting the operations of critical facilities.

It is estimated that less than one percent of all structures in the county are vulnerable to the impacts of severe thunderstorms.

Vulnerability of Structures to Extreme Heat

Structures in the county are affected in only a limited way due to extreme heat; it is people who are most vulnerable.

Vulnerability of Structures to Flood

A profile of the flood hazard in Washington County is provided in Section 4.2.2. The location of a structure (in or out of the floodplain), rather than the type of structure, is the primary control of vulnerability for flood hazards. It is worth noting that no structures in the county have suffered repetitive flood losses and there are no locations in the county on FEMA’s repetitive loss list, which indicates that few structures are actually subject to flooding. Structures in the county which have experienced recent flooding are often located in urban areas, but not necessarily within flood-plains – where intensive build-up has created hard-surfaces, reducing ground soak-in of water and speeding water run-off.

Vulnerability of Structures to Dam Failure

A profile of dam failure in Washington County is provided in Section 4.2.13 structural location is the primary control on vulnerability to dam failure. Structures most vulnerable to dam failure are those located close to and down stream from the dam location. The sudden surge of water generated by a dam failure usually exceeds the maximum flood expected naturally, therefore, residences and businesses that would escape natural flooding can be vulnerable and at risk from dam failure.

Vulnerability of Structures to Drought

Washington County is vulnerable to drought. Drought has minimum effect on structures, however, with a high percent of the county land is in agricultural use, the most vulnerable to drought are live stock, crops and forest lands.

Vulnerability of Structures to Earthquake

Washington County has been spared losses due to a seismic hazard. Though Washington County is vulnerable to the effects of a major earthquake in the region, it is unlikely that an earthquake will affect the area structures in a significant way.

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 241 Vulnerability of Structures to Expansive Soils

Structures built both above and below ground are vulnerable to the change in soil volume. Expansive soils are present throughout the county; however, soils are rarely highly expansive. There are no documented expansive soil events for the county causing substantial damage.

Vulnerability of Structures to Landslide

Landslide events in the county are considered a low possibility. However, any man made structure would be vulnerable to damage do to landslide. Landslides have destroyed or damaged roads, railroads, bridges, mining facilities, parks, and recreational areas, residential and commercial buildings, sewers, dams, reservoirs, forest, fisheries and farms. The effects of landslides are often attributed to the triggering event such as flood, or storm.

4.3.1.3. Hazard Impact on Vulnerable Structures

Tornado Hazard Impact on Vulnerable Structures

Based on historical tornado loss data from 1950 through 2005 from the National Climatic Data Center’s Severe Storm Database, the impact of the tornado hazard can be estimated. Total damage in dollars over this 55-year period was approximately 4.5 million dollars as the result of some 17 tornadoes, which equate to one tornado every three years. A significant long-track tornado first touched down 4 miles west of Short, OK, and tracked 39 miles to a point about 7 miles southwest of Fayetteville, AR. Along the way, this tornado passed through portions of four counties but mainly affected sparsely-populated areas. It reached its peak strength as an F3 tornado in extreme southeast Adair County, OK, but mainly caused F2 damage in Washington County, AR. Fortunately, this tornado lifted before it reached heavily-populated Fayetteville. The tornado's first real property damage took place at a property between the Hogeye and Strickland communities, where the tornado peeled off the roof to a home, shattered windows, uprooted trees, destroyed two barns, and wiped a porch off of its stone foundation. Numerous trees were blown down along County Roads 212 and 214. The Washington County Judge's Office supplied a picture of a church near Cove Creek that was moved off of its foundation. Several poultry buildings along the tornado's path were also damaged.

All areas of the county are potentially subject to the impact of tornados and numerous areas around the county have been impacted over the years.

Severe Winter Storm Hazard Impact on Vulnerable Structures

Based on historical severe winter weather loss data supplied by County’s Planning Team Members - no winter storm in the county has caused a loss of life. The area experiences a major winter storm about every three years, with sometimes more than one occurring in a year. Damage from of winter storms is often downed tree limbs and utility-lines and closed schools and businesses caused by icy road conditions. Historically severe events seem to occur only about every ten years to fifteen years.

Based on past experience, an estimated twenty to thirty structures might be impacted in any given year by severe winter storm events (poultry houses), resulting typically in only minor damage to the structures, mainly due to limbs breaking and falling on roofs or roof collapse.

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 242 Hailstorm Hazard Impact on Vulnerable Structures

Though the county is subjected to numerous hailstorms the resultant impacts are typically minor and are not a matter of public record. The costs of hailstorm damage are covered either by property owners or their insurance companies and are not reported as public information. Few of the events are reported in the news due to the minor nature of the events and their frequency.

All areas of the county are subject to hailstorm events. Vulnerable structures are for the most part those with asphalt shingle roofs, which can easily be damaged by large hailstones. This includes mostly residential but also many commercial structures with roofs of this type.

High Wind Hazard Impact on Vulnerable Structures

Since 1950, fifty-nine wind events that have had enough impact on Washington County have been logged into the NCDC database. Although extremely damaging straight-line winds have not occurred in Washington County in recent years, the threat exists and cannot be discounted. This threat is essentially being addressed through the county’s extensive mitigation measures for tornados, which are equally appropriate for straight-line, high winds.

Wildfire Hazard Impact on Vulnerable Structures

It is likely that Washington County will continue to experience wildfire hazards due to the three primary factors wildfires are based on: fuel, topography, and weather. Though most wildfires typically affect only grass and wood-lands with no damage to property or loss of lives, the threat of wildfires to homes and other structures is often high during certain times of the year evidenced by occasional burn bands. As residential growth increases in the rural areas of the county, the likelihood of wildfires causing property damage and possibly injuries grows. Good fire protection coverage is provided throughout the county by rural fire departments, which do an excellent job of responding to and minimizing the damage of wildfires. The county is also planning to establish the State Forestry’s Firewise program, which is intended to educate residents on the dangers of wildfires and on mitigating measures to take. Participation in the Firewise program will also help the county quantify the number of structures in the county that are vulnerable to wildfire.

Severe Thunderstorm Hazard Impact on Vulnerable Structures

Based on available records, structures receive damage each year from the direct results of thunderstorm events, namely from lightning that causes damage to electrical and communications equipments, trees limbs knocked lose onto structures and fires started. Particularly prone to lightning strikes are communications towers and antenna which, though most always well grounded, can be damaged by the high voltage. Over the last fifty years, estimates of over one million in lightning damage has been thought to occur, but this figure is may understate the actual amount.

Extreme Heat Hazard Impact on Vulnerable Structures

Extreme heat, though potentially hazardous to people, is not a source of significant impact on structures in the county.

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 243 Flood Hazard Impact on Vulnerable Structures

Washington County has experienced 8 flooding events over a eleven-year period of 1993 to 2004. Recorded property damages total over 8 million dollars.

Throughout the county there are several hundred structures located within designated floodplains, most having been constructed many years ago, prior to establishment of FEMA’s flood-plain program. Though flooding to these structures is rare, through the local flood-plain management programs, the county and the cities are discouraging the construction of improvements and new structures in flood-prone areas.

There have been no recorded injuries or deaths due to flood events.

Dam Failure Impact on Vulnerable Structures

The two major concerns of a dam failure in Washington County would be the resulting flooding hazard to areas and residents down stream, and the loss of surface water impoundments. The economy impact of a dam failure in Washington County would be narrow in focus, as a loss in recreational facility activity or agribusiness for there are no public utility dams in Washington County. According to data from the Arkansas Soil and Water Conservation Commission Dam Safety Program, no failure of a permitted dam has occurred in Washington County.

Drought Impact on Vulnerable Structures

The impact of drought on Washington County structures will be slight. However, the economic impact can be great. A reduction in crops, pasture land and forest productivity may result in reduced income for farmers and agribusiness, increase prices for food and timber, increase unemployment, reduced tax revenues. In fact the impact of drought can be categorized as economic, environmental and or social.

Earthquake Impact on Vulnerable Structures

Washington County has no documented historical record of earthquakes. However, the aftermath of an earthquake in Eastern Arkansas near the New Madrid Seismic Zone (NMSZ) could have a major impact on Washington County, as population move away from the Epicenter in search of shelter, food, water and other basic human needs. Motels, hotels and other housing structures would fill to capacity with the sudden influx of population.

Expansive Soils Impact on Vulnerable Structures

There are no documented expansive soil events for the county causing substantial damage. However, the impact of expansive soil in the county are isolated and damage to structures can range from hairline plaster cracks, sticking doors to cracked driveways, sidewalks and basement floors.

Landslide Impact on Vulnerable Structures

The impact of landslide on the county is unrecorded. There have been no previous landslide occurrences of any significance recorded for the county. However, small landslides can occur

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 244 during new road construction in either the road cut or road fill. Landslide occurring below construction sites indicates the potential impact stemming from excavation.

4.3.2. Multi-Jurisdictional Risk Assessment

Multi-Jurisdictional Risk Assessment for Tornadoes

Tornado risk extends throughout the county. No area can be said to be immune from, or any more or less vulnerable to, tornados, as past evidence of tornado landings in the county indicate.

Unique construction characteristics that may affect tornado risk include concentrations of manufactured homes, the most vulnerable construction type, in certain parts of the county. The highest concentration is in unincorporated, rural areas of the county, where most of the mobile homes are located. This poses a particular challenge to the county in terms of attempting to influence the anchoring of mobile homes, which is difficult in the absence of building codes and a building permit process.

Multi-Jurisdictional Risk Assessment for Severe Winter Storms

Severe winter storm risk does not seem to be unique to particular areas of the county; the threat is considered to be countywide with no significant variation at the county or jurisdiction levels.

Multi-Jurisdictional Risk Assessment for Hailstorm

Hailstorm risk is not unique to particular areas of the county; the threat is considered to be countywide with no significant variation at the county or jurisdiction levels.

Multi-Jurisdictional Risk Assessment for Flooding

Flood risk in the county varies considerably by jurisdiction. Floodplain maps of the county show floodplain areas to be located throughout the county, particularly where the terrain is flat and subject to downstream flows from the uplands. However, these areas are not reported to be receiving repetitive or even occasional flooding. Where flood damages to structures have occurred it has been in urban areas that have experienced build-up, resulting in faster water run-offs, disruption of natural drain-ways, and less ground to soak up rain water.

There are problems associated with flooding related to roads, low water slabs, and bridges in the county, principally along county-maintained roads that cross or run adjacent to waterways throughout the county. Refer to Index of Preliminary FEMA Flooplain Maps for Washington County on Page 136-137.

Multi-Jurisdictional Risk Assessment for High Wind

Although high wind risk appears to vary at the statewide scale, no significant variation at the county or sub-county, jurisdiction scale is present.

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 245 Multi-Jurisdictional Risk Assessment for Wildfire

To assess jurisdictions most at risk to wildland fires, one must consider the wildland-urban interface. Population deconcentration in the U.S. has resulted in rapid development in the outlying fringe of metropolitan areas and in rural areas with attractive recreational and aesthetic amenities, especially forests. This demographic change is increasing the size of the wildland-urban interface (WUI), defined as the area where structures and other human development meet or intermingle with undeveloped wildland. The expansion of the WUI in recent decades has significant implications for wildfire management and impact. The WUI creates an environment in which fire can move readily between structural and vegetation fuels. Its expansion has increased the likelihood that wildfires will threaten structures and people. For this reason, the areas of greatest concern for wildland fire damages are those rural, urban-interface areas in the growing parts of the county. Refer to Wildland Urban Interface Map on Page 157-158.

Multi-Jurisdictional Risk Assessment for Thunderstorms

Severe thunderstorms do not seem to be unique to particular areas of the county. The threat is countywide and with no significant variation at the county or jurisdiction levels.

Multi-Jurisdictional Risk Assessment for Extreme Heat

Any given extreme heat event affects the entire county. Thus, the threat is countywide and multi- jurisdictional, always affecting the entire county and all its jurisdictions when it occurs.

Multi-Jurisdictional Risk Assessment for Drought

Drought events affect the entire county. Thus, the threat is countywide and multi-jurisdictional.

Multi-Jurisdictional Risk Assessment for Dam Failure

Twenty-two dam site locations have been identified. Refer to Washington County Dam Location Map on Page 235. Sixteen (16) sites are located in the unincorporated areas of Washington County. The other six (6) dam sites are located in the following jurisdictions Springdale one site, Tontitown one site, Fayetteville three sites, and Greenland one site.

Multi-Jurisdictional Risk Assessment for Landslide

Landslide risk does not seem to be unique to a particular part of the county. Susceptibility in the Northern half of the county is low while the remaining Southern portion has a moderate susceptibility for landslides. The Southern portion includes the jurisdictions of West Fork and Winslow as well as unincorporated areas of Washington County.

Multi-Jurisdictional Risk Assessment for Earthquake

A seismic activity event could affect the entire county. Thus the threat is countywide and multi- jurisdictional.

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 246 Multi-Jurisdictional Risk Assessment for Expansive Soil

Expansive soil risk does not seem to be unique to a particular part of the county. Susceptibility in the Northern half of the county contains little or no swelling clay. Refer to U.S. Geological Survey Swelling Clays Map of Washington on Page 170-171. While the remaining Southern portion of the county have soils of less than fifty percent clay, having slight to moderate swelling potential. The Southern portion includes the jurisdictions as follows Southwest half of Fayetteville as well as Prairie Grove, Lincoln, Goshen, West Fork and Winslow as well as unincorporated areas of Washington County.

Multi-Jurisdictional Risk Assessment

Jurisdiction DF DR EH EQ ES FL HL HW LD TS TN WF WS City of Elkins X X X X X X X X X X X Elkins School District City of Elm Springs X X X X X X X X X City of Farmington X X X X X X X X X X Farmington School District City of Fayetteville X X X X X X X X X X X Fayetteville School District City of Goshen X X X X X X X X X X City of Greenland X X X X X X X X X X X Greenland School District City of Johnson X X X X X X X X X X City of Lincoln X X X X X X X X X X X X Lincoln School District City of Prairie Grove X X X X X X X X X X X X Prairie Grove School District City of Springdale X X X X X X X X X Springdale School District City of Tontitown X X X X X X X X X X City of West Fork X X X X X X X X X X X West Fork School District City of Winslow X X X X X X X X X X X Unincorporated Washington X X X X X X X X X X X X County

This chart represents the jurisdictions of Washington County and the columns across the top represent the natural hazards addressed in this plan. An X in the box indicates that the jurisdiction is considered at risk for that hazard. The abbreviations are as follows:

DF = Dam Failure HW = High Winds DR = Drought LD = Land Slides EH = Extreme Heat TS = Thunderstorm EQ = Earthquake TN = Tornado ES = Expansive Soils WF = Wildfires FL = Flood WS = Winter Storms HL = Hail

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 247 Section 5. Mitigation Strategy

5.1. Local Hazard Mitigation Goals

IFR REQUIREMENT [The hazard mitigation strategy shall include a] description of 201.6(c)(3)(i): mitigation goals to reduce or avoid long-term vulnerabilities to the identified hazards. Explanation: The community’s hazard reduction goals, as described in the plan, along with any corresponding objectives, guide the development and implementation of mitigation actions. This section shall list the goals intended to reduce or avoid the effects of the identified hazards addressed in the risk assessment. The description should include how goals were developed. The goals could be developed early in the planning process and refined based on the risk assessment findings, or developed entirely after the risk assessment is completed. They should also be compatible with the goals of the community as expressed in other community plan documents. Although the Rule does not require a description of objectives, communities are highly encouraged to include objectives developed to achieve the goals so that reviewers understand the connection between goals, objectives, and activities. The goals and objectives should: . Be based on the findings of the local and State risk assessments; and Represent a long-term vision for hazard reduction or enhancement of mitigation capabilities.

Based upon the results of the local and State risk assessments, the County Hazard Mitigation Planning Team, with input from local jurisdictions and officials, developed hazard mitigation goals and objectives and selected those that were determined to be of greatest benefit. These goals and objectives represent what the County believes is a long-term vision for reduction and enhancement of mitigation capabilities:

Goal 1. Reduce the potential for loss of life, injury and economic damage created by exposure to natural hazards for residents of Washington County.

Objective 1.1 Encourage members of Washington County Local Emergency Planning Committee (WCLEPC) and other stakeholders to include mitigation measures in emergency planning efforts.

Objective 1.2 Formulate strategies using state of the art knowledge to reduce vulnerability to natural hazards, specifically risks to life and property, particularly new and existing buildings and infrastructure and critical facilities.

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 248 Goal 2. Minimize threat to lives and property from tornados and high wind.

Objective 2.1 Educate current and prospective homeowners on the merits of having safe rooms at their homes and how the State’s safe-room grant program can help defray some of the cost of a safe-room’s construction.

Objective 2.2 Promote the development and construction of safe shelters in communities and at schools throughout the county and assist jurisdictions in securing funding for these when available.

Objective 2.3 Encourage area home builders to add hurricane clips and anti-rack framing to improve resistance of homes to high wind; encourage mobile home dealers and owners to properly tie-down and anchor modular housing; and encourage cities as part of their building codes to require all new construction to incorporate wind-resistant features.

Objective 2.4 Work to improve timely broadcasts of tornado alert warnings – such as, additional tornado sirens in county, distribution of weather radios, reverse 911.

Goal 3. Minimize disruptive effects and property damages from severe winter storms.

Objective 3.1 Work to improve timely broadcast of winter storm alerts – facilitate this through area media, businesses and public institutions.

Objective 3.2 With State Highway Department, develop transportation information technologies (“smart transportation system”) that more safely and efficiently notify and direct drivers during icy- road conditions.

Goal 4. Control and eliminate inappropriate construction activities within designated floodplains and floodways and the undertaking of appropriate flood mitigation actions.

Objective 4.1 Encourage all cities and the county to properly enforce and manage their floodplain programs.

Objective 4.2 Encourage and facilitate participation by communities in floodplain management training and certification programs, such as the Community Rating System (CRS), FEMA’s Cooperating Technical Partners (CTP) program, and the State’s Floodplain Managers Certification Program.

Objective 4.3 Develop alternative floodplain management means for small towns lacking personnel for this job.

Objective 4.4 Lacking a building permit process, develop means to improve County’s ability to assure construction activities in unincorporated areas are known prior to start-up.

Objective 4.5 Work to secure improved floodplain maps through floodplain map modernization program and to improve utilization of maps utilizing as base map the county-wide 911 GIS mapping.

Objective 4.6 Remedy flooding concerns in West Fork, to the city’s water main, and the city’s wastewater treatment plant with implementation of identified drainage patterns.

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 249 Goal 5. Minimize property damage and emergency services disruptions due to lightning associated with thunderstorms.

Objective 5.1 Encourage operators of critical facilities to conduct professional evaluations of the potential for damage to equipment and property due to lightning strikes and to implement damage- reduction / mitigation measures.

Objective 5.2 Educate the public on the hazards of lightning and atmospheric electricity.

Goal 6. Minimize loss of property and threat to lives due to wildfires.

Objective 6.1 Working with rural fire district’s, build upon and update the Wildfire study prepared for the county, which identified wildfire hazard conditions.

Objective 6.2 Encourage neighborhoods, communities and fire districts to actively participate in Firewise, wildfire mitigation program promoted be the State Forestry Service.

Goal 7. Minimize the affects of hailstorms.

Objective 7.1 Review county records relating to past hail damage to county property, including insurance claims & county costs; identify and determine cost-effectiveness of possible measures to reduce damages, damage costs and insurance premiums costs.

Objective 7.2 Improve timely broadcast of thunderstorms but have the possibility of producing hail.

Goal 8. Minimize the effects of severe drought.

Objective 8.1 Encourage municipal utilities departments and rural water associations to engage in join planning relating to back-up agreements and inter-connectivity of water systems in the event severe droughts or other emergencies cause water shortages.

Objective 8.2 Support the development of long-term municipal water supplies in the area adequate to meet water demand through 100-year drought periods.

Goal 9. Minimize the risks associated with extreme heat.

Objective 9.1 Working with area social organizations (e.g., Area Agency on Aging, Senior Citizens Centers, Area Health and Education Center, State Social Services) develop plans to identify persons susceptible to the possibility of heat stroke so appropriate assistance can be provided (e.g., provision of fans, ice chests, air conditioners, alternative living quarters).

Objective 9.2 Educate the public on the hazards of extreme heat, the symptoms of heat stroke and emergency measures for heat stroke and exhaustion.

Goal 10. Gain broader understanding by all citizens and sectors of the county of the threats of natural disasters and of the measures that can mitigate their impacts.

Objective 10.1 Implement public education initiatives to improve an understanding of natural hazards, their impacts on communities, households and businesses, the rationale of undertaking mitigation measures, and suggested mitigation measures.

Objective 10.2 Develop and maintain relationships with the media to help achieve appropriate and on-going coverage of the area’s mitigation plans and activities.

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 250 Objective 10.3 Develop and promote a Web site focused on Hazard Mitigation designed to inform and to solicit input from citizens.

Goal 11. Have adequate and accurate data needed for mitigation planning, disaster preparedness and disaster response purposes.

Objective 11.1 Preparation of county’s hazard mitigation plan has highlighted data limitations and the need for certain data sets. Required are identification of data needed for mitigation planning – and hazard management purposes as well – and work to begin securing and maintaining that data.

Objective 11.2 Identification, utilization and enhancement of existing data sets that can improve the area’s hazard mitigation planning and implementation efforts (e.g., building upon the county’s and cities of Fayetteville and Springdale’s well established 911 GIS mapping programs).

Objective 11.3 Identify and acquire current and reliable information relating to existing and new buildings and infrastructure and develop mitigation actions that better addresses new facilities, which is a weakness of the existing mitigation plan. Create a Community Assets Database of all county and community-owned properties, focusing particularly on the locations and attributes of critical facilities and equipment.

Goal 12. Assure minimal disruption of essential services provided by critical facilities and operations in the event of natural disasters.

Objective 12.1 Encourage communities and organizations to conduct professional assessments of structures housing critical facilities (e.g., fire, police and ambulance stations, emergency communications / 911 dispatch centers, hospitals, etc.) to determine ability to withstand natural disasters and continue functioning. Posing greatest threats to critical facilities in the county are tornado, severe winter storm and lightning.

Objective 12.2 When new critical facilities are being constructed or existing ones remodeled, plan structural designs that are hazard resistant.

Objective 12.3 Encourage and assist communities in identifying and securing funding for retrofitting and building new hazard resistant critical facilities.

Goal 13. Achieve cooperation among jurisdictions to maximize hazard mitigation efforts and results.

Objective 13.1 Identify opportunities for cooperation and coordination among jurisdictions relating to hazard mitigation and encourage and facilitate the achievement of this.

Objective 13.2 Identify incentives that will encourage jurisdictional cooperation – such as, pooling of resources to minimize costs associated with activities, regionalization of undertakings, leveraging of local resources with possible state and federal contributions.

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 251 5.2. Identification and Analysis of Mitigation Actions

IFR REQUIREMENT [The mitigation strategy shall include a] section that identifies and 201.6(c)(3)(ii): 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.

Explanation: The local jurisdiction shall list potential loss reduction actions it has identified in its planning process and evaluate various actions that achieve the community’s goals and objectives to reduce or avoid the effects of the identified hazards. Mitigation actions shall address existing and new buildings and infrastructure. Not all of the mitigation actions identified may ultimately be included in the community’s plan due to limited capabilities, prohibitive costs, low benefit/cost ratio, or other concerns. The process by which the community decides on particular mitigation actions should be described. This description can include who participated in the evaluation and selection of actions. The information will also be valuable as part of the alternative analysis for the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) review required if projects are Federally funded.

Mitigation Actions

The County Hazard Mitigation Planning Team identified a comprehensive range of 35 possible mitigation actions intended to reduce the effects of the thirteen hazard types posing a risk for the area: tornado, severe winter storm, flood, severe thunderstorm, high wind, wildfire, severe hailstorm, drought, dam failure, earthquake, expansive soils, landslides and extreme heat. For this purpose, tornado and high wind are combined, because mitigation measures are essentially the same for each.

The actions were selected and prioritized based upon their potential effects on the overall risk to life and property (particularly new and existing buildings and infrastructure), ease of implementation, community and agency support, consistency with local jurisdictions’ plans and capabilities, and availability of funding. The county used the STAPLEE method to help do this. The table on the following page provides the STAPLEE evaluation criteria and the information sources and description for each.

In addition to STAPLEE, consideration was also given to the cost / benefit of each of the possible actions. The planning team defined criteria essential for calculating cost and benefits of mitigation actions and projects. This criteria review includes project cost and estimate of benefits and consideration of the cost and benefits to society and the environment.

Project Cost: included estimates of initial project cost, maintenance and operating cost of the project over time.

Estimate the Benefits: projecting benefits and future returns of mitigation action depends on the likely hood of an event and the assumed effectiveness of the project, as well as expected project cost increases in the future.

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 252 Cost and Benefits to Society and the Environment: the value people attribute to physical or social environment are not easily measured. Even without hard data, however, the impact of implementing or the lack of implementation of mitigation projects has an impact on the environment and society and was considered for the purpose of mitigation planning.

For all actions, upon development of project proposals or applications for assistance, a cost / benefit analysis will be performed.

The selection process utilized the research, analysis and input described here and in previous sections of this Plan, followed with extensive evaluation and discussion by the Planning Team.

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 253 STAPLEE Prioritization and Review Criteria

Evaluation Sources of Information Category Members of Local governments and the County Government were members of the Hazard Mitigation Planning Team and had input throughout the planning process. It must be noted that many small town political leaders are also Social business or professional persons. They are also members of the LEPC. Existing community plans were and will be relied on wherever possible. Members of the media were contacted and invited to all attend all Hazard Mitigation Planning Team meetings. The following persons/agencies were consulted as to the technical feasibility of the various projects: Arkansas Geological Commission, University of Arkansas Extension Service, Arkansas Natural Resource Commission, Arkansas Health Department, Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department, Technical Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality, Arkansas Governor’s Pre- Disaster Advisory Council, Arkansas Governor’s Earthquake Advisory Council, and Arkansas Forestry Service. Arkansas Department of Emergency Management. All of these had their comments and suggestions incorporated. Staffing for proper implementation of the plan currently will rely largely on existing members of the various agencies involved. Technical assistance is available from various local and state agencies. Some local jurisdictions have Administrative incorporated Hazard Mitigation efforts into their Capital Improvement Plans. Operations costs are under discussion by the appropriate agency or department heads. The County Quorum Court has passed resolutions in support of mitigation activities involving floodplain ordinances, mitigation planning, fire districts, Political among others. The Governor of Arkansas issued an Executive Order in August of 2004 (EO 04-02) instructing all state agencies to assist ADEM in mitigation planning and implementation of mitigation goals. Members of the Hazard Mitigation Planning Team discussed legal issues, and it was their opinion that no significant legal issues were involved in the projects Legal that were selected by the Hazard Mitigation Planning Team. However, where legalities may be an issue, this is noted. Economic issues were the predominant issues discussed by all concerned. Each entity felt that the projects selected would have positive effects, but yet realized that actions often have costs, sometimes hidden, imposed on the Economic community, residents and businesses. Funding for the various activities was a major concern as local budgets are always under pressures with existing and competing projects and activities. Where necessary, particularly for costly capital projects, outside grants would be relied on heavily. The Arkansas Geological Commission, Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality, Arkansas Forestry Commission, and Arkansas Natural Environmental Resource Commission were all consulted as to the environmental impact of the various projects and it was felt that there would be no negative impact. Local environmental issues and concerns were also taken into consideration.

The following table is a summarization of the analysis of the 40 mitigation actions considered. Presented for each of the possible actions are the hazards with which the actions are associated, brief comments relating to STAPLEE considerations, and cost/benefit or economic considerations. Each action relates to one of the objectives presented in the preceding section, and that objective is identified by its number. For those mitigation measures relating to multiple hazards or hazard mitigation in general, “multi-hazard” is noted as the associated hazard. If comments relating to STAPLEE do not indicate otherwise, then the STAPLEE criteria were determined to have been met or to not be a significant issue.

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 254

Mitigation Actions Considered Cost / Benefit or Associated Associated STAPLEE Economic Mitigation Action / Project Objective Hazard Considerations Considerations Using brochures, existing county 2.1 Tornado Some county staff time Cost is relatively low in terms Web site, news releases, & High Wind required. dollar cost and relative to presentations to area organizations potential returns expected. & other means, let public know about the State’s safe-room program. Notify jurisdictions regarding 2.2 Tornado Very little staff time Small cost. Intended returns possible availability of FEMA PDM & High Wind required. are significant. funding for safe shelters. Construct safe rooms/shelters. 2.2 Tornado Significant but short- Local cash cost for preliminary & High Wind term commitment of engineering and, if project EDD (area economic funded, local match -- a development district) problem for some small school staff time to prepare districts and towns. grant applications. Safe Maintenance & upkeep shelters are politically monetary and staff costs on popular, but do require part of recipient jurisdictions. local match Potential benefits outweigh commitments. Location local costs with provision of of safe shelter safe shelters & their potential construction sites to save lives. requires environmental reviews. Maintenance & upkeep of safe shelters requires on-going commitment by jurisdictions. Meet with local Home Builders 2.3 Tornado Some county staff time If action proves effective in Association about the benefits and & High Wind required to arrange influencing wind-resistant costs of building wind-resistant (also addresses expert presenters & construction, benefits will homes; meet with mobile home new & existing meetings or workshops. greatly outweigh public buildings) dealers regarding proper tie-downs Requires commitment sector’s cost; however, for mobile homes. of time by builders & additional costs borne by dealers. builders & dealers or passed to All other criteria easily home-owners may prove addressed. unacceptable to the parties. Adopt wind resistant building code 2.3 & 1.2 Tornado Jurisdictions’ staff time Studies show that requirements relating to wind & High Wind to select acceptable & considerable wind resistance resistance for home construction & (also addresses desired code and to be can be achieved at relatively mobile home anchoring. new & existing properly trained in its little extra cost. The potential buildings) application. Political economic returns would be commitment required to considerable in the event of adopt code that damaging tornado or high wind imposes additional events. costs on builders & home buyers. Local buy-in necessary to achieve.

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 255 Cost / Benefit or Associated Associated STAPLEE Economic Mitigation Action / Project Objective Hazard Considerations Considerations Improve timely broadcasts of 2.4 Tornado Unless contributed by Cost / Benefit unknown and tornado alerts through distribution of & High Wind outside source, costs would need to be determined if weather radios. associated with action is to be further purchase of radios. considered. Long-term effectiveness needs to be researched, requiring staff time. Consider installation of additional 2.4 Tornado Small urban areas of Cost / Benefit unknown and tornado alert sirens in un- and & High Wind the county have out would need to be determined if under-covered areas of county. grown siren coverage or action is to be further lack warning system. considered. Adding sirens in sparsely populated areas is a questionable notification approach. Some county staff time required to consider on initial level. Evaluate possibility of employing 2.4 Tornado County staff time Effectiveness / Benefit would reverse 911. & High Wind required – could be need to be determined, as considerable for would cost, set-up and on- thorough evaluation. going maintenance Effectiveness of reverse requirements. It is known that 911 with advent of cell Reverse 911 would be a costly phones and growing undertaking for county. absence of home phones is questionable. Meet with local media & selected 3.1 Severe Winter Some staff time Cost relatively low and benefits businesses & public institutions Storm required to make initial from possible improvements to about possible improvements to the inquires to confirm alerts potentially significant. effectiveness of winter storm alerts. agenda, then to arrange and conduct meetings. Meet with Arkansas State Highway 3.2 Severe Winter Staff time required. Cost / Benefit unknown Transportation Department (AHTD) Storm This action is rather because project has yet to be regarding use of transportation open-ended & needs well defined. “smart technologies” in the event of more research & focus winter storms & other hazard if it’s to be further conditions. considered. Establish heating centers or shelters 3.3 Severe Winter County and OEM staff Cost of initial inventory low, but for vulnerable populations, not only Storm time to arrange & cost of securing, maintaining for residents, but also for stranded conduct meetings, and updating supplies remains motorists/travelers. inventory and evaluate to be determined. possible locations. Arrange for floodplain management 4.1 & 4.2 Flood County & jurisdictions’ Benefits of better administered workshops & training for local staff time required. floodplain programs far jurisdictions to improve program Qualified trainers & outweigh investments of staff administration & effectiveness and workshop leaders must time. qualifications of managers. be secured. Identify & evaluate alternative 4.3 Flood Evaluation would Better managed floodplain floodplain management means for require commitment of programs would be positive for small towns lacking personnel for county staff time with localities; costs to achieve this job through meetings between involvement by improvements will have to be town officials & county. localities. determined. Lacking a county building permit 4.4 Flood County and EDD staff Cost would depend on alert process to alert county floodplain time required to identify means developed; benefit manager of construction activity & evaluate possibilities. would be enhanced underway, develop ways to assure Requiring building management of county’s NFIP timely notifications. permits in the rural through much more timely areas is politically notices of building activity and unpopular. avoidance of inappropriate construction locations.

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 256 Cost / Benefit or Associated Associated STAPLEE Economic Mitigation Action / Project Objective Hazard Considerations Considerations Secure improved FEMA floodplain 4.5 Flood County floodplain Local costs would be minimal. maps and implement ways to utilize manager currently Well-maintained county-wide maps using county-wide GIS maps. utilizes GIS maps but 911 GIS maps are already floodplain maps are available. Better & digitized inadequate to facilitate FEMA maps will greatly aid digitized use. program’s management. Remove critical facilities in the flood 4.6 Flood Submit application for Project to correct flooding way of the City of West Fork. FEMA PDM grant concerns to the municipal funding. wastewater plant, with a cost estimate over $5.5 million. Conduct professional evaluations 5.1 & 1.2 Thunderstorm Some county staff time Cost of study should be relating to vulnerability of county’s (addresses new & required to arrange minimal due to established critical facilities to lightning to existing critical professional relationships with facilities) achieve identification and possibly evaluations. professionals. Costs of any implementation of mitigation Questionable whether mitigation measures yet to be measures. new and useful determined so cost / benefit of measures will be outcomes not known at this identified. time. Install surge protection on critical 5.2 & 1.2 Thunderstorm County and OEM staff Cost minimal to protect a electronic equipment. (addresses new & time to arrange & community’s communications existing critical conduct educational infrastructure and other critical facilities) meetings. facilities. Meet with fire districts in county 6.1 Wildfire County and OEM staff Cost of initial data needs study about usefulness of information in time to arrange & low, but cost of securing, earlier Wildfire study, what updates conduct meetings and analyzing and maintaining are desired and agreements on to evaluate expressed updated data remains to be gathering and analyzing data. needs. determined. Some of the data from earlier study has proven useful, so benefit is anticipated. Arrange meetings for fire districts 6.2 Wildfire Some county staff time Cost of participating in regarding Firewise; seek to arrange meeting with Firewise primarily borne by commitments to participate in State Firewise rep. participating fire districts program. Securing follow-up amounting mainly to volunteer commitments will take hours. Firewise has proven to more time. be effective wildfire mitigation tool. Use cluster development in areas 6.3 Wildfire Some county staff time Cost relative low. Benefits to prone to wildfire. Keep development to arrange meeting with participants are high due to away from fire hazards such as developers. limited zoning regulation in the steep slopes, where fires are difficult county. to contain. Review county records relating to 7.1 Hailstorms If extensive, this Because costs and benefits of past hail damage to county property, research could require this activity are not known at including insurance claims & county considerable staff time. this time, cost/benefit can not costs; identify and determine cost- Initial research should be determined. effectiveness of possible measures attempt to determine if to reduce damages, damage costs this action should be and insurance premiums costs. pursued further. Meet with local Home Builders 7.2 Hailstorms Some county staff time If action proves effective in Association about the benefits and required to arrange influencing hail resistant costs of buildings designed with expert presenters & construction, benefits will structural bracing, shutters, meetings or workshops. greatly outweigh public laminated glass in window panes, Requires commitment sector’s cost; however, and hail resistant roof shingles or of time by builders & additional costs borne by flashing to minimize damage. dealers. builders & dealers or passed to All other criteria easily home-owners may prove addressed. unacceptable to the parties.

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 257 Cost / Benefit or Associated Associated STAPLEE Economic Mitigation Action / Project Objective Hazard Considerations Considerations Determine status of area water 8.1 Severe Would require several Cost / Benefit of outcome not utilities’ actual and potential inter- Drought days staff time to pull determinable at this time. connectivity between systems and together & evaluate this Economic considerations current and potential for back-up information. Would include interest in and cost of supply arrangements in the event of require cooperation of making necessary inter- water shortages. water utilities and initial connections versus perceived consideration should be need for and benefits of back- their interests. up supplies.

Assess status of current and 8.2 Severe Requires staff time to Cost of activity minimal. planned water supplies versus Drought contact suppliers and Benefit would be knowledge of projected long-term demand. compile information. current & future water supply There is political situations with intent of sensitivity relating to influencing needed planning & water supplies & necessary investments. jurisdictions. Pass ordinances to prioritize or 8.3 Severe Some staff time Cost relatively low to enhance control water use, particularly for Drought required. emergency water conservation emergency situations. measures. Meet with area health and social 9.1 Extreme Heat Some county or other Cost minimal. Benefits agencies to determine nature & agency staff time to expected are agreement on severity of extreme heat to people; conduct meetings and problems & need relating to determine what additional services & compile information. issue among agencies. assistance are needed. For future reference & referral and to 9.1 Extreme Heat County or other agency Take-off from preceding action determine any gaps in help staff time to compile if determined feasible. Cost available, compile list of present information. small. Benefits expected are resources for persons in area identification of gaps in vulnerable to the effects of extreme assistance needed and heat. comprehensive resource list for assistance.

Present programs to area groups on 9.2 Extreme Heat Commitment of health Costs minimal. Benefits not the hazards of extreme heat, the agency staff time to easily quantified but more symptoms of heat stroke and meet with area groups. knowledge about this hazard emergency measures for these. could aid in preventing heat strokes and saving lives. Present programs to area groups on 10.1 Multi-Hazard Commitment of county Costs low. Benefits would be the county’s mitigation plan, DF, DR, EH, staff time to prepare & relatively significant in that rationale, suggested mitigation EQ, ES, FL, deliver programs. area citizens would be more measures and community benefits. HL, HW, LD, knowledgeable about and thus TS, TN, more responsive to adopting WF,WS and supporting mitigation actions. Issue press releases and reports to 10.2 Multi-Hazard Some on-going county Cost minimal. Benefits would area media on county’s mitigation DF, DR, EH, staff time required to be be increased awareness by plans and activities. EQ, ES, FL, effective. Involvement public on county and HL, HW, LD, of other agencies in jurisdictions’ mitigation plans & TS, TN, releases heightens activities, which would tend to WF,WS effectiveness also but heighten public support for requires additional time actions. to coordinate. Establish a Web site focused on 10.3 Multi-Hazard Staff time plus cost for Although benefits not readily hazard mitigation. DF, DR, EH, Web-design consultant, quantifiable increased EQ, ES, FL, which is a county information releases to citizens HL, HW, LD, budget issue. Also, on- via Web should more than TS, TN, going staff commitment offset costs. Site would WF,WS to maintain Web site. provide readily available & Cost projected to be no convenient means for many more than $2,000 for citizens to provide input. consultant fees.

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 258 Cost / Benefit or Associated Associated STAPLEE Economic Mitigation Action / Project Objective Hazard Considerations Considerations Identify data limitations, need, 11.1 Multi-Hazard Commitment of county Activities requirements and source & means to achieve for data DF, DR, EH, staff time and possibly thus its costs are not yet sets needed to improve county’s EQ, ES, FL, monetary costs for determinable. Benefits will be hazard mitigation planning and plan HL, HW, LD, outside assistance to better data sets for improved maintenance. TS, TN, secure & maintain disaster planning & response. WF,WS needed data. Identify and implement 11.2 & 1.1 Multi-Hazard Commitments of GIS Activities requirements and enhancements to county-wide GIS DF, DR, EH, staff of Washington thus its costs are not yet mapping systems that will improve EQ, ES, FL, County Department of determinable. Benefits will be and facilitate hazard mitigation HL, HW, LD, Emergency better map data for improved planning. TS, TN, Management, and disaster planning & response, WF,WS commitments to collect which is valuable. data by some agencies. Identify and acquire reliable and 11.3 & 1.2 Multi-Hazard County & jurisdictions’ Using existing staff, cost current information relating to (addresses new & staff time to identify, should be minimal. Better data existing & new buildings and existing buildings & gather and compile will significantly improve infrastructure) infrastructure, especially critical DF, DR, EH, information. mitigation planning and facilities, as needed for hazard EQ, ES, FL, disaster response efforts. mitigation planning. HL, HW, LD, TS, TN, WF,WS Conduct professional assessments 12.1 Tornado, Some county staff time Cost of study expected to be of structures housing critical facilities Severe Winter required to arrange less than $15,000 depending to determine vulnerability to likely Storm & professional on number of buildings and hazard threats. Thunderstorm evaluations. level of evaluations. (addresses new & Professional services of Costs of any mitigation existing critical structural engineer measures yet to be determined facilities) required by state law for so cost / benefit of outcomes this service. not known at this time, but will be determined by future, more detailed professional studies. When new critical facilities are being 12.2 Multi-Hazard Requires on-going Costs are not determinable constructed or existing ones & 1.1, 1.2 (addresses new & awareness by until specific buildings are existing buildings & remodeled, plan structural designs infrastructure) jurisdictions regarding being considered for that are hazard resistant. DF, DR, EH, importance of this issue construction or remodeling. EQ, ES, FL, and willingness to incur The costs of incorporating HL, HW, LD, additional construction mitigation features into new TS, TN, costs for mitigation buildings and for some WF,WS measures. remodeling are relatively minor compared to overall cost of projects. Benefits are proven to be greatly increased hazard resistance. Encourage and assist communities 12.3 Multi-Hazard Some to considerable Costs to notify and assist in in identifying and securing funding (addresses new & county & EDD staff time securing funding are relatively for retrofitting and building new existing buildings & to provide notifications low, but effort does require infrastructure) hazard resistant critical facilities. DF, DR, EH, and assist in securing commitments to planning & EQ, ES, FL, funding, depending on local resources by prospective HL, HW, LD, requirements of search. owners of facilities. Benefits TS, TN, are securing of needed funding WF,WS to undertake improvements. Leveraging current hazard mitigation 13.1 Multi-Hazard County and Costs minimal. Ultimate costs planning, arrange meetings among DF, DR, EH, jurisdictions’ staff time. & benefits will depend on jurisdictions to identify opportunities EQ, ES, FL, Effort would require actions identified and for cooperation & coordination. HL, HW, LD, several meetings. undertaken. TS, TN, WF,WS Implement at least one mitigation 13.2 Multi-Hazard This activity will result Cost and benefits not activity that realizes jurisdictional DF, DR, EH, from preceding action. determinable until activity is cooperation. EQ, ES, FL, HL, identified. Cost / Benefit will HW, LD, TS, TN, be determined then. WF,WS

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 259

5.3 Implementation of Mitigation Actions

The preceding table presented a summary of the considerations relating to the mitigation actions considered by the County. Based on these considerations – which, as mentioned, include the potential effects on the overall risk to life and property, ease of implementation, community and agency support, consistency with local jurisdictions’ plans and capabilities, availability of funding, and determination of cost/benefit or economic considerations – the County Hazard Mitigation Planning Team prioritized each action. The results of this prioritization are presented in the following “Priorities Assigned to Mitigation Actions” table.

Very High Priority actions were those deemed both necessary to meeting the goals agreed upon as well as those that fit well with the STAPLEE criteria and the other considerations mentioned. High Priority actions were those deemed necessary to meeting the listed goals but not meeting either all of the STAPLEE criteria or other criteria, particularly technical feasibility or cost effectiveness. Medium Priority actions are those that are deemed important to meeting the mitigation goals but may be of questionable economic feasibility or technically difficult to implement. Low Priority actions are those not assigned for any action at this time; though perhaps worthy undertakings, these are considered of questionable feasibility, technically difficult to implement or perhaps have no willing party to take responsibility for their implementation.

All of the actions have been deemed environmentally sound. The identified mitigation actions and initiatives in this section are not in a 1-2-3 implementation order. Availability of funding, weather conditions, local matching and other resources, outside agency assistance, and changing economic and development trends may cause some actions to begin before others. But it is considered important that all very high priority actions should begin as soon as possible. The following table summarizes the priority assignments for each of the mitigation actions.

Priorities Assigned to Mitigation Actions Assigned Associated Associated Rationale Assigned Action Mitigation Action / Project Objective Hazard for Priority Priority Item # Using brochures, existing county Low-cost & informs Web site, news releases, public regarding popular presentations to area organizations & topical mitigation Tornado & other means, let the public know 2.1 projects. Serves Very High T-1 & High Wind about the State’s safe-room mitigation efforts well to program. publicize current successes. Notify jurisdictions regarding Low-resource possible availability of FEMA PDM Tornado requirement and has 2.2 Very High T-2 funding for safe shelters. & High Wind proven good response & results. Interested jurisdictions seek funding Successful past results. for construction of safe shelters from Willingness by Tornado such sources as FEMA PDM 2.2 jurisdictions to apply & Very High T-3 & High Wind program. make local commitments. Meet with local Home Builders Low-cost and may Association about the benefits and realize some concrete costs of building wind-resistant results, but as important homes; meet with mobile home Tornado informs building industry dealers regarding proper tie-downs & High Wind about need for 2.3 Very High T-4 for mobile homes. (also addresses incorporating mitigation new & existing buildings) measures, highlighting need for stronger building codes.

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 260 Assigned Associated Associated Rationale Assigned Action Mitigation Action / Project Objective Hazard for Priority Priority Item # Encourage local governments to Relatively low-cost after adopt wind resistant building code Tornado initial staff training with requirements relating to wind & High Wind potentially significant 2.3 & 1.2 Very High T-5 resistance for home construction & (also addresses benefits in reduced loss new & existing mobile home anchoring. buildings) of property & life from tornado & high wind. Improve timely broadcasts of Questionable tornado alerts through distribution of effectiveness; more Tornado weather radios. 2.4 research needed. Medium T-6 & High Wind

Consider installation of additional County willing to study tornado alert sirens in un- and but most populated Tornado under-covered areas of county. 2.4 areas now covered, Medium T-7 & High Wind cost effectiveness is questionable. Evaluate possibility of employing 2.4 Tornado County not prepared to Low T-8 reverse 911. & High Wind commit staff at this time for evaluation; also known to be high cost and high maintenance.

Meet with local media & selected Low-cost with potential businesses & public institutions Severe Winter to improve storm 3.1 High WS-1 about possible improvements to the Storm notifications. County effectiveness of winter storm alerts. willing to pursue this. Meet with AR State Hwy. and Trans. Low-cost but lacks Dept. (AHTD) regarding use of definitiveness and thus Severe Winter transportation “smart technologies” 3.2 questionable Medium WS-2 Storm in the event of winter storms & other requirements and hazard conditions. results. Arrange for floodplain management Relatively low-cost workshops & training for local efforts for potentially jurisdictions to improve program significant 4.1 & 4.2 Flood Very High F-2 administration & effectiveness and improvements in NFIP qualifications of managers. administration and effectiveness. Identify & evaluate alternative Low-cost and may floodplain management means for result in improvements small towns lacking personnel for 4.3 Flood to small towns’ High F-3 this job through meetings between management of town officials & county. programs. Lacking a county building permit With high building process to alert county floodplain activity in county, this manager of construction activity creates a management underway, develop ways to assure 4.4 Flood problem; though High F-4 timely notifications. resolution is unsure, county wants to explore possible solutions. Secure improved FEMA floodplain Modern maps are badly maps and implement ways to utilize 4.5 Flood needed in county. Very High F-5 maps using county-wide GIS maps. Secure funding to address flooding 4.6 City of West Fork has Flood Very High F-6 problems in City of West Fork. determined project

feasible and necessary.

Funding questionable.

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 261 Assigned Associated Associated Rationale Assigned Action Mitigation Action / Project Objective Hazard for Priority Priority Item # Conduct professional evaluations Questionable that relating to vulnerability of county’s investigations will critical facilities to lightning to Thunderstorm provide any new achieve identification and possibly mitigation measures, 5.1 & 1.2 (addresses new & Medium TS-1 implementation of mitigation existing critical but lightning is a serious measures. facilities) threat and cost of undertaking action is projected to be low. Meet with fire districts in county Cost of securing & about usefulness of information in maintaining desired earlier Wildfire study, what updates data is unknown & are desired and agreements on needs to be quantified. 6.1 Wildfire High WF-1 gathering and analyzing data. Initial evaluation is considered appropriate.

Arrange meetings for fire districts A program that has regarding Firewise; seek proven effective commitments to participate in 6.2 Wildfire elsewhere; willingness High WF-2 program. by fire districts or others to adopt is unsure. Review county records relating to Questionable results past hail damage to county property, from a full investigation; including insurance claims & county county willing to perform costs; identify and determine cost- initial evaluation to 7.1 Hailstorms Medium HS-1 effectiveness of possible measures determine whether to reduce damages, damage costs further consideration is and insurance premiums costs. warranted.

Determine status of area water County prepared to utilities’ actual and potential inter- commit staff for initial connectivity between systems and meetings but further Severe current and potential for back-up 8.1 consideration High D-1 Drought supply arrangements in the event of appropriately needs to water shortages. be lead by the water utilities. Assess status of current and County prepared to planned water supplies versus commit staff for initial projected long-term demand. meetings but further Severe 8.2 consideration High D-2 Drought appropriately needs to be lead by the water utilities. Meet with area health and social Though few deaths are agencies to determine nature & attributed to heat, it is a severity of extreme heat to people; very real threat and determine what additional services & 9.1 Extreme Heat concern. County is High H-1 assistance are needed. willing to facilitate initial meetings relating to this issue. For future reference & referral and to 9.1 Extreme Heat Though few deaths are High H-2 determine any gaps in help attributed to heat, it is a available, compile list of present very real threat and resources for persons in area concern. County is vulnerable to the effects of extreme willing to facilitate initial heat. meetings relating to this issue.

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 262 Assigned Associated Associated Rationale Assigned Action Mitigation Action / Project Objective Hazard for Priority Priority Item # Present programs to area groups on County agrees to the hazards of extreme heat, the arrange for presenters symptoms of heat stroke and on this subject; low-cost 9.2 Extreme Heat High H-3 emergency measures for these. approach to addressing an often-occurring threat. Present programs to area groups on Low-cost and furthers the county’s mitigation plan, county’s mission of rationale, suggested mitigation 10.1 Multi-Hazard educating and informing Very High MH-1 measures and community benefits. citizens about hazard mitigation. Issue press releases and reports to Low-cost and furthers area media on county’s mitigation county’s mission of plans and activities. educating and informing 10.2 Multi-Hazard Very High MH-2 citizens about hazard mitigation.

Establish a Web site focused on Engages and hazard mitigation. communicates to citizens about county’s hazard mitigation plans 10.3 Multi-Hazard High MH-3 & projects, though not considered as potentially effective as preceding actions. Identify data limitations, need, 11.1 Multi-Hazard Data needed to improve Very High MH-4 source & means to achieve for data county’s mitigation sets needed to improve county’s planning, maintenance hazard mitigation planning and plan & emergency response maintenance. programs. Identify and implement Data needed to improve enhancements to county-wide GIS county’s mitigation mapping systems that will improve 11.2 & 1.1 Multi-Hazard planning, maintenance Very High MH-5 and facilitate hazard mitigation & emergency response planning. programs. Identify and acquire reliable and Data needed to improve current information relating to Multi-Hazard county’s mitigation existing & new buildings and planning, maintenance 11.3 & 1.2 (addresses new & Very High MH-6 infrastructure, especially critical existing buildings & & emergency response facilities, as needed for hazard infrastructure) programs. mitigation planning. Conduct professional assessments Tornado, Assessments will of structures housing critical facilities Severe Winter highlight need for to determine vulnerability to likely Storm & improved mitigation hazard threats. 12.1 Thunderstorm measures for critical High MH-7 (addresses new & facilities. Cost may limit existing critical number & scope of facilities) initial evaluations. When new critical facilities are being Multi-Hazard Relatively low-cost with constructed or existing ones 12.2 high potential return. (addresses new & Very High MH-8 remodeled, plan structural designs & 1.1, 1.2 existing buildings & Essential considering that are hazard resistant. infrastructure) high threat of tornados. Encourage and assist communities Multi-Hazard Relatively low-cost with in identifying and securing funding high potential return. 12.3 (addresses new & Very High MH-9 for retrofitting and building new existing buildings & Essential considering hazard resistant critical facilities. infrastructure) high threat of tornados. Leveraging current hazard mitigation Though a rather open- planning process, arrange meetings ended endeavor, this is among jurisdictions to identify believed to me an 13.1 Multi-Hazard High MH-10 opportunities for cooperation & important part of on- coordination. going planning process.

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 263 Assigned Associated Associated Rationale Assigned Action Mitigation Action / Project Objective Hazard for Priority Priority Item # Implement at least one mitigation It is important that activity that realizes jurisdictional jurisdictions commit to cooperation. working together 13.2 Multi-Hazard cooperatively. Need to High MH-11 demonstrate that more can be accomplished jointly than separately.

Following are the mitigation actions chosen for implementation by the County and its local jurisdictions. Also listed for the selected actions are the agency or personnel responsible for carrying out the actions, required resources (including funding sources), and the implementation timeline. If available and known, cost estimates for the actions are listed.

Actions Selected for Implementation Implementing Action Responsible Required Implementation Cost Jurisdiction Number Action Agency / Resources Timeline Estimate Personnel (if available)

Very High Priority Actions County T-1 Using County Office of County staff to Completion by Est. less than brochures, Emergency prepare early 2007 $500 cash, but existing county Management materials, allocated staff Web site, news (OEM) utilization of time. releases, existing county presentations to Web site with area help of county organizations & IT dept. other means, County is let the public funding source. know about the State’s safe- room program. County T-2 Notify County OEM County staff, Completion by No out-of- jurisdictions assisted by late 2006 pocket costs. regarding Economic possible Development availability of District (EDD) FEMA PDM funding for safe shelters. School Districts T-3 Interested Respective EDD and Late 2006 No front-end of Elkins, jurisdictions School District applicant staff – Early 2007 costs; fees to Farmington, seek funding for and City time to prepare completion professional Fayetteville, construction of officials applications; due only in Greenland - safe shelters professional projects funded. Winslow from such architects & Primary sources as engineers to Consolidated, FEMA PDM provide design Lincoln, program. & cost detail, Prairie Grove, ADEM & Springdale, and FEMA for West Fork technical assistance & grant funds. County Funds.

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 264 Implementing Action Responsible Required Implementation Cost Jurisdiction Number Action Agency / Resources Timeline Estimate Personnel (if available) County T-4 Meet with local County OEM County staff Completion by No out-of- Home Builders mid-2007 pocket costs Association about the benefits and costs of building wind- resistant homes; meet with mobile home dealers regarding proper tie- downs for mobile homes. County & city T-5 Encourage County OEM County staff Completion by No out-of- governments in local 2007 pocket costs. county governments to adopt wind resistant building code requirements relating to wind resistance for home construction & mobile home anchoring. County and F-2 Arrange for County Training room, Completion by Estimated to be cities of Elkins, floodplain OEM/Floodplain certified mid-2007 less than Elm Springs, management Admin., State & trainers, and $1,000 for two Farmington, workshops & area certified necessary workshops. Fayetteville, training for local trainers, flood- training Goshen, jurisdictions to plain materials. Greenland, improve administrators County funds. Johnson, program with respective Lincoln, Prairie administration cities Grove, & effectiveness Springdale, and Tontitown, West qualifications of Fork and managers. Winslow County and F-5 Secure Floodplain Washington Upon release of Approx. $500 cities in NFIP, improved administrators County modernized maps per city. as listed above FEMA for county & Department of by FEMA floodplain maps cities Emergency and implement Management ways to utilize for GIS maps using mapping, county-wide FEMA GIS maps. modernized maps, computers & software. County funds. City of West F-6 Secure funding City of West FEMA, ADEM Completion date No initial out-of- Fork to address Fork Mayor & funding, undetermined pocket costs; if flooding Council & staff Professional funded, city’s concerns in City eng engaged match of West Fork. by city. undetermined. City funds for local share.

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 265 Implementing Action Responsible Required Implementation Cost Jurisdiction Number Action Agency / Resources Timeline Estimate Personnel (if available) County MH-1 Present County OEM, County staff, Starting in 2006 Little to no out- programs to County HM Power-Point ongoing of-pocket costs. area groups on Planning Team Presentation the county’s members, eqp, meeting mitigation plan, joined by rooms rationale, various suggested jurisdictional mitigation representatives measures and depending on community location of benefits. presentation.

County MH-2 Issue press County OEM County staff On-going No out-of- releases and pocket costs. reports to area media on county’s mitigation plans and activities.

County MH-4 Identify data County OEM County Staff Completion by Costs and limitations, end of 2006 and requirements to need, source & on-going be determined. means to achieve for data sets needed to improve county’s hazard mitigation planning and plan maintenance. County DEM MH-5 Identify and County OEM, Staff of county Completion by Costs and implement County HM with input from end of 2006 and requirements to enhancements Planning Team, HM Planning on-going be determined. to county-wide GIS staff. Team GIS mapping systems that will improve and facilitate hazard mitigation planning. County and MH-6 Identify and County OEM, Staff of county Completion by Costs and jurisdictions acquire reliable jurisdictions and cities end of 2006 and requirements to with needed and current with critical on-going be determined. information information facilities & other relating to data existing & new buildings and infrastructure, especially critical facilities, as needed for hazard mitigation planning.

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 266 Implementing Action Responsible Required Implementation Cost Jurisdiction Number Action Agency / Resources Timeline Estimate Personnel (if available) County MH-8 When new County OEM, Staff of county On-going Costs to be critical facilities jurisdictions & involved determined are being proposing new / cities, based on constructed or remodeled architects & specifics of existing ones facilities engineers for projects. remodeled, projects. plan structural designs that are hazard resistant.

County, EDD, MH-9 Encourage and County OEM, EDD staff will On-going Minimal costs jurisdictions assist EDD, provide for applying; communities in jurisdictions application requires identifying and preparation commitment of securing assistance local match funding for along with monies. retrofitting and design building new professionals. hazard resistant Local funds for critical facilities. match share.

High Priority Actions County WS-1 Meet with local County OEM, Staff of Completion by No out-of- media & local media, respective early 2007 pocket costs. selected selected parties, businesses & businesses & National public public Weather institutions institutions, Bureau about possible National improvements Weather to the Bureau effectiveness of winter storm alerts.

County F-3 Identify & County OEM / Staff of county Completion by No out-of- evaluate Floodplain and city mid-2007 pocket costs. alternative Admin., officials officials floodplain of interested management small towns means for small towns lacking personnel for this job through meetings between town officials & county.

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 267 Implementing Action Responsible Required Implementation Cost Jurisdiction Number Action Agency / Resources Timeline Estimate Personnel (if available) County F-4 Lacking a County OEM / Staff of these Completion by No out-of- county building Floodplain organizations mid-2007 pocket costs. permit process Admin., EDD, to alert county area utility floodplain companies. manager of construction activity underway, develop ways to assure timely notifications. County, Fire WF-1 Meet with fire County OEM, Earlier study & Completion by Minimal dollar Districts districts in Fire Districts its databases, mid-2007 costs but county about GIS staff, personnel usefulness of county staff, commitments information in Fire District may be high. earlier Wildfire volunteers. study, what updates are desired and agreements on gathering and analyzing data. County WF-2 Arrange County OEM, Firewise rep, 2006-2007 on- Biggest meetings for State Forestry materials & going commitment is fire districts Firewise rep, training. personnel time. regarding county fire Firewise; seek districts commitments to participate in program. County & Area D-1 Determine County OEM, Utility Completion by Minimal dollar Water Utilities status of area staff of water organizations’ end of 2007 cost; mostly water utilities’ utilities in line location personnel time actual and county info, to pull info potential inter- engineering together. connectivity studies between systems and current and potential for back-up supply arrangements in the event of water shortages. County D-2 Assess status County OEM, Info available Completion by Minimal dollar of current and area water from area end of 2007 cost; mostly planned water utilities water utilities, personnel time supplies engr. Studies to pull info versus together. projected long- term demand.

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 268 Implementing Action Responsible Required Implementation Cost Jurisdiction Number Action Agency / Resources Timeline Estimate Personnel (if available) County H-1 Meet with area County OEM, Info from these Completion by Minimal dollar health and Area Agency on entities mid-2007 cost. social Aging, AR regarding agencies to Social Services affects on determine Office, AHEC, people of nature & Senior Citizens extreme heat. severity of Centers extreme heat to people; determine additional services needed. County H-2 For future County OEM, Info from these Completion by Minimal dollar reference & Area Agency on entities mid-2007 cost; mostly referral and to Aging, AR regarding personnel time determine any Social Services affects on to pull info gaps in help Office, AHEC, people of together. available, Senior Citizens extreme heat. compile list of Centers present resources for persons in area vulnerable to the effects of extreme heat. County H-3 Present County OEM, Knowledgeable Completion during Minimal dollar programs to Area Agency on presenters first half of 2007 cost; mostly area groups on Aging, AR personnel time the hazards of Social Services to prepare & extreme heat, Office, AHEC, give the symptoms Senior Citizens presentations. of heat stroke Centers and emergency measures for these. County MH-3 Establish a County OEM & Info from Completion by Staff time & an Web site IT departments, County Haz Mit mid-2007 estimated focused on Web design Plan, Web $2000 for hazard consultant consultant’s consultant fees. mitigation. tech assistance. Co. funds. County MH-7 Conduct County OEM & Structural Completion by Cost unknown professional jurisdictions engineer, mid-2007 for at this time; assessments with critical building plans county facilities, proposals will of structures facilities if available. others as need to be housing critical County & city requested secured. facilities to funds determine vulnerability to likely hazard threats.

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 269 Implementing Action Responsible Required Implementation Cost Jurisdiction Number Action Agency / Resources Timeline Estimate Personnel (if available) County MH-10 Leveraging County OEM & Staff of county Completion by No out-of- current hazard all jurisdictions & jurisdictions, mid-2007 pocket costs. mitigation in county meeting room, planning Haz Mit Plan process, arrange meetings among jurisdictions to identify opportunities for cooperation & coordination. County & MH-11 Implement at County OEM, To be Completion by Unknown until Involved least one involved determined early 2007 or as project is Jurisdictions mitigation jurisdictions soon as possible defined. activity that realizes jurisdictional cooperation.

Medium Priority Actions County T-6 Improve timely County OEM County staff, To be determined Unknown until broadcasts of ADEM, other after further action’s tornado alerts counties’ research feasibility is through DEMs determined. distribution of weather radios. County T-7 Consider County OEM County staff Completion 2007 Unknown until installation of action’s additional feasibility is tornado alert determined. sirens in un- and under- covered areas of county. County, EDD WS-2 Meet with AR County OEM, AHTD, EDD Completion by No out-of- Staff State Hwy. EDD Trans. staff 2007 pocket costs for Trans. Dept. Plng. Director, initial (AHTD) AR AHTD investigation. regarding use of transportation “smart technologies” in the event of winter storms & other hazard conditions. County TS-1 Conduct County OEM & Professionals Completion 2007 No out-of- professional officials & experts pocket costs evaluations relating to responsible for relating to anticipated. vulnerability of facilities mitigation county’s critical against facilities to lightning lightning to achieve identification and possibly implementation of mitigation measures.

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 270 Implementing Action Responsible Required Implementation Cost Jurisdiction Number Action Agency / Resources Timeline Estimate Personnel (if available) County HS-1 Review county County OEM County staff, Completion 2007 No out-of- records insurance pocket costs relating to past carriers, claims anticipated. hail damage to records county property, including insurance claims & county costs; identify and determine cost- effectiveness of possible measures to reduce damages, damage costs and insurance premiums costs.

5.4 Multi-Jurisdictional Mitigation Actions

Multi-jurisdictional mitigation actions are listed in the table below. These are county wide and all- jurisdictional actions. Mitigation actions that are jurisdictional-specific are listed in a table that follows entitled “Jurisdiction Actions.”

County wide and all-jurisdiction actions:

Implementing Action Jurisdiction Number Action Very High Priority Actions County T-1 Using brochures, existing county Web site, news releases, presentations to area organizations & other means, let the public know about the State’s safe-room program. County T-2 Notify jurisdictions regarding possible availability of FEMA PDM funding for safe shelters.

County T-4 Meet with local Home Build. Assoc. about the benefits and costs of building wind-resistant homes; meet with mobile home dealers regarding proper tie-downs for mobile homes. County & city T-5 Encourage local governments to adopt wind governments in county resistant building code requirements relating to wind resistance for home construction & mobile home anchoring. County MH-1 Present programs to area groups on the county’s mitigation plan, rationale, suggested mitigation measures and community benefits. County MH-2 Issue press releases and reports to area media on county’s mitigation plans and activities.

County DEM MH-4 Identify data limitations, need, source & means to achieve for data sets needed to improve county’s hazard mitigation planning and plan maintenance.

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 271 Implementing Action Jurisdiction Number Action County and jurisdictions MH-6 Identify and acquire reliable and current information with needed information relating to existing & new buildings and infrastructure, especially critical facilities, as needed for hazard mitigation planning. County MH-8 When new critical facilities are being constructed or existing ones remodeled, plan structural designs that are hazard resistant. County, EDD, MH-9 Encourage and assist communities in identifying jurisdictions and securing funding for retrofitting and building new hazard resistant critical facilities. High Priority Actions County WS-1 Meet with local media & selected businesses & public institutions about possible improvements to the effectiveness of winter storm alerts. County F-3 Identify & evaluate alternative floodplain management means for small towns lacking personnel for this job through meetings between town officials & county. County F-4 Lacking a county building permit process to alert county floodplain manager of construction activity underway, develop ways to assure timely notifications. County DEM, Fire WF-1 Meet with fire districts in county about usefulness Districts of information in earlier Wildfire study, what updates are desired and agreements on gathering and analyzing data. County DEM WF-2 Arrange meetings for fire districts regarding Firewise; seek commitments to participate in program. County & Area Water D-1 Determine status of area water utilities’ actual and Utilities potential inter-connectivity between systems and current and potential for back-up supply arrangements in the event of water shortages. County D-2 Assess status of current and planned water supplies versus projected long-term demand. County H-1 Meet with area health and social agencies to determine nature & severity of extreme heat to people; determine additional services needed. County H-2 For future reference & referral and to determine any gaps in help available, compile list of present resources for persons in area vulnerable to the effects of extreme heat. County H-3 Present programs to area groups on the hazards of extreme heat, the symptoms of heat stroke and emergency measures for these. County MH-3 Establish a Web site focused on hazard mitigation. County MH-7 Conduct professional assessments of structures housing critical facilities to determine vulnerability to likely hazard threats. County MH-10 Leveraging current hazard mitigation planning process, arrange meetings among jurisdictions to identify opportunities for cooperation & coordination. County & Involved MH-11 Implement at least one mitigation activity that Jurisdictions realizes jurisdictional cooperation.

Medium Priority Actions County T-6 Improve timely broadcasts of tornado alerts through distribution of weather radios. County T-7 Consider installation of additional tornado alert sirens in un- and under-covered areas of county.

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 272 Implementing Action Jurisdiction Number Action County, EDD WS-2 Meet with AR State Hwy. Trans. Dept. (AHTD) regarding use of transportation “smart technologies” in the event of winter storms & other hazard conditions. County TS-1 Conduct professional evaluations relating to vulnerability of county’s critical facilities to lightning to achieve identification and possibly implementation of mitigation measures. County HS-1 Review county records relating to past hail damage to county property, including insurance claims & county costs; identify and determine cost- effectiveness of possible measures to reduce damages, damage costs and insurance premiums costs.

Following are priority mitigation actions that jurisdictions in the county have specifically committed to pursue and which will specifically benefit the jurisdictions. Each of the jurisdictions in the county, all of which participated in the planning process, has committed to at least one action that will benefit the jurisdiction. Also, jurisdictions can participate in a number of multi-hazard, county-wide mitigation actions, as shown by the preceding table.

Jurisdiction Actions:

Implementing and Committed Jurisdiction Action Number Action School Districts Elkins, T-3 Interested jurisdictions seeking funding for construction of safe Farmington, Fayetteville, shelters from such sources as FEMA PDM program. Greenland-Winslow Primary School, Lincoln, Prairie Grove, Springdale and West Fork County and cities of Elkins, Elm F-2 Arrange for floodplain management workshops & training for Springs, Farmington, local jurisdictions to improve program administration & Fayetteville, Goshen, Greenland, effectiveness and qualifications of managers. Johnson, Lincoln, Prairie Grove, These jurisdictions have committed to participating in the Springdale, Tontitown, West proposed workshops and training programs. Fork and Winslow County and cities of Elkins, Elm F-5 Secure improved FEMA floodplain maps and implement ways to Springs, Farmington, utilize maps using county-wide GIS maps. Fayetteville, Goshen, Greenland, These jurisdictions have expressed interest in and willingness to Johnson, Lincoln, Prairie Grove, utilize new FEMA floodplain maps in conjunction with county- Springdale, Tontitown, West wide GIS maps to improve floodplain and structure locations. Fork and Winslow City of West Fork F-6 Secure funding to address flooding concerns in City of West Fork. County MH-5 Identify and implement enhancements to county-wide GIS mapping systems that will improve and facilitate hazard mitigation planning.

As this matrix shows, each jurisdiction participating in the development of this Plan has specifically committed to pursue two or more priority mitigation actions which will involve and benefit the jurisdiction: City of Elkins, City of Elm Springs, City of Farmington, City of Fayetteville, City of Goshen, City of Greenland, City of Johnson, City of Lincoln, City of Prairie Grove, City of Springdale, City of Tontitown, City of West Fork and City of Winslow; and the Public School Districts of Elkins, Farmington, Fayetteville, Greenland – Winslow Primary School, Lincoln, Prairie Grove, Springdale and West Fork.

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 273

Section 6. Plan Maintenance Process

6.1. Monitoring, Evaluating, and Updating the Plan

Although FEMA regulations only require a plan update within five years, Washington County has developed a method to ensure that monitoring, evaluation, and as needed updating of the Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan occurs annually. The County will form a Hazard Mitigation Plan Evaluation Sub-Committee of the existing Washington County Local Emergency Planning Committee (LEPC). The LEPC consists of members from fire service, health officials, emergency management, law enforcement, community groups, transportation, hospital personnel, and emergency medical personnel, elected officials, and owners and operators of covered facilities. The Director of the Washington County Office of Emergency Management will be the initial Chair of the sub-committee or Planning Team Leader. The Planning Team Leader will contact the planning team committee, set up meeting dates, and insure that each community will maintain a representative on the team.

At this time, the maintenance procedures for the Mitigation Plan will be conducted at the LEPC meeting, which are held quarterly. Each community’s representative will be responsible for monitoring and evaluating the progress of the mitigation strategies in the plan. The team members will monitor the plan by providing a mitigation planning update at each quarterly meeting.

During the August LEPC meeting of each year, the sub-committee will meet to review and evaluate each goal and objective to determine their relevance to changing situations in Washington County, as well as changes in State or Federal policy, and to ensure that they are addressing current and expected conditions. The Sub-committee will also review and evaluate the risk assessment portion of the plan to determine if this information should be updated or modified. The parties or agencies responsible for the various implementation actions (identified in Section 5) will report on the status of their projects and will evaluate which implementation processes worked well, any difficulties encountered, how coordination efforts were proceeding, and which strategies should be revised.

The Washington County Office of Emergency Management will then have three months to update and make changes to the plan before submitting it to the Sub-Committee members and the State Hazard Mitigation Officer. If no changes are necessary, the State Hazard Mitigation Officer will be given a justification for this determination. Comments and recommendations offered by Sub-Committee members and the State Hazard Mitigation Officer will be incorporated into the plan update, after any revisions necessary Washington County will submit the Hazard mitigation plan to ADEM and FEMA for review and approval within 5 years.

In addition, the Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan will be integrated into other plans. Examples of these plans are:

 State of Arkansas Hazard Mitigation Plan  Washington County Emergency Operations Plan  School District’s Crisis Plans in Washington County  Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy prepared by Northwest Arkansas Economic Development District  Transportation Plan for Washington County prepared by Ozark Transit  City of Fayetteville: Land-use map, zoning map, subdivision rules, zoning regulations, flood plain management ordinances, and building codes

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 274  City of Springdale: Land-use map, zoning map, subdivision rules, zoning regulations, flood plain management ordinances, and building codes

All participants will follow local laws and guidelines when incorporating the Hazard Mitigation plan in their existing plans that are relevant to Hazard Mitigation. Any participant without previous plans in place will be encouraged to develop zoning plans and other land ordinance plans to incorporate mitigation strategies into. The Hazard Mitigation Plan will take into account any changes in these plans and incorporate the information accordingly in its next update.

There will also be continued public involvement through newspaper articles and postings in public locations. In addition the Planning Committee will make every attempt to ensure the public will be able to directly comment on and provide feedback about the Plan by posting the agenda and submitting meeting notice to the local media. This process will inform the county citizens on any changes or revisions of the Washington County Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan.

The Critical Facilities within Washington County and each community will be kept updated on the WebEOC website immediately as any changes occurs. This process provides the county the ability to input any future buildings in the county.

Since future plans and government regulations might need to be adopted into the Hazard Mitigation Plan, Washington County Quorum Court will be informed of any necessary changes to the plan by the Team Leader, to be adopted into the Plan by county resolution. Visual Risk Company representative and the Arkansas Department of Emergency Management will be contacted as necessary for professional and technical advice as needed.

Washington County now employees WebEOC a web-based incident management tool used to coordinate the use of state assets and provide direct link from the State Emergency Operations Center (SEOC), the Arkansas Department of Emergency Management (ADEM). This tool will allow for real-time data updates as well as project tracking capabilities to Washington County. In addition, this plan will integrate with EOP’s, Flood Insurance Plans, and any additional plans the county and cities have already established or will establish in the future. The Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan will be submitted to FEMA as required.

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 275 6.2. Incorporation into Existing Planning Mechanisms

The Hazard Mitigation Plan Evaluation Sub-Committee of the Washington County LEPC, which meets quarterly, will provide a mechanism for ensuring that the actions identified in the plans are incorporated into ongoing County planning activities. Washington County currently guides and controls development in the County. It will be responsible for ensuring that mitigation goals, objectives, and strategies are incorporated in all future County planning activities.

Participants incorporating the Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan into their existing plans will set up meetings to discuss which areas in the Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan pertain to them. After these discussions, each incorporating mechanism will follow their local laws or guidelines necessary for implementation through open forum public meetings. Each incorporating party will monitor the progress of any incorporated mitigation strategies and report the success or failure to the Emergency Operations Council for inclusion in its annual report. After each update of the Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan, each incorporating participant will be informed of the changes so they can reflect these changes in their plans also.

More specifically, the Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan will be incorporated into the State of Arkansas Hazard Mitigation Plan. The risk assessment and mitigation strategies will be incorporated into the State Hazard Mitigation Plan during their updating process every three years. Washington County will be incorporating the Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan into the Washington County Emergency Operations Plan and county land use ordinances and/or plans by following the laws set forth by the county government. This process takes place monthly during regular quorum court meetings.

County will encourage local municipalities to address hazards in their comprehensive plans and land use regulations. Specifically, Goal 1 in the Mitigation Plan directs County and local governments to reduce the potential for loss of life, injury and economic damage created by exposure to natural hazards for it residents. The Washington County Planning Department will conduct periodic reviews of the jurisdiction’s comprehensive plans and land use policies, analyze any plan amendments, and provide technical assistance to other local municipalities in implementing these requirements. For those jurisdictions with no comprehensive plans and land use regulations – which include a few small towns in the county – the towns will be encouraged to incorporate those elements of the Mitigation Plan that fit within their established planning policies and procedures. Within one year of the formal adoption of the Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan, it is intended that the policies listed above be incorporated into the process of existing planning mechanisms.

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 276 6.3. Continued Public Involvement

Washington County is dedicated to involving the public directly in the continual reshaping and updating of the Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan. The Hazard Mitigation Plan Evaluation Sub-Committee members are responsible for the annual monitoring, evaluation, and update of the plan. Although they represent the public to some extent, the public will be able to directly comment on and provide feedback about the plan. Copies of the plan will be catalogued and kept on hand at cities of Elkins, Elm Springs, Farmington, Fayetteville, Goshen, Greenland, Johnson, Lincoln, Prairie Grove, Springdale, Tontitown, West Fork and Winslow, Washington County School Districts – Elkins, Farmington, Fayetteville, Greenland, Lincoln, Prairie Grove, Springdale and West Fork, all of the public libraries in Washington County. Contained in the plan are the address, phone number, and e- mail of the Director of the Washington County Office of Emergency Management, the primary point of contact for the plan. Copies of the plan will be kept at the Washington County Courthouse and the Northwest Arkansas Economic Development District office. A public announcement inviting all interested parties will be made prior to each quarterly LEPC meeting, including the LEPC meetings during which the Hazard Mitigation Planning Sub- Committee reviews and evaluates the plan in its entirety. This meeting will provide the public a forum for which the general public can express concerns, opinions, or ideas about the plan. The Washington County Office of Emergency Management and the Washington County LEPC will publicize and host this meeting. Following the meeting, the evaluation committee will review the comments and make changes to the plan, as appropriate.

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 277

ATTACHMENT 1

Plan Review and Prioritization

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 278 Review and Prioritization STAPLE Method

CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE

Those in attendance:

Dan Coody, Mayor of Fayetteville Gary Duman, Division of Operations, Fayetteville Timhy Conklin, Division of Planning & Development Mgt., Fayetteville J. Fulcher, Current Planner, Fayetteville Mike Galligan, NWAEDD Planner

Meeting held on October 10, 2005 at 1:30 p.m. at Fayetteville City Hall.

The meeting began with a review of the completed portion of the Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan. Mike Galligan reminded those present that the plan and its approval by FEMA is the initial step for Washington County, the cities and towns of Washington County and school districts of Washington County to be eligible for both pre and post Disaster Mitigation Grant funds.

Mr. Galligan asked where the City of Fayetteville could use some mitigation effort to minimize the affect of future events. A discussion about concerns of the East Side of U.S. 540 and the two box culverts that have proven not to be large enough and can cause flooding with a moderate rain event. This was followed by the statement that the dam at Lake Wilson has some issues that need to be addressed. Water flow has under cut the base of the dam.

A discussion about a tornado warning system was held. At this time the City of Fayetteville does not have a tornado warning system, it relies on the siren from the University of Arkansas.

Mr. Conklin mentioned concerns about an ice event and the balance between tree canopy issues and the possibility of iced branches bringing down power lines. A discussion about green space followed.

The Mayor recapped the subjects talked about mitigation efforts for Fayetteville would include a tornado warning system, drainage issues under U.S. 540, addressing the under cut spill way on Lake Wilson, and a balance between green space and tree canopy issues.

The meeting came to a close.

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 280 Review and Prioritization STAPLE Method

CITY OF ELKINS

Those in attendance:

Jack Ladyman, Mayor of Elkins Meg Smith, City Clerk, Elkins J. D. DeMotte, Elkins Fire Chief Jackie Baker, Building Inspector, Elkins Mike Galligan, NWAEDD Planner

Meeting held on October 11, 2005 at 11:00 a.m. at Elkins City Hall.

The meeting began with a review of the completed portion of the Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan. Mike Galligan reminded those present that the plan and its approval by FEMA is the initial step for Washington County, the cities and towns of Washington County and school districts of Washington County to be eligible for both pre and post Disaster Mitigation Grant funds.

As the discussion began among those present self reliance became a focus of discussion. The Mayor stated Elkins should be developed as an emergency response center for that portion of the county. In times of high water Elkins can be cut off from Fayetteville (Highway 16 Floods).

A second discussion focused on wind events the Mayor asked if Elkins had a warning siren. Jackie Baker informed the new mayor the city had one siren. However, it was insufficient to cover the new growth areas in Elkins.

The discussion returned the emergency response system for the city. The Mayor mentioned that a list of persons living in Elkins that work in the medical field or specialty skills should be developed so they could be contacted in case of a natural hazard.

Mr. Galligan then asked if those present would care to prioritize Elkins needs:

1. Additional tornado warning sirens 2. Develop a list of citizens that have special skills or equipment needed in time of an emergency. (Doctors, nurses, volunteer fireman, owners of one ton 4-wheel drive trucks, electric generators, metal cutting units and welders.

The meeting came to a close.

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 282 Review and Prioritization STAPLE Method

CITY OF LINCOLN

Those in attendance:

Henry Buchanan, Mayor of Lincoln Jerry Combs, Sr., Building Official, Lincoln Clyde H. Wood, II, Public Works Division, Lincoln Mike Galligan, NWAEDD Planner

Meeting held on October 11, 2005 at 1:30 p.m. at Lincoln City Hall.

The meeting began with a review of the completed portion of the Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan. Mike Galligan reminded those present that the plan and its approval by FEMA is the initial step for Washington County, the cities and towns of Washington County and school districts of Washington County to be eligible for both pre and post Disaster Mitigation Grant funds.

When those present were asked what type of mitigation projects would be helpful in the City of Lincoln the response was that drainage problems were the most evident in the city.

The number one drainage issue discussed was when Moores Creek rose the water would flood onto North Street. The discussion then turned toward an unnamed tributary of Moores Creek which caused problems to Lincoln Avenue, Braly Street, Valerie Place and Car Auction Road.

Another discussion referred to problems of an unnamed tributary to Blanchard Creek. Those present felt these were the major storm water issues for the city.

Tornado warning system then became topic of discussion although the city has one siren it was felt two additional warning sirens were needed because of new growth and the cities housing boom. Some present felt that the city should maintain a tornado shelter with an alternate power source. However, lack of funds made this an unreasonable request for the city to fill at this time. The Mayor then pointed out how fortunate they were to have alternate power to the city hall, fire, police and water departments.

The discussion then turned to communications between emergency management personnel and the public works department. Those present felt that if the public works department was notified in a timely basis many times they could supply equipment to mitigate damage in a specific location.

When asked to prioritize issues for the City of Lincoln the statement was made all the issues discussed were of utmost importance.

Mr. Galligan then thanked those present for their input and stated their needs would be reflected in the Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan.

The meeting came to a close.

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 284 Review and Prioritization STAPLE Method

CITY OF ELM SPRINGS

Those in attendance:

Jane Waters, Mayor of Elm Springs Ken Martin, Elm Springs Police Chief Mike Galligan, NWAEDD Planner

Meeting held on October 11, 2005 at 3:00 p.m. at Elm Springs City Hall.

The meeting began with a review of the completed portion of the Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan. Mike Galligan reminded those present that the plan and its approval by FEMA is the initial step for Washington County, the cities and towns of Washington County and school districts of Washington County to be eligible for both pre and post Disaster Mitigation Grant funds.

When asked about mitigation efforts for the city, the mayor responded by saying a number one issue for the City of Elm Springs is storm water run off. She stated although Elmdale Lake can be a problem to East Lake Road and Weston Street, the most repeated problem is Brush Creek that fills with storm water run off from Springdale or a subdivision of Springdale. A lengthy discussion about storm water run off followed the Mayor’s initial statement.

Chief Martin stated the city has no tornado warning system and there is a need for three or maybe four sirens to cover the area. At this time, when a tornado warning is issued he said “I drive my police car through the housing area of Elm Springs with the siren and speaker system warning of the possible danger.”

The subject then returned to Brush Creek storm water issues and hopes there could be an agreement between Elm Springs and the City of Springdale to mitigate this issue. The Mayor stated as Springdale grows the storm water run off becomes greater problem for the City of Elm Springs.

When asked if they would care to prioritize these issues, Mayor Waters and Chief Martin agreed that Brush Creek, East Lake Road and Weston Street represented the most urgent need for the city, however, the agreed their tornado warning system was in need of improvement.

The meeting then came to a close.

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 286 Review and Prioritization STAPLE Method

CITY OF SPRINGDALE

Those in attendance:

Jerry M. Van Hoose, Mayor of Springdale Duane Atha, Springdale Fire Department Chief Rick Hoyt, Chief of Police, Springdale Wyman Morgan, Administration Director, Springdale Patsy Christie, Planning Director, Springdale Mike Galligan, NWAEDD Planner

Meeting held on October 12, 2005 at 1:30 p.m. at Springdale City Hall.

Mayor Van Hoose began the meeting by introducing Mike Galligan to those present.

Mr. Galligan thanked the Mayor and presented a review of the completed portion of the Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan. Mike Galligan reminded those present that the plan and its approval by FEMA is the initial step for Washington County, the cities and towns of Washington County and school districts of Washington County to be eligible for both pre and post Disaster Mitigation Grant funds.

A discussion among those present centered on preparedness plans of the city and coordination with the emergency management team at the county level. Those present felt they were well prepared for natural events although they mentioned Mother Nature can be difficult to deal with.

The Mayor stated his largest concern was a community wide event such as an ice storm or a snow storm that would disrupt electrical service. He went on to say he felt the city water system was adequate for a several day event as long as the poultry industry cooperated and shut down for the duration of the event. The Mayor went on to say his secondary concern was the storage of materials such as blankets and cots should an area wide event hit Springdale.

A discussion followed in which green space and tree canopies were referred to as both a blessing and a curse. Comments were made as to how we love our trees and how they add beauty to our town, but when they are heavy with snow and ice and pull down electric service lines their beauty dims.

The question was asked are there any drainage issues in Springdale. One of the persons present mentioned that Springdale is relatively flat and does not have the drainage issues they hear about from their neighbors in the Fayetteville area. As the discussion continued there was mention of drainage issues on Shady Grove Road and the Clear Creek area. There was a reference made about Lake Lincoln and Lake Prairie Grove however, it was made clear they were outside of Springdale’s jurisdiction.

A lengthy discussion about emergency electrical generation began. Once again concerns about area wide events that would disrupt electrical service became the focus. Mayor Van Hoose felt

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 288 that alternate electric generating sources for all public buildings and services could greatly reduce loss of life and injury in case of such an event.

Mayor Van Hoose then thanked all present for their input and the meeting came to a close.

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 289 Review and Prioritization STAPLE Method

CITY OF TONTITOWN

Those in attendance:

Paul Maestri, Mayor of Tontitown Chammie Barrus, Administrative Assistant, Tontitown Lorel Aviles, Building Official, Tontitown Ray Adams, Building Inspector/Contractor, Tontitown Mike Galligan, NWAEDD Planner

Meeting held on October 12, 2005 at 3:30 p.m. at Tontitown City Hall.

The meeting began with a review of the completed portion of the Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan. Mike Galligan reminded those present that the plan and its approval by FEMA is the initial step for Washington County, the cities and towns of Washington County and school districts of Washington County to be eligible for both pre and post Disaster Mitigation Grant funds.

Mayor Maestri said he would like to have a disaster plan developed for Tontitown although he felt the local fire department and Springdale’s hospital personnel did a very good job for his town.

Ms. Aviles mentioned the adoption of the International Building Code would benefit the city. She went on to explain to the Mayor that the International Building Code was much better than the Southern Building Code used in the past. A discussion followed on building codes and Ms. Aviles said she felt there would be even more stringent codes would be used in the future. She mentioned these are not just red tape that would burden developers, but were standards important in health and safety issues. She then went on to explain that she was a new employee of the city and looked forward to the challenges her position offered.

The following discussion centered on tornados and wind storm, it was mentioned that the city had no tornado warning system except for that provided by the police department. It was discussed that the city might advertise the home safe room program through their water billing system. Ms. Aviles stated that although it may not be acceptable by developers she would like to add safe room building standards to the building code.

The drainage issue was discussed once again by mentioning a study by the Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department on U.S. 412 was under way.

Mayor Maestri said he hoped that this information would be valuable to the plan and please contact him if there is anything he can do to help.

The meeting was adjourned.

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 291 Review and Prioritization STAPLE Method

CITY OF JOHNSON

Those in attendance:

Richard Long, Mayor of Johnson Randy Birchfield, Street Superintendent, Johnson Matt Mill, Johnson Fire Chief Mike Galligan, NWAEDD Planner

Meeting held on October 13, 2005 at 10:00 a.m. at Johnson City Hall.

The meeting began with a review of the completed portion of the Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan. Mike Galligan reminded those present that the plan and its approval by FEMA is the initial step for Washington County, the cities and towns of Washington County and school districts of Washington County to be eligible for both pre and post Disaster Mitigation Grant funds.

The discussion began with a description of the rapid growth of the City of Johnson. The Mayor stated the price and the size of the new homes that were being built in Johnson was phenomenal. He stated it is common for them to be in the $250,000 to $300,000 range. He stated doctors, lawyers and Indian chiefs were flocking to his small town. He stated his building inspector was approving homes with commercial type kitchens and up to five bathrooms.

When asked what natural disaster mitigation efforts would help him and his city the discussion became focused on drainage issues.

1. Ball Street Southeast of where Clear Creek and Mud Creek join there is a low water slab that is a repeat problem area for the city street department.

The Mayor stated he felt that if the creek banks were cleared approximately 8 tenths of a mile above the low water slab and an additional 1.5 miles below the low water slab were kept clear much of their flooding problems would be mitigated. He then stated that the development of U.S. 540 seems to have increased much of the storm water run off through his town.

2. Another drainage issue was Edon Drive he felt that water run off from Springdale’s growth was the major culprit.

3. This followed a lengthy discussion of a tornado warning system for the City. Weather radios and a multi-location siren system were discussed and the need for both was agreed upon by those present.

The meeting came to a close and the Mayor stated I hope we can get some help with these issues.

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 293 Review and Prioritization STAPLE Method

CITY OF PRAIRIE GROVE

Those in attendance:

Sonny Hudson, Mayor of Prairie Grove Carl Dorman, Chief of Police Prairie Grove Larry Oelrich, Public Works - Prairie Grove Mike Galligan, NWAEDD Planner

Meeting held on October 14, 2005 at 10:30 a.m. at Prairie Grove City Hall.

The meeting began with a review of the completed portion of the Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan. Mike Galligan reminded those present that the plan and its approval by FEMA is the initial step for Washington County, the cities and towns of Washington County and school districts of Washington County to be eligible for both pre and post Disaster Mitigation Grant funds.

Mr. Galligan asked those present what types of projects would help mitigate the severity of a natural event for the citizens of Prairie Grove.

Mayor Hudson made the statement that this area needs an updated form a flood plain maps. He stated that the Illinois River and the Muddy Fork of the Illinois have the potential to cause untold damage within the city limits. A discussion about past events and the city being cut off from any emergency management teams followed. Statements were made that U.S. Highway 62 on both sides of town could be flooded at the same time. It was felt by those present this may be an Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department issue, however, they as city employees were concerned.

Chief Dorman then suggested an expansion of the tornado warning system would be very beneficial to the area. Larry Oelrich and Chief Dorman engaged in a conversation that told of less than successful past attempts to upgrade and enhance the system. Chief Dorman added he would continue to warn the citizens of Prairie Grove via his police car and siren.

Larry Oelrich stated you may not want to know this, but the City of Prairie Grove has a 95 acre water impoundment which provides the city with water and has a dam that has been classified as hazardous. He was then asked how the classification came about he said this was done by Soil and Water or the Arkansas Natural Resource Commission. The following discussion centered on the tremendous cost of repair to the dam site and that the City was researching options for funding.

The conversation then returned to the subject of drainage issues of the Illinois River.

Mayor Hudson then stated if FEMA or ADEM could help us with any of these concerns by providing funds to eliminate these problems we would be most thankful.

The meeting came to a close.

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 295 Review and Prioritization STAPLE Method

CITY OF WEST FORK

Those in attendance:

Virgil L. Blackmon, Mayor of West Fork Michael Bartholomew, Business Manager, West Fork Mike Galligan, NWAEDD Planner

Meeting held on October 14, 2005 at 1:00 p.m. at West Fork City Hall.

Mayor Blackmon began the meeting by introducing Mike Galligan to Michael Bartholomew and then stated Mr. Bartholomew knows more about the City of West Fork than he anyone you could talk too. As a new mayor, I rely on Mr. Bartholomew and his technical expertise.

Mr. Galligan then reviewed the completed portion of the Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan. He then stated that the plan and its approval by FEMA is the initial step for Washington County, the cities and towns of Washington County and school districts of Washington County to be eligible for both pre and post Disaster Mitigation Grant funds.

Mr. Galligan then asked Mayor Blackmon and Mr. Bartholomew what mitigation efforts could be utilized in the City of West Fork.

Mr. Bartholomew said I can give you a couple of mitigation projects right off the top of my head.

Mr. Bartholomew then stated you may not want to know this - the City of West Fork has a sewage plant in the flood plain of the West Fork of the White River. He went on to say the plant was developed in the early 60’s before flood plains were a concern or identified. He went on to qualify our treatment plant and holding ponds are within the flood plain. He then added we also have a water main that crosses under the stream bed of the West Fork of the White River. This water main seems to be damaged on an average of once every 10 years. The damage comes from increase water flow of the West Fork as the stream bed changes the water main is exposed and breaks. When this happens half of our town is without water until the damage can be repaired.

Both Mr. Bartholomew and the mayor felt these two issues could qualify as hazard mitigation projects should funds become available.

Discussion of the town’s growth and community pride followed. The mayor went on to say tornado warning system would benefit the citizens of West Fork and would like to see safe rooms built in conjunction with the school.

The meeting was then moved to another room in the city hall where Mr. Bartholomew was able to show Mr. Galligan a map of the city and where the treatment plant was located as well as the water main crossed the West Fork of the White River.

The meeting was brought to a close.

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 297 Review and Prioritization STAPLE Method

CITY OF GREENLAND

Those in attendance:

William Yoes, Mayor of Greenland Pat Watkins, Greenland Court Clerk Gary Ricker, Greenland Police Chief Troy Enochs, Building/Code Inspector Mike Galligan, NWAEDD Planner

Meeting held on October 17, 2005 at 11:00 a.m. at Greenland City Hall.

The meeting began with a review of the completed portion of the Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan. Mike Galligan reminded those present that the plan and its approval by FEMA is the initial step for Washington County, the cities and towns of Washington County and school districts of Washington County to be eligible for both pre and post Disaster Mitigation Grant funds.

Mayor Yoes began the discussion by stating ever since U.S. 540 began construction adjacent to our town water run off and drainage issues have become a greater problem than in the past. He said his uneducated assessment of the problem was the removal of large tracks of trees and underbrush that in the past protected the town from drainage issues.

This stimulated a general discussion about drainage issues in the town. Lee Valley Creek and Barnett Branch became the focus of the discussion.

The discussion then focused on tornados and other wind events. The Mayor commented how happy they were that the Greenland Schools had three safe rooms. Police Chief Gary Ricker mentioned he has access to the safe rooms 24/7 in case there was a tornado during none school hours. Several stories were told by those present about personal experiences with wind events. It was mentioned the city was in need of a tornado warning system. The mayor mentioned, with the new growth in our town we would need more than one siren location.

Then drainage issues became a topic once again. Barnett Branch and its intersection with Lititia Street and the low water slab there became the focus of this discussion. Another issue was the drainage from one quarter mile west of Lititia Street to the drainage of Drake Field (Airport) into the White River, a distance of approximately one mile had the potential to cause health and safety problems in that area.

As the discussion began to fall off Mr. Galligan ask those present if they would like to prioritize the subjects we’ve discussed. The consensus was that if both drainage issues and tornado warning system were addressed they would mitigate hazards in Greenland.

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 299 Review and Prioritization STAPLE Method

CITY OF WINSLOW

Those in attendance:

Randy Jarnagan, Mayor of Winslow Mike Patrick, Water Operator, Winslow Lois Donaldson, Clerk, Winslow Mike Galligan, NWAEDD Planner

Meeting held on November 7, 2005 at 1:00 p.m. at Winslow City Hall.

The meeting began with a review of the completed portion of the Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan. Mike Galligan reminded those present that the plan and its approval by FEMA is the initial step for Washington County, the cities and towns of Washington County and school districts of Washington County to be eligible for both pre and post Disaster Mitigation Grant funds.

Mayor Randy Jarnagan stated the City of Winslow has an above average infrastructure due to the fact the railroad goes through the town. He went on to say when the railroad was built many years ago they put in place a large storm drainage system that benefited the city.

The Mayor then stated although the Winslow School has consolidated with the Greenland Schools the Primary School is still located in Winslow. He felt a safe room in that Primary School building would be most beneficial. He went on to say he was just recently informed that the fire house in Winslow was considered a safe area in case of damaging winds. He felt there should be an effort to tell the public about the fire house.

The mayor went on to say that Winslow was a small town with small town ways, however, growth is coming and we need to prepare for it.

He then asked Mike Patrick and Lois Donaldson if they knew of any mitigation projects that would benefit the city. They concurred with the Mayors assessment and the meeting came to an end.

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 301 Review and Prioritization STAPLE Method

WASHINGTON COUNTY ROAD DEPARTMENT

Those in attendance:

Jerry Hunton, Washington County Judge Marvin Wilson, Washington County Road Department Shawn Shrum, Washington County Road Department Don Coleman, Washington County Road Department Bill Devault, Washington County Road Department Frank Ditmars, Washington County Road Department Wayne Blakenship, Washing County Grants Mike Galligan, NWAEDD Planner

Meeting held on December 7, 2005 at 10:00 a.m. at Washington County Road Department.

The meeting began with a review of the completed portion of the Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan. Mike Galligan reminded those present that the plan and its approval by FEMA is the initial step for Washington County, the cities and towns of Washington County and school districts of Washington County to be eligible for both pre and post Disaster Mitigation Grant funds.

The initial discussion focused on the ice storm of 1999/2000. Several stories were told as Judge Hunton refocused the group on mitigation efforts the county could employee. Bill Devault then reminded the room of the April 2004 12 inch rain and the problems it caused the county.

The members of the road department then started to talk about erosion along a number of county roads. Water flow problems along the Osage were mentioned as well as the bridge at Elkins and County Road 49 followed by discussion County Road 118 and the ditching problems along Stout and Jamison Road. A lengthy discussion about drainage issues continued.

Judge Hunton then said he and Bill Devault would discuss these issues and prioritize the projects in the county.

Judge Hunton said he would have Bill Devault contact Mr. Galligan after he and Bill were able to prioritize the projects they discussed.

The meeting came to a close.

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 303 Review and Prioritization STAPLE Method

AREA SCHOOLS

Those in attendance:

Ron Wright, Farmington Schools Betty C. Marie, Farmington Schools Bryan Law, Farmington Schools James Gregory, Lincoln Schools Jim Lewis, Lincoln Schools Mike Galligan, NWAEDD Planner

Meeting held on January 18, 2006 at 1:50 p.m. at Farmington Public Schools, Administration Building.

The meeting began with a review of the completed portion of the Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan. Mike Galligan reminded those present that the plan and its approval by FEMA is the initial step for Washington County, the cities and towns of Washington County and school districts of Washington County to be eligible for both pre and post Disaster Mitigation Grant funds.

Discussion moved toward man made hazards by noting the Farmington schools was adjacent to U.S. Highway 62 and there was hazardous materials being transported up and down the highway.

Mr. Galligan stated man made hazards would probably be the focus of the next plan of this type, however, this plan was to address natural disasters.

Ron Wright said he had been hearing about safe rooms, he thought that Greenland may have them.

A general discussion of safe rooms and the positive effect they could have on a school district began.

Mr. Gregory stated it would be so good to have a plan to incorporate safe rooms into our school expansions. We are working in towns that are becoming bedroom communities for the Springdale, Roger and Fayetteville workforce and our school populations continue to grow.

All in attendance agree growth is in their future and should be planned for.

Some of the negative aspects of such rapid growth were discussed and laughed about.

The discussion then move towards protection of the campus from outsiders – fencing and general campus protection was mentioned.

Mr. Gregory mentioned an alternative electric source may be a good thing for school – should an event require an overnight stay and the power grid was down.

This statement was met with positive response from those present.

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 305

Ron Wright said I feel we all agree that if our growing schools had safe rooms and an alternate power source our student bodies and our community would be well served.

The time was noted, and it was stated the schools were about to dismiss for the day, and the meeting came to a close.

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 306 Review and Prioritization STAPLE Method

AREA SCHOOLS

Those in attendance:

Dr. Joey Walters, West Fork Schools Dr. Robert Allen, Elkins Schools Ron Brawner, Greenland Schools Chris Webb, Prairie Grove Schools Jim Rollins, Springdale Schools Ron Bradshaw, Springdale Schools Mike Galligan, NWAEDD Planner

Meeting held on January 19, 2006 at 9:00 a.m. at West Fork Public Schools, Administration Building.

The meeting began with a review of the completed portion of the Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan. Mike Galligan reminded those present that the plan and it’s approval by FEMA is the initial step for Washington County, the cities and towns of Washington County and school districts of Washington County to be eligible for both pre and post Disaster Mitigation Grant funds.

Mr. Galligan then thanked Ron Bradshaw for his support at the May 2005 meeting in the distribution of Household Hazard Preparedness Questionnaires.

Emergency procedure practices by the schools were discussed. The discussion drifted toward man made disasters, followed by a reminder from Mike Galligan plan is to focus on natural disasters.

Mr. Ron Brawner of the Greenland School stated one of the things his school has that he is sure should a wind event happen in Greenland the three safe rooms on his campus would mitigate loss of life and injury to students. He also stated the City Police Department has access to the safe rooms 24-7 should an event happen when the school is not in session.

Mr. Brawner spoke of his pride and the community pride in the school he felt this was one of the reasons. He then stated he would like to have a safe room in the Winslow Elementary. (Winslow and Greenland recently consolidated.)

Jim Rollins stated the Fort Smith school system has done a tremendous job developing safe rooms in some of their schools and said he would like the opportunity to do the same for the Springdale school system.

Chris Webb stated he had started to apply for a safe room grant, but was told he needed a Hazard Mitigation Plan before requesting grant funds. Mr. Webb went on to say he talked with John Luther at that time and John said the County staff was working on the plan.

Comments of praise for Greenland Schools for having safe rooms came from those present. Questions of how safe rooms were constructed were asked of Mr. Brawner. He gave a short

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 308 description which included three foot concrete walls and no windows. He then invited those present to visit his school and safe rooms. All present felt safe rooms may be a number one priority for the protection of their school population.

The discussion moved toward the problems and difficulties in consolidation. As well as some successes and positive points.

Alternate electric power was another topic brought out through discussion as well as Chris Webb suggested an alternate water source that could be used in case of either a natural or man made hazard. You can punch a whole and set up a water system for about $6,000 - $8,000 in this area was stated.

One of the persons present stated with a safe room some blankets, alternate electric power and a water source our location could withstand a area wide event of undetermined length, with everything from the heat and air system to the lunch room being operational.

Discussion then moved to man made hazards once again.

Mr. Galligan then restated the focus of the meeting and reviewed the mitigation projects discussed, those being safe rooms, alternate electric power and a water source.

Mr. Galligan then excused himself as did those present and the meeting came to a close.

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 309 Review and Prioritization STAPLE Method

AREA SCHOOLS

Those in attendance:

Dr. Bobby New, Fayetteville Schools Michael Gray, Fayetteville Schools Ginny Wiseman, Fayetteville Schools Mike Galligan, NWAEDD Planner

Meeting held on January 20, 2006 at 10:30 a.m. at Fayetteville Public Schools, Administration Building.

Mike Galligan started the meeting by thanking Ginny Wiseman and Michael Gray for their support and help with the plan. Your input and out reach thru the use of Household Hazard Preparedness Questionnaires will be invaluable he said. Your willingness to participate in this process was so evident at the meeting held at the court house in May. Thank you once again.

Then a review of the completed portion of the Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan was covered. Mike Galligan reminded those present that the plan and its approval by FEMA is the initial step for Washington County, the cities and towns of Washington County and school districts of Washington County to be eligible for both pre and post Disaster Mitigation Grant funds.

The initial discussion centered on school disaster plans and ongoing planning efforts. Which included a description of mock events, training for staff and drills, and the general state of preparedness should and even happen.

The discussion moved onto safe rooms. Initially positive aspects of a safe room or safe area were verbalized.

Dr. New then introduced the subject of orchestration and order, in the planning for safe rooms in a school system with a number of campuses. He stated with new or expanding schools the incorporation of safe rooms may be reasonably easy. He pointed out some of our campuses are in the older parts of Fayetteville where expansion will be difficult for more than one reason. One reason being lack of space in which to expand, and another being Historic and Historic Preservation considerations will arise.

Dr. New statement stimulated a discussion and questions like: What campus would get the first safe room? Why do some students have access to safe rooms while others do not? Were posed.

Public reaction concerns were voiced. Someone may have to answer the question: Why does XYZ School have a safe room, while in ABC School there is none?

The discussion then involved concerns of man made hazards and events. The issue of open verses closed campuses was restated, and concerning made evident.

Mr. Galligan reminded those present this plan was to focus on natural hazards.

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 311

A discussion of having a school open for 24 hours or more do to an area wide event followed. The point was made that the school administrations goal was to always get students home in case of a long term event.

In importance of safety for school population was once again mentioned and the value of meetings and the Hazard Mitigation Plan was noted.

The meeting was brought to a close.

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 312 Review and Prioritization STAPLE Method

CITY OF FARMINGTON

Those in attendance:

Melissa McCarville, City Business Manager, Farmington Shane E. Hausam, Public Works Supervisor, Farmington Mark Cunningham, Fire Chief, Farmington Jimmy Doster, Police Chief, Farmington Dan Ledbetter, Building Official, Farmington Mike Galligan, NWAEDD Planner

Meeting held on January 30, 2006 at 10:30 a.m. at Farmington City Hall.

The meeting began with a review of the completed portion of the Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan. Mike Galligan reminded those present that the plan and its approval by FEMA is the initial step for Washington County, the cities and towns of Washington County and school districts of Washington County to be eligible for both pre and post Disaster Mitigation Grant funds.

Discussion started with Shane Hausam stating we have a number of drainage issues in Farmington. He also mentioned the difficultly working with some of the developers as new subdivisions are planned and under construction. He then began to list some of the drainage issues he has experienced. First being South Fork of the Farmington Branch and Rain Song Street. He also mentioned Spring Mountain Creek and its affect on Ash Street, the Junction of Brown and Terry Street, North Hunter Street as well as the Creek Side Park Bridge. There was mentioned of concerns for the Elderly that lived in the Peach Tree Village when high water events occurred. It was Shane’s feeling that with some proper drainage improvements these issues could be resolved.

Dan Ledbetter then made the statement of concern with a natural gas main that is under U.S. Highway 62 and the disastrous possibilities it may hold.

Chief Cunningham mentioned disaster preparedness of the fire fighters and the fact that the fire station had alternative electrical power should there be any area wide event. He went on to say at the time they built the new fire station he looked at making it a safe room that could with stand a tornado or wind event, however, the cost was prohibitive.

Chief Jimmy Doster went on to say when he lived and worked in another part of the state he had a key to the school system safe rooms in case of a night time and weekend event. A discussion followed that focused on the construction of safe rooms and the new capabilities of concrete with fiberglass particles. Chief Doster felt safe rooms in the Farmington schools would be very beneficial.

A general discussion brought out the advantages of safe rooms in homes. Dan Ledbetter mentioned he knew of two recent new home constructions that had safe rooms included. He felt

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 314 one of the home owners did take advantage of the Arkansas Safe Room Program while the other did not.

Shane Hausam then said if FEMA would give me a new backhoe and some money to operate it, we could take care of most of the drainage problems ourselves. That comment was met with laughter as the meeting came to a close.

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 315 Review and Prioritization STAPLE Method

CITY OF GOSHEN

Those in attendance:

Andy Bethell, Mayor of Goshen Lorel Aviles, Goshen Building Inspector Mike Galligan, NWAEDD Planner

Meeting held on February 1, 2006 at 3:00 p.m. at Goshen City Hall.

The meeting began with a review of the completed portion of the Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan. Mike Galligan reminded those present that the plan and its approval by FEMA is the initial step for Washington County, the cities and towns of Washington County and school districts of Washington County to be eligible for both pre and post Disaster Mitigation Grant funds.

Mayor Bethell said “our town is in need of additional fire hydrants. As growth comes to our city some of our water lines are being enlarged. Prior to their enlargement the water lines were not of sufficient size to warrant a fire hydrant, that is no longer the case. We would like to place hydrants were water lines are of sufficient size for proper use of fire hydrants.”

Discussion then focused on drainage issues within the city.

Flood of 2004 was brought up. The Mayor told of the flooding of Hale Road and residents near Hale Road. A general discussion of drainage issues followed. Mitigation efforts consisting of the clearing out and the cleaning of culverts in water ways that empty into the White River were explained. In addition to flooding issues near Hale Road similar problems also apply to Tuttle Street, Fire Tower Street and Paul Pray Street.

The need for some type of tornado warning system was debated. The point was made that the wide coverage needed for the City of Goshen would require a number of siren locations.

As severe wind and tornado activity was discussed it was noted that the town lacked a safe location for its citizens. It was also mentioned that a low number of newly constructed homes in the area had safe rooms planned or in place.

Meeting came to an end.

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 317

ATTACHMENT 2

Cooperative Agreements – Benton, Madison and Washington Counties (Assist in Emergency and Disaster Response Operations)

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 318 MUTUAL AID AGREEMENTS

Benton, Madison and Washington Counties

On the following pages you will find mutual aid agreements for Benton, Madison and Washington Counties. These agreements were reviewed and found to still be in effect.

The three counties of Benton, Madison and Washington agreed to assist one another emergency and disaster response operations.

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 319

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 320

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 321

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 322

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 323