Howard County Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017

Prepared by: Mid-Missouri Regional Planning Commission 206 East Broadway P.O. Box 140 Ashland, MO 65010 Phone: (573) 657-9779 Fax: (573) 657-2829

Plan available online at mmrpc.org

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

Table of Contents

List of Acronyms Used in Plan vi Executive Summary 1 Prerequisites 2

Section 1: Introduction and Planning Process 1.1 Purpose 4 1.2 Background 5 1.3 History of the Howard County Hazard Mitigation Plan 5 1.4 Participating Jurisdictions 7 1.5 The Update Process 10

Section 2: Planning Area Profile and Capabilities 2.1 Geography and Ecology 17 2.2 Climate 23 2.3 History 25 2.4 Natural Hazard History 26 2.5 Demographics 29 2.6 Education 32 2.7 Employment and Income 34 2.8 Transportation and Commuting Patterns 37 2.9 Planning Area Capabilities 41 Legal Authority 41 Policy, Planning, and Program Capabilities 42 National Flood Insurance Program 43 Communications and Media 44 Special Districts 48 Fire Protection Districts 48 Water Districts 50 Non-Governmental and Volunteer Organizations 52 Community and Regional Partnerships 52 Political Willpower 52 2.10 Participating Jurisdictions - Profiles and Assets 53 Overview of Planning Area 53 Howard County 57 Armstrong 62 Fayette 65 Glasgow 68 New Franklin 71 New Franklin R-I School District 74 Howard Co. R-II School District 75 Fayette R-III School District 76 Central Methodist University 77

Howard Co. Consolidated Water District #1 79 Howard Co. Regional Water Commission 81

Section 3: Risk Assessment 3.1 Introduction and Methodology 83 Identification of Hazards 83 Profiling Hazards 84 Assessment of Vulnerability 85 Inventory of Assets 87 3.2 Hazard Profiles and Vulnerability Overviews 88 3.2.1 Dam Failure 88 3.2.2 Drought 105 3.2.3 Earthquake 116 3.2.4 Extreme Heat 129 3.2.5 Flood 136 NFIP Repetitive Losses Properties 159 National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) 160 3.2.6 Land Subsidence/Sinkhole 163 3.2.7 Levee Failure 167 3.2.8 Severe Winter Weather 185 3.2.9 Wildfire 194 3.2.10 Thunderstorm, Windstorm and Hailstorm 204 Windstorm 207 Hailstorm 211 3.2.11 Tornado 217

Section 4: Mitigation Strategy 4.1 Hazard Mitigation Goals 225 4.2 Update of Mitigation Actions 226 4.3 Mitigation Goals, Objectives, and Actions 233 Mitigation Actions by Hazard and Jurisdiction 237 Mitigation Actions Addressing Compliance with NFIP Requirements 242 4.4 Prioritization, Implementation, and Administration 243 4.4.1 Prioritization of Actions using STAPLEE and Benefit/Cost Reviews 243 4.4.2 Implementation and Administration in Participating Jurisdictions 251 Howard County 252 Armstrong 263 Fayette 267 Glasgow 275 New Franklin 282 New Franklin R-I School District 287 Howard Co. R-II School District 291 Fayette R-III School District 295 Central Methodist University 299 Howard Co. Consolidated Public Water Supply District #1 302

Howard Co. Regional Water Commission 304 4.5 Funding Sources 307

Section 5: Plan Maintenance Process 5.1 Plan Monitoring and Evaluation 313 5.2 Plan Updating 315 5.4 Public Participation in Plan Maintenance 316

Appendices Appendix A Adoption Resolutions Appendix B Meeting Announcements and Agendas Appendix C Planning Meeting Participants Appendix D Jurisdictional Value Statements Appendix E Fire District Burning Ordinances

“Across the United States, natural, manmade, and other disasters have led to increasing numbers of deaths, injuries, property damages, and disruptions of business and government services. This can take an immense toll on people, businesses and government, especially in these challenging economic times. The time, money and effort to respond to and recover from disasters divert public resources and attention from other important programs.

Hazard mitigation is defined by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) as any action taken to eliminate or reduce the long-term risk to human life and property from hazards and their effects. This is crucial to the residents, businesses, and governments of Missouri.

Hazard Mitigation is the only phase of emergency management specifically dedicated to breaking the cycle of damage, reconstruction, and repeated damage.”

- Missouri State Hazard Mitigation Plan, July 2010

List of Acronyms Used in Plan

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

Executive Summary

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

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

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

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

Goal 1: Mitigation Planning - Mitigate effects of future natural hazards throughout the County through public and private cooperation. Goal 2: Mitigation Policy - Develop policies that limit the impact of natural hazards on lives and property. Goal 3: Mitigation Programs - Implement cost effective and feasible mitigation programs to protect lives and property of Howard County jurisdictions. Goal 4: Public Awareness - Increase public awareness of natural hazards in order to make the public a greater partner in hazard mitigation planning. Goal 5: Future Development - Promote hazard-proof development in the jurisdictions of Howard County.

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

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

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

Prerequisites

Multi-Jurisdictional Plan Adoption

Requirement For multi-jurisdictional plans, each jurisdiction requesting approval

§201.6(c)(5): of the plan must document that it has been formally adopted.

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

Section 1: Introduction and Planning Process

1.1 Purpose

The Howard County Hazard Mitigation Plan is designed as a resource for county and municipal governments, residents, developers, organizations, and others interested in controlling the potentially disastrous effects of natural hazards in Howard County. Each year natural hazards take a great toll in the United States. Howard County is not immune; it is subject to numerous natural hazards which can threaten life and property. A well-conceived mitigation strategy, developed through an inclusive and thoughtful planning process, is an important step in protecting citizens and reducing loss.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) defines mitigation as “sustained action taken to reduce or eliminate long-term risk to people and their property from hazards and their effects.” A 2006 study by the Institute for Building Science found that $4 was saved in post- disaster response and recovery for every $1 spent on pre-disaster mitigation.

The Howard County Hazard Mitigation Plan was developed by the communities and citizens of Howard County, their elected officials and public servants. The process was carried out by identifying the natural hazards that impact Howard County and its residents, assessing the probability of occurrence and severity posed by each hazard, identifying the most vulnerable areas, and evaluating all possible mitigation actions which might be effective. Potential mitigation actions were assessed and prioritized based on the perceived need, probable outcome, potential for being executed, and benefit related to cost.

The plan was developed in accordance with FEMA’s Mitigation Planning regulations under Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Title 44, Part 201.6, Local Mitigation Plans. Relevant requirements from CFR §201.6 are highlighted throughout the plan.

Multiple jurisdictions within Howard County participated in the development of this plan. Having a current and approved hazard mitigation plan makes each of the participating jurisdictions eligible to apply for FEMA pre-disaster mitigation grants and the mitigation portion of post-disaster mitigation grants.

1.2 Background

Responding to and mitigating for natural disasters has been a subject of increasing focus for the federal government in the past decades.

The process for declaring Presidential Disasters was established with the passage of the Disaster Relief Act of 1974. In 1988, the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act created the organizational framework through which funds and assistance would be provided after a Presidential Disaster Declaration; FEMA was designated to coordinate the relief efforts.

In 1993, FEMA created the Mitigation Directorate to oversee hazard mitigation. This established mitigation as the cornerstone of emergency management.

The Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 further defined activities related to disaster relief and mitigation; one of its provisions encourages development of hazard mitigation measures, including land use and construction regulations.

1.3 History of the Howard County Hazard Mitigation Plan

In November 2003, a “current and approved” hazard mitigation plan became a FEMA eligibility requirement for local jurisdictions applying for pre-disaster mitigation grants and the mitigation portion of post-disaster grant funds.

Due to this change in FEMA grant requirements, the Missouri State Emergency Management Agency (SEMA) contracted with the Missouri Council of Governments for the Regional Planning Commissions to direct hazard mitigation planning for interested counties within their respective regions. Howard County, a member of the Mid-Missouri Regional Planning Commission (Mid-MO RPC), contracted with the Mid-MO RPC to facilitate the development of a hazard mitigation plan for the county.

The original Howard County Hazard Mitigation Plan was approved by FEMA and adopted by the participating jurisdictions in February 2006.

Maintenance of Plan and Hazard Mitigation Activities 2012-2017 The Howard County Hazard Mitigation Plan 2006 was written to be a working document to guide participating jurisdictions in the county in the work of mitigating potential hazards. To this effect, the plan has been publicly available on the website of the Mid-MO RPC (www.mmrpc.org) since it was approved and adopted in 2006.

During the ensuing years, the Mid-MO RPC has kept the jurisdictions informed of mitigation grant opportunities through letters, the RPC’s monthly newsletter (The Current), email correspondence, and announcements at meetings of the RPC.

The maintenance plan in the original document called for an annual review of the plan by the Howard County Hazard Mitigation Steering Committee, facilitated by the Mid-MO RPC. These annual reviews did not take place; lack of a defined time table for the reviews, shortage of time and personnel, and personnel changes all played a role in this omission. The updated plan lays out a clearly defined maintenance process with a timetable for review and a concrete tool to be employed in the review (see Section 5.1).

While the annual review of the Hazard Mitigation Plan did not occur since the previous draft, there has been mitigation activity taking place in the Planning Area since the original plan and the most recent update (2012) were adopted. In the current update review process (see Section 4.2), the following actions in the original plan were identified as completed:

 Stabilize the riverbank along Water Street in the City of Glasgow.

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

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

 Adopt and enforce latest model building codes and national engineering standards.

 Ensure that manufactured homes are secured to ground to maximize their longevity.

 Maintain file of Emergency Action Plans (EAPs) for state regulated high hazard dams.

 Encourage appropriate county, municipal, special district and education staff to continually update their knowledge base regarding earthquake safety.

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

 Develop public education hazard awareness program.

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

 Encourage levee districts to restrict public access at access points to the levees.

 Have a plan for cooling centers in all communities.

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

 Promote the use of NOAA radios.

 Protect critical infrastructure throughout the county.

 Maintain flood awareness signs at low water crossings and flash flooding areas.

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

 Mitigate the effects of flooding on public infrastructure.

 Ensure that school buses have two way radios on board.

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

 Remove vegetation and combustible materials around critical infrastructure.

 Provide continuing education for firefighters on fighting wildfires.

 Encourage the Missouri Department of Conservation (MDC) to continue their trainings on controlled burns.

 Hold annual training on Local Emergency Operations Plan (LEOP) for County and City officials.

 Evaluate and maintain school emergency preparedness plans and incorporate into the County Local Emergency Operations Plan (LEOP).

 Encourage nursing and residential care facilities to have alternate power and heating sources.

1.4 Participating Jurisdictions

Multi-jurisdictional plans…may be accepted, as appropriate, as Requirement long as each jurisdiction has participated in the process….Statewide §201.6(a)(3): plans will not be accepted as multi-jurisdictional plans.

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

1. Participation in the planning process through planning meetings 2. Completion of survey re: jurisdiction 3. Development of plan for administration and implementation of mitigation actions specific to jurisdiction 4. Review of plan draft 5. Formal adoption of plan after approval by FEMA

The participating jurisdictions in the original plan (2006) and those participating to any degree in the updated plan (2017) are shown in Figure 1.4.1. The chart also tracks the completion of the criteria for inclusion as a participating jurisdiction in the plan. The column on the far right of the chart in Figure 1.4.1 (“2017 Participating Jurisdictions”) indicates those jurisdictions which have completed the above requirements and are requesting approval of the plan prior to formal adoption. Due to the expedited planning process, this chart will be updated on an ongoing process during the review process.

The term “Planning Area” is used in the plan to indicate, as a whole, all of the jurisdictions which participated in the planning process to any degree.

Figure 1.4.1 Multi-jurisdictional Plan Participants Update Process (2017) Participating Jurisdiction Criteria Met Participating Participating Individual Participating Group Planning Survey Review of Mitigation Formal Jurisdiction Jurisdiction Jurisdiction Meetings/ Jurisdiction Meetings Meeting(s) Completed Draft Actions Adoption (2006) (2012) Contacts (2017) Howard County x x x x x x x x x x City of Armstrong x x x x x x x x x x City of Fayette x x x x x x x x x City of Franklin x City of Glasgow x x x x x x x x x City of New Franklin x x x x x x x x x New Franklin R-I x x x x x x x x x School District Howard Co. R-II x x x x x x x x School District Fayette R-III School x x x x x x x x x District Central Methodist x x x x x x x University Howard Co. x x x x x x x x x CPWSD#1 Howard Co. Regional x x x x x x x x x Water Commission Armstrong Fire x Protection Distrit Howard Co. Fire x Protection District Glasgow Spcial Road District Bonne Femme Levee x x x District #1 Howard Co. Levee x x x District #2 Howard Co. Drainage x x x x x District #3 Howard Co. Levee x x x x x District #4 Howard Co. Levee x x x x x District #6 Howard Co. Drainage x x x District #7

1.5 The Update Process

[The plan shall document] the planning process used to develop the Requirement plan, including how it was prepared, who was involved in the §201.6(c)(1): process, and how the public was involved.

A Hazard Mitigation Plan must be updated and adopted by the participating jurisdictions every five years to be considered current. The update process for the current plan commenced in May 2017; the update was directed by the Mid-MO RPC as specified by contract with Howard County. Sarah Nussbaum, Regional Planner, was the lead planner for the update and Zhengting He, Planning Intern, assisted with the update of the plan; maps were developed by Blake Acton, Regional Planner/GIS Intern, and by Katrina Thomas, Former Regional Planner/GIS Specialist.

Mid-MO RPC planners decided on the following general planning process for the update:

1. Initial update of technical data in charts and graphs (e.g. storm history events, population statistics, etc.) by Mid-MO RPC staff 2. Planning meetings in Howard County for review of plan and decisions on the following:  Sections of plan to be updated  Review of each hazard profile and mitigation actions from the original plan  General discussion of each hazard and mitigation needed for future  Prioritization of mitigation actions for updated plan using general cost: benefit review 3. Survey to officials of participating jurisdictions regarding assets and critical infrastructure 4. Incorporation of survey information into update draft 5. Presentation of update draft to officials of participating jurisdictions, neighboring jurisdictions, the public, interested agencies, businesses, and non-profits 6. Initial SEMA review of preliminary draft 7. Continuing work on update of the plan 8. Review of mitigation actions by participating jurisdictions including development of plans for implementation and administration of mitigation actions within the jurisdictions 9. Ongoing incorporation of feedback into update draft with continuing review by the those involved in the planning process 10. Presentation of final draft for public comment before SEMA/FEMA final approval 11. Adoption of FEMA approved plan by participating jurisdictions

Planning Meetings The Emergency Management Agency in Howard County is well connected with the citizens and officials throughout the County. The Emergency Management Directors, Bill John and Bryan Kunze, contacted county and city officials, school districts, fire districts, water districts, special road districts, and levee districts to initiate the planning process in the County. County Commissioners called individuals involved in previous plans and those they believed should be involved in the update.

General planning meetings were held May through July of 2017. Due to the significant time constraint, separate meetings of representatives from the school districts were not held and issues of specific concern to educators were discussed during the general planning meetings. Public notice was given for each meeting in accordance with Missouri’s Sunshine Law (Revised Statutes of Missouri 610.010, 610.020, 610.023, and 610.024.)

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

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

Figure 1.5.1 Planning Committee Meetings Meeting Agenda Date General Overview: mitigation, hazard mitigation plans, update General Planning #1 process, benefits of participation, requirements for participating 5/23/2017 jurisdictions Measures of Probability and Severity; decision made to update all General Planning #2 sections of plan; hazard profiling and mitigation actions for Levee 6/12/2017 Failure, Flooding, and Dam Failure Hazard profiling and mitigation actions for Tornado, Windstorm, General Planning #3 6/26/2017 Hailstorm, and Severe Winter Weather Hazard profiling and mitigation actions for Drought, Extreme Heat, General Planning #4 7/10/2017 Wildfire, and Land Subsidence/Sinkholes

*There will be a final meeting following the submission of this draft to discuss the plan going forward and achieving mitigation goals and actions.

In addition to the group planning meetings, other information was gathered by the plan author through individual meetings, phone conversations and emails with representatives of participating jurisdictions and others with information relevant to the plan. This was necessary in part because finding a meeting time (evening versus day) which would allow attendance by all parties was difficult. The update also was expedited to a period from May to July, under two months, requiring quick gathering of information outside of meetings.

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

Figure 1.5.2 Primary Planning Representatives Jurisdiction Name Position Bill John Emergency Management Director Bryan Kunze Emergency Management Director Sam Stroupe Howard County Commission Richard Conrow Howard County Commission Howard County Howard McMillan Howard County Commission Dana Campbell Deputy County Clerk Sam Stroupe Howard County Commission Gary Dillon Roads and Bridges Department Harley Owen Mayor City of Armstrong Bob Cramer City Council Robin Triplett City Administrator Bill John Fayette Emergency Management City of Fayette Jeff Oswald Fayette Police Chief David Ford Fayette Police Dept. City of Glasgow Kevin Atwood City Administrator/Police Chief City of New Franklin Cathy Lammers City Administrator New Franklin R-I School District David Haggard Superintendent Howard Co. R-II School District Mike Reynolds Superintendent Fayette R-III School District Tamara Kimball Superintendent Central Methodist University Derry Wiswall Director of Plant Operations Howard Co. Regional Water Commission Robin Triplett Board Member Howard Co. Fire Protection District Bryan Kunze Fire Fighter Armstrong Fire Protection District Glenn Spotts Vice President Fayette Fire Dept. Bryan Kunze Representative Randy Kircher President Bonne Femme Levee District #1 Gene Sandner Secretary/Treasurer Howard Co. Levee District # 2 Larry Wilmsmeyer Secretary Howard Co. Drainage District # 3 Eric Colvin Secretary Howard Co. Levee District #4 Greg Felton Secretary Howard Co. Levee District #6 Jim Lay Secretary Howard Co. Drainage District # 7 Steve Shipp President .

Public Meetings for Comment and Input

In order to develop a more comprehensive approach to reducing the Requirement effects of natural disasters, the planning process shall include:

§201.6(b): (1) An opportunity for the public to comment on the plan during the drafting stage and prior to plan approval; In order to develop a more comprehensive approach to reducing the effects of natural disasters, the planning process shall include: (2) An opportunity for neighboring communities, local and Requirement regional agencies involved in hazard mitigation activities, and §201.6(b): agencies that have the authority to regulate development, as well as businesses, academia and other private and non-profit interests to be involved in the planning process;

While all planning meetings were posted as public meetings in accordance with Missouri’s Sunshine Law, the Mid-Missouri Regional Planning Commission and Howard County plan to hold two meetings after the initial draft is sent to SEMA in order to obtain adequate public comment. In addition to being posted in accordance with Missouri’s Sunshine Law, planning meetings were announced through the following:  Direct email invitations to Emergency Management Directors in the surrounding counties (Boone, Chariton, Cooper, Randolph, and Saline)  Phone calls and letters sent by the Howard County Commission and the Howard County Emergency Management Directors  Public notice posting at Mid-Missouri Regional Planning Commission office  Calendar listing on the Mid-Missouri Regional Planning Commission website (www.mmmrpc.org)

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

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

Figure 1.5.3 General Review and Update of Plan by Section Pages Description (Original Revised Plan) Executive Summary 7 Yes Howard County Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee 8 Yes All information on the planning process is included in Section 1 of the update. Project Managers 8 Yes All information on the planning process is included in Section 1 of the update. Section 1: Introduction Moved some material from Section 1 to more appropriate sections in the plan. Added some material and reorganized according to the following subsections: 9-16 Yes Purpose, Background, History of the Howard County Hazard Mitigation Plan, Participating Jurisdictions, and The Update Process. Material on Plan Monitoring was moved to a new Section in updated plan (Section 5: Plan Maintenance Process). Section 2: Community Profile Updated all charts and graphs to reflect more recent data. NFIP information moved to Section 3 under Flood. Section was 17-36 Yes reorganized and renamed "Planning Area Profile and Capabilities" for updated plan. Section 3: Risk Assessment Updated all charts and graphs; edited text to reflect new information; changed rating system of each hazard to "Measure of Probability and Severity" using a rating system modeled on the one in the Missouri State Hazard Mitigation Plan 2010; reorganized 37-122 Yes hazard profiles and made specific changes to each hazard profile to make the plan a more relevant and useful document; reformatted vulnerability assessments to meet current interpretation of FEMA guidelines; removed hazard profile worksheets. Section 4: Capability Assessment 123-134 Yes Section removed entirely: this information is now in Section 2. Section 5: Mitigation Goals and Strategies Updated the mitigation actions to reflect decisions made by those involved in the 135-168 Yes planning process. This is now Section 4 in the update and is entitled "Mitigation Strategy". Section 6: Plan Maps 169-180 Yes Removed all maps; numerous new maps created. Section 7: FEMA Repetitive Losses Table 181 Yes Removed this section; this is now discussed in Section 3 under Flood. Endnotes 183-184 Yes Removed this section; cited sources in the body of the text or in charts. Appendix A: Jurisdiction Resolutions na Yes Replaced resolutions with current resolutions for updated plan.

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

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

Sources Consulted

In order to develop a more comprehensive approach to reducing the Requirement effects of natural disasters, the planning process shall include:

§201.6(b): (3) Review and incorporation, if appropriate, of existing plans, studies, reports, and technical information.

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

 The Missouri State Hazard Mitigation Plan (2013), State Emergency Management Agency (SEMA), was used extensively in developing the hazard profiles and vulnerability assessments in Section 3. Some information from the 2007 State Plan and 2010 State Plan (not included in the 2013 State Plan) were also used in this plan.

 The Missouri Hazard Analysis (2013), SEMA, was used in developing the hazard profiles in Section 3.

 Howard County Local Emergency Operations Plan (LEOP) - Relevant information from the LEOP has been integrated into the appropriate sections of the Howard County Hazard Mitigation Plan, specifically in the section on Communications and Media.

 SEMA Situation Reports were used in profiling previous occurrences of some of the natural hazards (Section 3). The Situation Reports document levels of damage and disruption (by county) for major events. The type of information potentially available includes power outages and restoration progress, sheltering needs, and buildings damaged. This information was used to supplement the more generalized NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) data. (Note: In the early drafting stages of this plan, an archive of Situation Reports was available online; due to a remake of the SEMA website, only more recent reports appear to be available at the current time.) 15

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

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

 The Regional Transportation Plan (2009), Mid-MO Regional Planning Commission, was used in developing the Transportation section (Section 2.8).

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

 The Missouri Drought Plan (2002), Missouri Department of Natural Resources, was used to develop the Hazard Profile on Drought.

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

 The Drought of 2012 report published by the State of Missouri (February 2013) was used for the update of the Drought profile (Section 3.2.2).

 The Missouri Spatial Data Information Service (MSDIS) was used in acquiring numerous geospatial and imagery datasets for the development of maps (entire plan).

 The FEMA Flood Map Service Center data portal was used in the creation of flood maps (Section 3).

 The US Army Corps of Engineers National Levee Database (NLD) was used in the location and mapping of flood levees (Section 3).

Section 2: Planning Area Profile and Capabilities

2.1 Geography and Ecology

Howard County is located in central Missouri with an area covering approximately 472 square miles (2010 Census). It is midway between Kansas City to the west and St. Louis to the east.

The county is bordered on the south and southwest by the Missouri River, which separates it from Cooper and Saline Counties, respectively. It is bordered on the northwest by Chariton County, on the north by Randolph County, and on the east by Boone County.

Ecologically, the county is situated where the Ozark Highlands to the south meet the plains to the north. Figure 2.1

Ozark Highlands Most of the county, except for the northwest section, is located in the northern part of the Ozark Highlands. The Atlas of Missouri Ecoregions, published by the Missouri Department of Conservation, describes the Ozark Highlands as:

“A distinctive biogeographic region that includes most of southern Missouri and much of northern Arkansas and small parts of Illinois, Oklahoma, and Kansas. Geologically, the Ozark Highlands is a low structural dome of essentially horizontally bedded strata that has been undergoing erosion and weathering for a quarter billion years into a thoroughly dissected plateau.”

The Ozark Highlands is very diverse biologically and geographically with rugged hills, prairies, savannas, and open woodlands. The predominant underlying bedrock is carbonate (limestone and dolomite), giving rise to karst topographic features such as caves, underground streams, and sinkholes. The majority of land in Howard County falls into two different subsections of the Ozark Highlands distinguished by differing landforms, soils, and vegetation (see Figure 2.1.1). In turn, these subsections give rise to differences in land use patterns, conservation needs, and vulnerability to certain natural hazards.

Figure 2.1.1

The following information summarized from the Atlas of Missouri Ecoregions gives brief descriptions of the land types found within the Ozark Highlands subsections in Howard County. Missouri River Alluvial Plain This subsection, consisting of the Missouri River channel and its adjoining alluvial plain, is found along the southern and southwestern border of the county. Soils are deep and loamy and the area is subject to riverine flooding. Historically, the vegetation was typical bottomland species such as cottonwood, willow, sycamore, silver maple, elm, and hackberry. The area is primarily used for cropland. The cities of Franklin and New Franklin are located at least partially in the Missouri River Alluvial Plain. Outer Ozark Border This subsection comprises most of the land area of the County, except for that in the northwest and along the Missouri River channel. The land is transitional between the Ozarks and the Dissected Till Plain. Local relief of 150 feet may reach 200 feet near the Missouri River. The uplands have a covering of loess over till; the loess may be quite deep in the blufflands. Deep ravines are found in some areas. Springs are saline and streams tend to be also. Historically, the area was oak forest. Currently, the area is predominantly pasture with cropland; second-growth forests and cedar thickets are found in isolated patches. The City of Fayette is located in the Outer Ozark Border.

Central Dissected Till Plains The northwest part of the county is located in the Central Dissected Till Plains, which the Atlas of Missouri Ecoregions describes as:

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

More specifically, the land in Howard County is found in two subsections of the Central Dissected Till Plains, the Loess Hills Subsection and the Chariton River Hills Subsection (see Figure 2.1.1). Loess Hills Subsection This subsection, which comprises most of northwest Howard County including the cities of Glasgow and Armstrong, consists of rugged, deep loess hills with local relief typically over 200 feet. Historically, the area was forested with oak and other hardwoods. Currently, second growth forests remain along with pasture and scattered croplands. Chariton River Hills Subsection A small slip of the land east of Armstrong belongs to this subsection which is characterized by local reliefs of 100-200 feet and moderately wide valleys. The southern part of this subsection was mined for coal, but much of the land has been reclaimed. The area is currently cropland and pastureland.

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

Figure 2.1.2

The Missouri River The Missouri River's relationship to Howard County deserves special attention. It is the defining physical feature in Mid-Missouri and forms the southern and southwestern borders of the County. The location of population centers close to the river has meant significant flooding damage in the County in the recent past (see Section 2.4).

The Missouri River is the longest river in the nation; it measures 2,341 miles long, according to the U.S. Geological Survey. The river drains approximately one sixth of the North American continent and is only a few hundred miles from its confluence with the Mississippi River at St. Louis when it flows through mid-Missouri.

Flood control structures, power plants, and other engineering projects have profoundly changed the course of the river since Lewis and Clark first traversed it in the early 1800s. In recent years debates over the future of the Missouri River have taken place among the seven states through which it run. Commercial river traffic, recreational use, environmental concerns, managing river levels to comply with the needs of endangered species, and the preservation of sacred and historical sites along the river and floodplain are all issues which make the management of the river a sensitive balancing act.

In 1998 the Missouri River was listed as one of the “10 Most Endangered Rivers in the Country”1 by American Rivers, a river conservation group. This “Most Endangered” list does not reflect the rivers in the worst condition; rather, it seeks to highlight rivers “confronted by decisions in the coming year that could determine their future.” The Missouri River was chosen for the list in the mid-1990s because of dam, channelization, navigation, and agricultural runoff issues.

The flooding of the river in 2011 brought the controversy over its management into sharp focus. Record snowfalls in the Rockies combined with heavy spring rains to result in record water releases from six reservoirs on the river. Flooding occurred along the river from Montana to Missouri; Howard County dealt with high river levels for most of the summer and was included in a Presidential Disaster Declaration for flooding.

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers came under sharp criticism for not releasing water earlier in the season so the reservoirs would be able to accommodate the snow melt and rains. Meetings were held throughout the Missouri River Basin where local frustration was voiced over species protection and recreation being prioritized over flood control in river management decisions.

1 https://s3.amazonaws.com/american-rivers-website/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/24093245/MER_1998.pdf 22

2.2 Climate

Howard County, like the rest of the state of Missouri, has variable weather patterns and temperature extremes. With its central continental location, Missouri receives air masses bringing weather from all directions.

Warm humid air from the Gulf of Mexico can bring moisture year round and is the principal source of precipitation in the spring, summer, and fall; in contrast, air from other directions may be hot and dry (southwest), warm and dry (west), cold (northwest and north), cool and moist (northeast). The flow from the different source regions typically changes in a matter of days, giving rise to the commonly heard expression in Missouri, “If you don’t like the weather, wait a day.”

At times, the flow of air from one of the source regions will settle in and persist for weeks or months. These periods are associated with particular upper air flow patterns and associated surface conditions.

The Missouri State Hazard Mitigation Plan quotes Dr. Grant Darkow of the University of Missouri - Department of Atmospheric Science on the importance of understanding these weather patterns:

“The persistence of these weather patterns and the possible resulting condition is the subject of several of the natural disasters discussed in this study. Specifically, floods, droughts, fires, heat waves, severe cold, and winter storms can be the result of the persistence of one of these weather patterns, whereas tornadoes can represent the outgrowth of rapid shifts in weather patterns. Knowing these patterns may assist in alerting disaster planners and the general public to the possibility of a developing emergency situation.”

While Howard County does have extreme variations in weather at times, there is a relative pattern of temperature and rainfall consistent with a humid continental climate (see Figures 2.2.1 and 2.2.2). The data shown in the charts was collected at the New Franklin weather station in the years 1961-1990. The rainfall data showed an average of 37.1” of rainfall per year; average rainfall in this data set is defined as including precipitation of any form.

Fig. 2.2.1 Average Temperature in Howard County °F, 1961-1990

100 90 80 70 60 High 50 24-hr 40 Low 30 20 10 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Yr

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

2.3 History

The area which is now Howard County first gained the attention of European Americans when the famous Lewis and Clark expedition explored the banks of the Missouri River. Their voyage stopped in and near Howard County both on their outgoing and homeward journeys in 1804 and 1806 respectively.

The county was officially organized on January 23, 1816 and took its name from Benjamin Howard, the first governor of the Missouri Territory. It received its nickname, the “Mother of Counties," because it was the first county in the Boon's Lick region of central Missouri and “gave birth” to most of the surrounding counties. Twenty-nine counties were eventually carved out of the original area of Howard County.

Agriculture Howard County has had an important connection to agriculture for an extended period of time. The first European settlers moved to the area in the early 1800s in order to start farming in the rich soils of the Missouri River bottoms. This "land of promise" as it was known at the time was to be an agricultural paradise. Ironically, the early settlers found themselves more dependent on the game in the region rather than crops.

Widespread farming did not occur until more people settled in the region in the mid 1800s. Eventually, agriculture became the dominant way of life and the area produced crops such as tobacco, corn, and wheat.

Migration West Howard County was also the beginning of the famous Santa Fe Trail during America’s original westward migration. Unlike many of the trails which were essentially one-way trails leading settlers to the west, the Santa Fe Trail was a two-way trail for trade and commerce. It brought people, goods, and services through Howard County from 1821 until the completion of railroad routes in the 1860s.

2.4 Natural Hazard History

Howard County has been subject to many natural hazards in the past. Floods, droughts, windstorms, hail, tornadoes, severe winter weather, and extreme heat have all taken their tolls. A brief overview of the more recent natural hazard events in the county will be discussed here; more extensive history will be given with each Hazard Profile in Section 3 of the plan.

Probably the most prominent natural hazard within recent memory is the Flood of 1993 (see Figures 2.4.1-2.4.3). This flood was devastating to much of Missouri and the Midwest, but Howard County was one of the counties hit hardest in the state. According to data from the U.S. Corps of Engineers, there was between $1 Million and $5 Million damage to both residential property and the transportation system in the county. Commercial property sustained between $1 Million and $10 Million in damages. Over 50,000 acres of agricultural land were impacted costing more than $10 Million in losses.

Figure 2.4.1

Photo Courtesy of Fayette Advertiser/Democrat Leader

Figure 2.4.2

Fayette Advertiser/Democrat Leader 26

Figure 2.4.3

Estimates of the per capita costs of this flood for the six counties in the Mid-Missouri Region are shown in Figure 2.4.4. This chart reflects both the heavy losses in Howard County and the fact that it has the lowest population of the six counties.

Figure 2.4.4 Per Capita Costs of 1993 Flood in Central Missouri

Moniteau Howard

Cooper

Cole Callaway Boone $0 $100 $200 $300 $400 $500 $600 $700

Public Facilties Commercial Residential Source: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

The devastating flood of 1993 was followed by serious flooding once again in 1995. There has been only one year since this time when an official report of flooding in Howard County has not been submitted to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

Thunderstorms can be expected annually. In most years there are reports of associated Hail someplace in the county and often reports of high winds (Windstorms).

Less frequently, thunderstorms will lead to Tornadoes in the area. Howard County experienced nine tornadoes between 1958 and 2017 resulting in at least $1.025 million in property damage.

Severe Winter Weather can be expected in Howard County on a general average of every second or third year. The county was included in Major Disaster Declarations for severe winter weather in 2007 and 20112.

Periods of Extreme Heat are fairly common, usually in July or August. Drought is an ever present concern and has taken its toll in the County in the past. Most recently in 2012 when the entire state of Missouri was declared to be a disaster area due to drought.

2 http://sema.dps.mo.gov/maps_and_disasters/disasters/ 28

2.5 Demographics

Some key demographic statistics for Howard County and the State of Missouri are shown in Figure 2.5.1. The statistics as a whole paint a picture of county with a stable population and where household income is moderately below the state average while the poverty level is above the state average. The mean travel time to work nearly equal to the state average; more information on this can be found in Section 2.8 (Transportation and Commuting Patterns).

Figure 2.5.1 Selected Demographic Statistics Howard County Missouri Total population 10,182 6,045,448 Estimated population change (2010 to 2015)* -0.1% 1.6% Percentage of population 65 years and older 16.0% 15.0% High school graduate or higher (age 25+) 87.4% 88.4% Bachelor's degree or higher (age 25+) 24.2% 27.1% Median household income in the past 12 months $44,820 $48,173 Percentage of people below the poverty level 16.7% 15.6% Average commute time to work (minutes) 23.5 23.2 Percentage speaking language other than English at home 1.2% 6.0% Sources: Data are from U.S. Census Bureau, 2011-2015 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates unless marked * *U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division

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

Figure 2.5.2 Race/Ethnicity in Howard County Race/Ethnicity % White alone 91.7 Black or African-American alone 5.2 Two or more races 1.7 Asian alone <0.5 American Indian and Alaska Native <1.0 Some other race alone <0.5 White non-Hispanic 90.8 Hispanic 1.4 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2011-2015 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates

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

Figure 2.5.3

Vulnerable Populations The elderly, children, and the poor are all particularly vulnerable to natural hazards. Data collected through the American Community Survey between 2011-2015 it is estimated that over 10% of the county’s population was under the age of 10 and 16% was 65 years and older (see Figure 2.5.4).

Age Demographics - Howard County

16 14 12 10 8 6 Percent 4 2 0

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2011-2015 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates

The elderly and those recovering from health emergencies are often living in specific group residences or facilities. The locations of these nursing homes and residential care facilities are shown in Figure 2.10.4 (Section 2.10 Participating Jurisdictions – Profiles and Assets).

The poor are also a vulnerable population. Poor housing conditions, lack of reliable transportation, and inadequate insurance can all contribute to making the impacts of a natural hazard worse for people living in poverty. Those living below the poverty level in Howard County was estimated to account for 16.7% of the total population of the county, according to the American Community Survey 2011-2015 (see Figure 2.5.1).

Howard County Sheltered Workshop Endless Options, which supports Howard County citizens with developmental disabilities, is located in Fayette. This private not-for-profit, 501(c) 3 organization receives some funding through Howard County. Endless Options provides employment services, day services, and residential services aimed at helping people live in their own homes.

2.6 Education

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

Figure 2.6.1

Students are considered to be a vulnerable population as they are dependent on others for natural hazard information during the school day. A mitigation plan must take this into account. Often, this has been done by building schools out of or away from floodplains and having safe areas within the school where the students can assemble in the event of a disaster. School buildings can also be potential locations for community shelters and safe rooms.

As of the 2015-2016 school year, there were 1,586 students and 134 staff members in the public and private schools in the Planning Area (see Figure 2.6.2).

Figure 2.6.2 Howard County Pre-K - 12 Schools Public Location Schools Students Staff New Franklin R-I New Franklin 2 469 39 Glasgow Glasgow 2 328 29 Fayette R-III Fayette 3 665 53 Total 7 1462 121 Private Grace N. Glory Christian Academy New Franklin 1 5 2 St. Mary's School Glasgow 1 119 11 Total 2 124 13 Total Public and Private 9 1586 134 Sources: https://www.publicschoolreview.com/missouri/howard-county; http://www.50states.com/missouri/glasgow__schools.htm

Higher Education The main campus of Central Methodist University (CMU) is located in the City of Fayette; the university has eighteen other campus centers located outside of the Planning Area. Undergraduate student enrollment on the Fayette campus was 1,094 in 2016. There are 358 faculty and staff (includes full-time and part-time employees) bringing the total population on campus to 1,530. CMU is a designated Red Cross shelter facility location and a participating jurisdiction in the Howard Co. Hazard Mitigation Plan. More specific jurisdictional information on CMU can be found in Section 2.10 (Participating Jurisdictions – Profiles and Assets)

Howard County Library District The Howard County Library District provides library services and computer access for residents of Howard County. The Howard County Public Library is located in the City of Fayette and, in addition to books, offers internet access to patrons. This is a valuable service as internet access in many areas of Howard County is limited due to its rural location. In addition to the library in Fayette, a librarian brings library services to Armstrong and New Franklin through mobile library visits twice a month.

2.7 Employment and Income Many of the major employers for Howard County residents are not located in Howard County. Howard County citizens rely heavily on nearby populated regional centers such as Columbia (Boone County), Boonville (Cooper County), Moberly (Randolph County) and Marshall (Saline County) for employment and other commercial activity.

Howard County was removed from the Columbia, MO Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) in 2010 when commuting between the county and other affiliated counties in the MSA dropped significantly. More information on commuting patterns in Howard County is found in Section 2.8 (Transportation and Commuting Patterns.)

Major Employers The major employers located in Howard County, according to the Howard County Economic Development Council, are by sector: Health and Education  Central Methodist University – Fayette  University Physicians – Fayette Medical Clinic  Fayette School District  New Franklin School District  Glasgow School District  The Braun Home – Fayette  Fayette Caring Center  Boone Medical Clinic – Glasgow Manufacturing  American Discovery Textile Manufacturing – Glasgow  Hart Diesel – Fayette  Missouri Pacific Lumber – Fayette  Monnig Industries – Glasgow  Penny Plate – Glasgow  Phoenix Manufacturing – Glasgow Other  Addison Biological Laboratories – Fayette  Inovatia Laboratories – Fayette  Jennings Premium Meats – New Franklin  C&R Supermarket – Fayette  Howard Electric Cooperative – Fayette

Agriculture Agriculture is still widely seen throughout Howard County but it has lost its place as the dominant economic source in the county. Manufacturing, education, and other types of employment have overtaken farming.

The University of Missouri’s Horticulture & Agroforestry Research Center (HARC) is located in New Franklin. The 665-acre research farm is also the site of the U.S. National Arboretum Midwest Plant Research and Education Site. Key research areas include flood tolerance studies, high value mushroom production, and development of eastern black walnut, northern pecan, and Chinese chestnut orchard crops. The annual Missouri Chestnut Roast in the fall draws more than 4,000 visitors to the Center; although this annual event was cancelled in 2011 due to budget cuts at the University of Missouri, it was resumed in 2015 and 2016.

Income A breakdown of household incomes is shown in Figure 2.7.1. Figure 2.7.1 Household Income and Benefits in Howard County Income # of Households % of Households Less than $10,000 358 9.6% $10,000 - $14,999 250 6.7% $15,000 - $24,999 431 11.6% $25,000 - $34,999 454 12.2% $35,000 - $49,999 566 15.2% $50,000 - $74,999 666 17.9% $75,000 - $99,999 410 11.0% $100,000 - $149,999 380 10.2% $150,000 - $199,999 136 3.6% $200,000 or more 78 2.1% Median household income $44,820 Mean household income $57,639 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2011-2015 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates

Unemployment Rates The unemployment rate in Howard County in the recent past has been lower than the national rate and either consistent with, or somewhat higher, than the average for the six counties of the Mid-MO RPC Region (Boone, Callaway, Cole, Cooper, Howard, and Moniteau Counties). Similarly to the rest of the country, Howard county had a sharply rising unemployment rate after the economic downturn in 2007. Following 2011, the recession gradually turned around, and the unemployment rate of the county has been on a downward trend.

Figure 2.7.2 Unemployment Rates 10.0 9.0

8.0

7.0 Howard County 6.0 Mid-MO Region 5.0

Percentage State of Missouri 4.0 3.0 US 2.0

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics - http://www.bls.gov/lau/

2.8 Transportation and Commuting Patterns Roadways Howard County, like most of the rural United States, is heavily dependent upon roads and personal vehicles (see Figure 2.8.1). Roads are the dominant artery for the county, moving all goods and services that flow in and out of the county. The Missouri Department of Transportation (MoDOT) maintains the state and federal roads in the county. Howard County Public Works takes care of the remaining roads while the incorporated communities maintain their roads. The busiest roads in Howard County are Routes 5 and 240. Route 5 runs north-south through the county and Route 240 runs from the southeast to the northwest. Between 2,000 and 3,000 cars a day travel Route 5 and roughly the same amount travel Route 240. Access to Interstate 70 is a short distance from New Franklin and is often used to go to regional centers such as Columbia.

Public Transportation OATS, Inc., a private not-for-profit corporation, is the predominant provider of public transportation in Howard County. The organization was founded by a group of seniors in 1971 as transportation for older citizens. Its current mission is to “provide reliable transportation for transportation disadvantaged Missourians so they can live independently in their own communities.” OATS serves a wide diversity of citizens in 87 Missouri counties for them to travel in-town, within the county, to adjacent county, or long-distance beyond two counties. From Howard County, OATS provides a monthly service to Moberly in Randolph County. OATS predominantly serves the elderly and disabled, but will serve anyone needing transportation.

Airports Howard County does not have a public passenger airport. There is a small public-use airport owned by the City of Boonville in neighboring Cooper County to the south. The nearest airport with commercial service is the Columbia Regional Airport (Boone County), approximately forty miles to the southeast of Fayette, the seat of Howard County. Airports in Kansas City to the west and St. Louis to the east provide national and international service; both cities are located approximately 150 miles from Fayette.

Railroads Rail Freight The Gateway and Western Railroad carries freight through the Northern third of Howard County; the freight trains enter the County at Glasgow, pass through Armstrong, and exit the County near the northern boundary with Randolph County. Passenger Rail The nearest Amtrak passenger rail connection in Jefferson City (Cole County), approximately 60 miles from Fayette.

Figure 2.8.1

Commuting Patterns Howard County has the highest percentage of workers commuting outside of their place of residence compared to surrounding counties and other Mid-Missouri counties (see Figure 2.8.2). This is the second highest average commute time in the region (see Figure 2.8.3).

Figure 2.8.2 Worked Outside Place of Residence

Howard Boone Callaway Chariton Cole Cooper Moniteau Randolph Saline Missouri

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

Percentage

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2011-2015 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates

Figure 2.8.3 Commute Time in Counties of Mid-MO Region

Howard

Boone

Callaway

Cole

Cooper

Moniteau

Missouri

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Minutes Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2011-2015 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates

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

Figure 2.8.4 Commuting Destinations of Howard County Workers Location of Work # of Trips % of Total Trips Missouri Counties Howard 2,013 47.8% Boone 1,186 28.1% Cooper 608 14.4% Chariton 112 2.7% Randolph 112 2.7% Saline 65 1.5% Johnson 27 0.6% Moniteau 26 0.6% Greene 18 0.4% Callaway 16 0.4% Cole 16 0.4% Camden 15 0.4% Total 4,214 100.0% * Only includes destinations with at least 15 trips Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2009-2013 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates

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

Figure 2.8.5 Residence of Howard County Workers MO County of Residence # of Trips % of Total Trips Howard 2,013 78.3% Boone 239 9.3% Chariton 94 3.7% Cooper 93 3.6% Saline 68 2.6% St. Louis 36 1.4% Randolph 27 1.1% Total 2,570 100.0% * Only includes destinations with at least 15 trips Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2009-2013 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates

2.9 Planning Area Capabilities

This section presents a general overview of capabilities found within the Planning Area. It begins with a discussion of the legal authority invested in the local governments by the State of Missouri. This is followed by an overview of policy, planning, and program capabilities within the Planning Area which can contribute to hazard mitigation efforts and the important roles of the special districts, non-governmental/volunteer organizations, and community/regional partnerships. The section ends with an assessment of the political willpower present in the Planning Area for taking action on hazard mitigation

Legal Authority Howard County has a variety of powers given to it by the State of Missouri relevant to mitigation activities at its disposal. A brief outline of these powers is listed below.

Land Use and Building Codes The State of Missouri has given local governments the right to create and enforce planning and zoning regulations around construction and development including areas within designated floodplains and subdivisions.

Acquisition Missouri legislation empowers cities, towns, and counties to acquire property for public purpose by gift, grant, devise, bequest, exchange, purchase, lease or eminent domain. Local governments may find the most effective method for completely “hazard-proofing” a particular piece of property or area is to acquire the property (either in fee or a lesser interest, such as an easement); this removes the property from the private market and eliminates or reduces the possibility of inappropriate development.

Taxation The power to levy taxes and special assessments is an important tool delegated to local governments by Missouri law. The power of taxation extends beyond the collection of revenue, and impacts the pattern of development in the community.

Local units of government also have the authority to levy special assessments on property owners for all or part of the costs of acquiring, constructing, reconstructing, or improving protective structures within a designated area. This can serve to increase the cost of building in such areas, thereby discouraging development. Special assessments seem to offer little in terms of control over land use in developing areas. They can, however, be used to finance the provision of necessary services within municipal or county boundaries. In addition, they are useful in distributing to the new property owners the costs of the infrastructure required by new development. The major constraint in using special assessments is political.

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

Police Powers The police are responsible for protecting the overall public; local governments can add requirements pertinent to hazard mitigation.

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

Figure 2.9.1 Plans and Regulations

Howard County and Incorporated Communities

x = Plan or regulations in place

County

Fayette

Howard

Glasgow

Franklin*

Armstrong NewFranklin

Master plan x x x

Emergency Operations Plan x x x x x x

Stormwater Plan x x

Building regulations x x x

Zoning regulations x x x

Subdivision regulations x x x

Stormwater regulations x x

Floodplain regulations x x x x x

NFIP participation x x x x x x

* Franklin is not a participating jurisdiction in the Howard County Hazard Mitigation Plan (2017).

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

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

Other Regulations The Cities of Fayette, Glasgow, and New Franklin all have building, zoning and subdivision regulations. Fayette is the only city with a building inspector.

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

National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) The National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) was established by an act of Congress in 1968. Jurisdictions which participate in the program are required to adopt and enforce floodplain regulations. Property owners in participating jurisdictions are able to purchase federal flood insurance.

Howard County and all of its incorporated communities participating in the NFIP are shown in Figure 2.9.2.

Figure 2.9.2 Howard County Jurisdictions Participating in NFIP Jurisdiction Entry into Program Date of Current FIRM Howard County 1/5/1989 3/21/2017 Armstrong 8/3/1984 10/16/2009 (M) Fayette 1/19/1983 10/16/2009 Franklin 3/2/1983 3/21/2017 Glasgow 8/2/1982 3/21/2017 New Franklin 1/19/1983 3/21/2017 * (M) indicates that no elevation was determined Source: https://www.fema.gov/cis/MO.pdf

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

Warning Procedures as Outlined in the Howard County EOP (see Figure 2.9.3): Initial warning information is received from either the Missouri Law Enforcement System (MULES) or the National Warning System (NAWAS), both of which have terminals located in the EOC. (MULES is a law enforcement computer data network operated by the Missouri Highway Patrol primarily for law enforcement operations. It is also used to disseminate information emergency information such as weather conditions, flood stages, and road conditions.) Warning information is also received from the National Weather Service (NWS) office in Pleasant Hill (Cass County).

The warning information, in turn, is dispersed throughout Howard County as well as Boonville in neighboring Cooper County.

The EOC automatically activates outdoor warning sirens in Fayette (3 sirens) and New Franklin (2 sirens). To initiate activation of the three sirens in Glasgow, the EOC radios the Glasgow Police Department; the police department and Glasgow Fire Protection District then manually set off the warning sirens in the city. Warnings in some municipalities and unincorporated areas are supplemented with mobile public address operations by the sheriff and municipal police. When warnings are issued, the EOC also begins telephone notification to special facilities.

Warning sirens are tested monthly.

During the update process, Armstrong was reported to have sirens. Based on their insurance coverage valuation, there is a siren listed. Although unconfirmed by the city, we can assume Armstrong has a warning siren based on their 2016 insurance statement.

Figure 2.9.3 Howard County Warning Flow Chart

Missouri Highway Patrol Troop F Jefferson City

Howard County E- 911 Dispatch Center

Law Enforcement Outdoor News Media Sheriff's Office Ambulance Service Public Works Sirens City Police

Source: Howard County EOP, Appendix 1 to Annex B

The EOC is staffed on a 24-hour basis. It is equipped with a back-up generator which can operate the equipment in case of a power interruption; the generator is tested weekly.

The Howard County Public Works and Fayette Public Works Departments provide their own dispatching. However, the EOC can provide radio communications if needed.

In addition to official alerts from MULES, NAWAS, and the NWS, trained weather spotters are available through the Howard County Sheriff’s Department, the Fire Protection Districts/Departments, Boonville (Cooper County) Police Department, and Boonville (Cooper County) Fire Department.

Local Amateur Radio operators can provide additional communications, if needed.

EAS: The nationwide Emergency Alert System (EAS), jointly coordinated by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), FEMA, and the NWS, provides a link between the government agencies monitoring potential hazards/emergencies and local broadcasters who can inform the public in a timely manner. The Planning Area is located in the Moberly EAS Operational Area.

Local Media: Local media outlets can also provide avenues for educating the public about emergency preparedness and the need for certain mitigation actions. The media points of contact for Emergency Operations in Howard County are shown in Figure 2.9.4. Text alerts provided by local media are reported to be the primary source of inclement weather notification in rural areas and areas where sirens cannot be heard.

Figure 2.9.4 Media Points of Contact Radio Stations Frequency Location KWIX 1230 AM Moberly (Randolph County) KWRT 1370 AM Boonville (Cooper County) KZBK 96.9 FM Brookfield (Linn County) KRES 104.7 FM Moberly (Randolph County) KTXY 106.9 FM Columbia (Boone County) TV Stations Channel Base City KRCG (CBS) 13 Jefferson City (Cole County) KOMU (NBC) 8 Columbia (Boone County) KMIZ (ABC) 17 Columbia (Boone County) Newspapers Boonville Daily News Boonville (Cooper County) Jefferson City News Tribune Jefferson City (Cole County) Source: Howard County EOP; Howard County Emergency Management Co-Directors; Missouri State EAS Plan

NOAA Weather Radio: The Planning Area is also covered by NOAA Weather Radio transmissions from two different sites. A tower site and transmitter in Jamestown in Moniteau County reaches most of Howard County (see Figure 2.9.5); the northwestern part of Howard County is reached by transmissions from Carrollton in Carroll County (see Figure 2.9.6). Severe weather updates, including tornado and severe thunderstorm warnings, flash flood warnings, and other 24-hour weather advisories are broadcast for the affected area. Special NOAA weather radios are activated when a severe weather bulletin is broadcast.

NOAA radios are available from many retail/wholesale stores. NOAA radios which have SAME (Specific Area Message Encoding) can be programmed to receive messages for only the geographical areas of interest and not the entire broadcast area.

Figure 2.9.5 Figure 2.9.6

Source: NOAA Weather Radio All Hazards - http://www.nws.noaa.gov/nwr/coverage/site2.php?State=MO&Site=KWN55

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

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

Figure 2.9.7 Howard County Fire Protection Districts/Departments Name Stations Volunteers Armstrong Fire Protection District 1 21 Fayette Fire Department 1 25* Glasgow Fire Protection District 1 25 Howard County Fire Protection District 3 60 * Volunteers are paid-per-call Sources: Fire districts and departments; https://usfiredept.com/howard-county-fire-protection-district- 11001.html; http://www.firedepartment.net/directory/missouri/howard-county

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

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

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

Figure 2.9.8

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

Figure 2.9.9

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

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

Howard County Consolidated Public Water Supply District #1 is a participating jurisdiction in the Hazard Mitigation Plan and is discussed in detail in Section 2.10 (Participating Jurisdictions – Profiles and Assets).

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

 An agreement and interconnection exists between Thomas Hill Public Water Supply District #1 and the City of Fayette Water for backup when needed.  Public Water Supply District #2 gets its water from the City of Glasgow; the City of Glasgow Water does not have any backup or interconnections in place but it does have two wells from which to operate. A mitigation action (#1.1.5) is included in Glasgow’s mitigation strategy which deals with establishing cooperative agreements for backup with other water districts.  In 2008, Fayette, New Franklin and Howard Co. Consolidated Public Water Supply District #1 joined together to form the Howard Co. Regional Water Commission. The Howard Co. Regional Water Commission began operating spring 2017, providing reliable water to the three entities (roughly 2/3rds of Howard County).

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

Road Districts In addition to the Howard County Roads and Bridges Department (General Road District #1), there are two special road districts located within the county which have their own elected officials. Armstrong Special Road District #42 maintains 27 miles of road in the northern part of the county; Glasgow Special Road District #60 maintains 30 plus miles of road in the Glasgow area.

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

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

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

Community and Regional Partnerships The Howard County government has working relationships with the towns and cities located within the county as well as with neighboring counties. This is particularly evident in mutual aid agreements that exist between fire jurisdictions, law enforcement jurisdictions, and emergency operations agencies, including 911.

Howard County jurisdictions have partnered successfully through and with the Mid-MO RPC on regional transportation planning and multiple local grant applications. In addition, local governments have representation on Mid-MO RPC transportation and economic development advisory committees.

Political Willpower Howard County has seen firsthand the effects of natural hazards, most notably the flood of 1993. Citizens are well aware of the impacts to life and property events such events can have on a community. Due to this high degree of awareness, current and future political climates are expected to be favorable for supporting and advancing hazard mitigation strategies in the Planning Area.

2.10 Participating Jurisdictions - Profiles and Assets

The jurisdictions in the Planning Area have many assets (both human and material) at risk from natural hazards. An overview of the population and critical infrastructure in the Planning Area begins this section.

This is followed by a profile of each participating jurisdiction. The profile includes some key demographics and an inventory of assets (including estimated building counts and assessed values). Estimated building counts for each jurisdiction were generated from HAZUS-MH software, a modeling software used by FEMA to compare relative risk from certain natural hazards. (In this section of the plan, only the software’s estimates of building numbers and types have been used.) Specific capabilities within a jurisdiction and any plans for future development are included with each profile.

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

Figure 2.10.1 Population Howard Co. Missouri Population 10,182 6,045,448 Persons under 5 years old 6.2% 6.2% Persons under 18 years old 22.5% 23.2% Persons between 18 and 65 years old 61.5% 61.8% Persons 65 years old and over 16.0% 15.0% Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2011-2015 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates

Critical Facilities Critical facilities are defined by FEMA as “… all manmade structures or other improvements that, because of their function, size, service area, or uniqueness, have the potential to cause serious bodily harm, extensive property damage, or disruption of vital socioeconomic activities if they are destroyed, damaged, or if their functionality is impaired.”

Critical facilities commonly include all public and private facilities that a community considers essential for the delivery of vital services and for the protection of the community (see Figures 2.10.2-2.10.5). The adverse effects of damaged critical facilities can extend far beyond direct physical damage. Disruption of health care, fire, and police services can impair search and rescue, emergency medical care, and even access to damaged areas.

Figure 2.10.2

Figure 2.10.3

Figure 2.10.4 Nursing Homes/Residential Care Facilities Name Location Emergency Generator The Lodge RT DD (south of Fayette) Yes Ashbury Heights of Fayette Fayette No Fayette Caring Center Fayette Yes Glasgow Gardens Glasgow Yes Maplelawn Residential Care Facility Co. Rd. 112 (NE Howard Co.) Yes Perkins Residential Care Center Fayette No Pierce Home Co. Rd. 241 (SW of Armstrong) Yes Public Housing Name Location Emergency Generator Glasgow Housing Authority Glasgow - Fayette Housing Authority Fayette - New Franklin Sr. Housing New Franklin - Developmental Care Name Location Emergency Generator Endless Options Fayette No The Braun Home Fayette No Sources: Howard County EOP; Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee

Critical Water Facilities Figure 2.10.5 Public Water Supply # of Towers/ Customers or District Tanks in Source of Water Meters Planning Area City of Armstrong* 0 Mark Twain Lake ~125 customers Howard Co. City of Fayette - ~1100 customers Regional Water Commission City of Glasgow 1 2 wells 512 customers Howard Co. City of New Franklin 1 425 meters Regional Water Commission Howard Co. Howard Co. Cons. PWSD #1 5 800 meters Regional Water Commission Howard Co. PWSD #2** - Glasgow's wells - Thomas Hill PWSD #1 0 Mark Twain Lake 928 customers * Armstrong purchases water from Clarence Cannon Wholesale Water Supply; and uses Thomas Hill Water Supply District #1's lines; the pressure from the Thomas Hill tower is sufficient to deliver water to Armstrong.

** Howard Co. PWSD #2 purchases its water from the City of Glasgow. Source: Cities and Public Water Supply Districts

Howard County

Figure 2.10.6 Howard County Profile Classification Third class county Population 10,182 Median household income $44,820 Median owner-occupied housing value $97,900 Total housing units 4,541 Howard County Regional Water Commission, Water service Thomas Hill, City of Glasgow Howard Electric Cooperative, City of Fayette, Electric service KCP&L, Ameren Missouri Ambulance service Howard County Ambulance Service Sewer service Varies throughout county Fire service Varies throughout county Website No Master plan Yes Emergency Operations Plan Yes Stormwater Plan No Building regulations No Zoning regulations No Subdivision regulations No Stormwater regulations No NFIP participation Yes Floodplain regulations Yes Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2011-2015 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates; local officials

Governmental Structure Howard County is governed by an elected three member Board of Commissioners composed of a Presiding Commissioner, an Eastern District Commissioner, and a Western District Commissioner. The Commission carries out the following responsibilities:  establishes Howard County policy  approves and adopts the annual budget for all County operations  approves actual expenditures for each department  supervises the operations of County departments  ensures County-wide compliance with numerous statutory requirements  acts as liaison with County boards, commissions, and other local and regional governmental entities

Howard County has the following departments and offices:  Assessor  Auditor  Collector  County Clerk  Emergency Management  Prosecuting Attorney  Public Administrator  Public Health Department  Public Works  Recorder  Sheriff  Treasurer

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

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

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

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

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

Agriculture An overview of agricultural land and the value of crop and livestock production in Howard County is shown in Figure 2.10.7. Since 80.6% of the land area of Howard County is farmland, the impact of agricultural losses due to a natural hazard could have wide ranging effects.

Figure 2.10.7 2007 Howard County Agricultural Overview Number of Farms 765 Total Farm Acreage 243,420 (80.6% of land in Howard County) Total Market Value of Products Sold $47,778,000 Crop Sales $37,015,000 Livestock Sales $10,763,000 Source: 2012 Census of Agriculture - https://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2012/Online_Resources/County_Profiles/Missouri/cp29089.pdf

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

Figure 2.10.8 Public Land in Howard County (unincorporated) Area Name Responsible Agency Acres Rudolf Bennitt Conservation Area MO Dept. of Conservation 3515* Davisdale Conservation Area MO Dept. of Conservation 2701 Diana Bend Conservation Area MO Dept. of Conservation 1343 Franklin Island Conservation Area MO Dept. of Conservation 1625 Hungry Mother Conservation Area MO Dept. of Conservation 274 Moniteau Creek Conservation Area MO Dept. of Conservation 844 Boone's Lick State Historic Site MO Dept. of Natural Resources 51 *includes area in Boone and Randolph Counties Source: MO Dept. of Conservation - http://mdc.mo.gov; MO Dept. of Natural Resources - https://mostateparks.com

Historic Places

Figure 2.10.9 National Register of Historic Places - Howard County (unincorporated) Historic Place Location Boonslick State Park Boonsboro Finks-Harvey Plantation Roanoke Source: http://nrhp.focus.nps.gov/natreghome.do

Figure 2.10.10 Property Count and Valuation - Howard County (unincorporated)

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

2016 Assessed Values - Howard County

Real Estate Personal Property Residential $53,747,960 Agricultural $13,976,950 $29,830,946 Commercial $9,602,170 Total $77,327,080 $29,830,946 Source: Howard County Assessor's Office

County Owned Property

Property Replacement Cost Buildings Courthouse $2,635,000 Gazebo $7,650 Shop Building $150,000 Equipment Shed $75,000 Keller Building $3,120,854 Jail $1,969,000 Total Building Insured Value $7,957,504 Vehicles $642,496 Total $8,600,000 Source: Howard County Clerk, Howard Co. Insurance Statement

Future Development Plans Information from the U.S. Census indicates that the population of Howard County slightly increased by 0.4% between the years 2010 and 2015. Public officials and private enterprises are working to create more jobs and economic development in the county.

The Board of Directors of the Howard County Economic Development Council (HCEDC), with a wide representation of jurisdictions and agencies throughout the county, directs the economic development strategy for the county.

In November 2011, the Howard County Industrial Park was successfully designated as Missouri Certified Site #11 in the State of Missouri by the Missouri Department of Economic Development (DED). In 2015, the Howard County Industrial Park received recertification for another three years. The purpose of the Certified Sites Program, according to the DED website, is to:

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

The site, owned by Howard County and located south of Fayette, is currently the only Certified Site in the state which is not located in a city. It is promoted on the Missouri Department of Economic Development Certified Sites webpage and by Moberly Area Economic Development Corporation.

With continued economic development efforts in the county, there may be a reverse in the population trend observed over the previous decade. Future development can potentially be impacted by a number of natural hazards. Mitigation measures should be considered during the planning stages of any development.

Armstrong

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

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

Figure 2.10.11 Armstrong Profile Classification Fourth class city Population 364 Median household income $32,500 Median owner-occupied housing value $35,400 Total housing units 153 Water service Thomas Hill Public Water Supply District #1 Electric service Kansas City Power and Light Ambulance service Howard County Ambulance Service Sewer service City of Armstrong Fire service Armstrong Fire Protection District Website No Master plan No Emergency Operations Plan Yes Stormwater Plan No Building regulations No Zoning regulations No Subdivision regulations No Stormwater regulations No NFIP participation Yes Floodplain regulations Yes

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2011-2015 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates; local officials

Figure 2.10.12 Property Count and Valuation - Armstrong HAZUS Building Count Building Type # Residential 114 Commercial 4 Industrial - Agricultural - Religious 1 Governmental 3 Educational 0 Source: City of Armstrong 2016 Assessed Values - Armstrong Real Estate Personal Property Residential 1,170,427 $469,881 Total $1,170,427 $469,881 Source: Howard County Assessor's Office City Owned Property Property Replacement Cost City Hall/Community Building $185,000 Contents $10,000 Warning Sirens $6,500 Old City Buildings $10,000 Total $211,500 Source: City of Armstrong

Future Development Plans and Update The new City Hall/Community Building was completed in 2013. It is equipped with an automatic generator; when the electricity goes out, the generator automatically comes on. The city received used playground equipment from Kansas City Missouri School Board and was installed in the City Park. The Installation was completed in June 2012. Working with Mid-MO Regional Planning Commission, the City of Armstrong has received a grant from CDBG for street improvements and additional repairs of manholes and manhole covers. The city is in the process of obtaining a building to house street and maintenance equipment. This project should be accomplished by the time the CDBG grant is finished. The city installed a larger warning siren behind the new city hall that was donated by the Armstrong Fire Protection District. The city has purchased battery lights for use at the Baptist Church basement, which is designated as a Red Cross shelter during storms.

Fayette

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

Figure 2.10.13 Fayette Profile Classification Fourth class city Population 2,708 Median household income $36,318 Median owner-occupied housing value $84,300 Total housing units 1,243 Water service Regional Water Commission Missouri Public Energy Pool and City of Electric service Fayette (old power plant used for backup) Ambulance service Howard County Ambulance Sewer service City Fire service Fayette Fire Department Website www.cityoffayettemo.com Master plan Yes Emergency Operations Plan Yes Stormwater Plan Yes Building regulations Yes - The city also has a building inspector. Zoning regulations Yes Subdivision regulations Yes Yes - Extent of stormwater regulations in Stormwater regulations Fayette, as of 2017, is minimal regulation included in the subdivision ordinance. NFIP participation Yes Floodplain regulations Yes Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2011-2015 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates; local officials

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

Figure 2.10.14 Property Count and Valuation - Fayette

Building Count Building Type # Residential 1017 Commercial 73 Industrial 15 Agricultural 16 Religious 10 Governmental 6 Educational 7 Source: City of Fayette

2016 Assessed Values - Fayette

Real Estate Personal Property Residential $10,236,410 Agricultural $47,120 3,572,818 Commercial $3,365,449 Total $13,648,979 $3,572,818 Source: Howard County Assessor's Office

City Owned Property

Insured Replacement Property Cost Buildings (63) $8,080,390 Personal Property in Buildings $707,854 Road, sewer, water, electrical equipment $620,888 Vehicles (20) 775,893 Total $10,185,025 (See Appendix D for a detailed listing of Fayette Building and Personal Property Values) Source: City of Fayette Insurance Statement

Public Land

Figure 2.10.15 Public Land in City of Fayette Area Name Responsible Agency Acres D. C. Rogers Lake City of Fayette/MO Dept. of Conservation 185 Peters Lake City of Fayette/MO Dept. of Conservation 80 Source: MO Dept. of Conservation - http://mdc.mo.gov

Historic Places

Figure 2.10.16 National Register of Historic Places - Fayette Alfred W. Morrison House Central Methodist College Campus Historic District Coleman Hall Dr. Uriel S. Wright Office Edwin and Nora Payne Bedford House Fayette City Park Swimming Pool Fayette Courthouse Square Historic District Fayette Residential Historic District Greenwood Prior Jackson Homeplace Oakwood South Main Street Historic District St. Mary's Episcopal Church Source: http://www.nationalregisterofhistoricplaces.com/mo/howard/state.html

Future Development Plans Fayette is continually updating the water and sewer distribution lines. There are a few mitigation projects which the City would like to undertake to deal with flash flooding. More information on this can be found under “Fayette” in Section 3.2.5 While City Hall will need to be remodeled or replaced at some point in the future, there are no plans for the project at the current time. Action #3.2.5 in the mitigation strategy for Fayette discusses including plans for a tornado safe room in any new city building project.

Glasgow

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

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

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

Figure 2.10.17 Glasgow Profile Classification Fourth class city Population 1,135 Median household income $47,750 Median owner-occupied housing value $78,800 Total housing units 497 Water service City of Glasgow Electric service Kansas City Power and Light Ambulance service Howard County Ambulance Service Sewer service City of Glasgow Fire service Glasgow Fire Protection District Website http://www.glasgowmo.com Master plan No Emergency Operations Plan Yes Stormwater Plan Yes Building regulations Yes Zoning regulations Yes Subdivision regulations No Stormwater regulations Yes NFIP participation Yes Floodplain regulations Yes Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2011-2015 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates; local officials

Figure 2.10.18 Property Count and Valuation - Glasgow HAZUS Building Count Building Type # Residential 679 Commercial 42 Industrial 13 Agricultural 10 Religious 6 Governmental 1 Educational 2 Source: HAZUS MH

2010 Assessed Values - Glasgow

Real Estate Personal Property Residential $4,326,190 Agricultural $23,440 $2,402,597 Commercial $2,134,580 Total $6,484,210 $2,402,597 Source: Howard County Assessor's Office

City Owned Property

Property* Replacement Cost Buildings $3,828,838 Business Personal Property $578,825 Vehicles (8) - Estimate $200,000 Total $4,607,663

(See Appendix D for a detailed listing of Glasgow Buildings and Business Personal Property Values)

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

Public Land

Figure 2.10.19 Public Land in Glasgow Area Name Responsible Agency Acres Stump Island Park Access MO Dept. of Conservation 2.9 Source: MO Dept. of Conservation - http://mdc.mo.gov

Historic Places

Figure 2.10.20 National Register of Historic Places - Glasgow Campbell Chapel African Methodist Episcopal Church Glasgow Commercial Historic District Glasgow Presbyterian Church Glasgow Public Library Inglewood Source: http://www.nationalregisterofhistoricplaces.com/mo/howard/state.html

Future Development Plans After flooding in 2010, the City of Glasgow was presented with the unique challenge of silt and sludge deposits in their wastewater lagoon. To remove the deposits, the City of Glasgow partnered with the Mid-Missouri Regional Planning Commission to apply for funding. The removal project was completed, but the City of Glasgow has been unable to secure funds to raise the berms around the lagoon to prevent future flooding from re-silting the lagoon. Glasgow is unable to move the lagoon and would prefer to switch to a controlled discharge lagoon. The city applied for mitigation funding to address future lagoon issues but were denied funds. Future flooding, if severe, will have the same effects on the lagoon if not mitigated in the near future. The city also has plans to upgrade the drinking water lines in two sections of town. This potential project is in the preliminary design stages; it has taken a back seat to the more pressing problem with the wastewater system and lagoon.

New Franklin A major flood of the Missouri River in 1826 contributed to the settlement of the area which became the town of New Franklin. The town of Franklin (sometimes referred to as “Old Franklin”) was severely flooded; many residents decided to move further away from the river and settled in the area which became New Franklin. New Franklin was incorporated by order of the legislature in 1833. The route of the Missouri, Kansas, & Texas Railroad (MKT) passed through the town and helped contribute to population growth. New Franklin is governed by a Board of Aldermen and Mayor. The city staff is composed of a City Administrator, Collector, a Police Chief and second officer, and three City Services employees (public works). The Police Chief serves as the Emergency Management Services Director. Some recent and ongoing projects in the city include:  Updating of the City Code Book in 2010 – This was adopted by the Board of Aldermen in December 2010. The updating was done by an outside consultant; the City budgeted over a 3 year period to pay for this project.  A Capitol Improvement Sales Tax of 1/2¢ - This money is used to fund a street overlay project in part of the city every two years.

Figure 2.10.21 New Franklin Profile Classification Fourth class city Population 1,242 Median household income $28,333 Median owner-occupied housing value $76,500 Total housing units 619 Water service City of New Franklin Electric service Ameren Missouri Ambulance service Howard County Ambulance Service Sewer service City of New Franklin Fire service Howard County Fire Protection District Website http://newfranklinmo.org/ Master plan No Emergency Operations Plan Yes Stormwater Plan No Building regulations Yes Zoning regulations Yes Subdivision regulations Yes Stormwater regulations No NFIP participation Yes Floodplain regulations Yes Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2011-2015 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates; local officials

Figure 2.10.22 Property Count and Valuation - New Franklin

HAZUS Building Count Building Type # Residential 536 Commercial 17 Industrial 7 Agricultural 0 Religious 3 Governmental 1 Educational 2 Source: HAZUS MH

2010 Assessed Values - New Franklin

Real Estate Personal Property Residential $4,372,530 Agricultural $35,640 $1,438,843 Commercial $502,910 Total $4,911,080 $1,438,843 Source: Howard County Assessor's Office

City Owned Property

Property Insured Value Buildings and Structures $1,636,054 Vehicles (6) $58,459 Road equipment $58,861 Total $1,753,374 (See Appendix D for a detailed listing of New Franklin Property and Values) Source: New Franklin Insurance Statement

Historic Places

Figure 2.10.23 National Register of Historic Places - New Franklin Historic Place Harris-Chilton-Ruble House Thomas Hickman House Rivercene Source: http://www.nationalregisterofhistoricplaces.com/mo/howard/state.html

New Franklin joined with the City of Fayette and Howard County Consolidated Public Water Supply District #1 to develop the Howard County Regional Water Commission. The new regional water system, Howard County Regional Water Commission, became operational Spring 2017. The wells and water treatment plant in New Franklin are no longer used, but serve as a back-up water supply if necessary.

Future Development Plans New Franklin is working on a plan to change the wastewater treatment system from a three-cell lagoon system to a land application system. In addition, the city is working with the Mid-MO Regional Planning Commission to generate a complete sewage collection system map of the city.

School Districts

There are three public school districts located in the Planning Area: New Franklin R-I, Glasgow, and Fayette R-III School District. Each district has an elected superintendent and school board along with several administrative staff.

During the 2015-2016 school year, the school districts employed a total of approximately 121 staff members and educated approximately 1,462 students in 7 schools.

New Franklin R-I School District

The New Franklin R-I School District educates K-12 students in an elementary, middle, and high school. The original school building was built by the citizens of New Franklin in the 1930’s as a WPA (Works Progress Administration) project. An elementary school was constructed in the 1960’s and a middle school addition added in the 1990’s. All three schools are connected on a single campus.

The current high school was a dedicated Civil Defense shelter in the past. This is where the majority of students are directed during severe storms.

Total enrollment in the 2015-2016 school year was 450 students with a staff of 75.

Figure 2.10.28 New Franklin R-I School District - Assessed Values (2016)

Real Estate Personal Property Residential $12,918,290 Agricultural $3,200,790 $6,843,154 Commercial $1,550,100 Total $17,669,180 $6,843,154 Source: Howard County Assessor's Office District Owned Property Buildings (2) $14,700,368 Vehicles (7) - Source: New Franklin R-I School District Personnel

Future Development Plans Currently the school district is in progress of a major building project with a new gym estimated to cost around $3,000,000.

Glasgow R-II School District

Glasgow R-II School District serves K-12 in one school building located in Glasgow which houses both Glasgow Elementary School and Glasgow High School. Total enrollment in the 2015-2016 school year was approximately 328 students who were served by a staff of 29.

Figure 2.10.25 Glasgow R-II School District - Assessed Values (2016)

Real Estate Personal Property Residential $10,230,550 Agricultural $3,122,310 $7,287,432 Commercial $2,438,740 Total $15,791,600 $7,287,432 Source: Howard County Assessor's Office District Owned Property Structures School Building Agricultural Science Shop Storage Building with concession stand Grandstand at baseball complex Replacement Value – Buildings and Contents $12,000,000 Vehicles (4) - Insured Value $350,000 Source: Glasgow R-II School District Personnel

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

Fayette R-III School District

Fayette R-III School District serves K-12 in three schools – Laurence J. Daly Elementary, William N. Clark Middle School and Fayette High School. Total enrollment for the 2015-2016 school year was 650 students who were served by a fulltime equivalent (FTE) staff of 99.

Figure 2.10.31 Fayette R-III School District - Assessed Values (2016)

Real Estate Personal Property Residential $26,556,580 Agricultural $6,040,300 $13,612,127 Commercial $5,368,240 Total $37,965,120 $13,612,127 Source: Howard County Assessor's Office

District Owned Property

Insured Value Buildings and Other Structures (Building and Contents) Elementary & Middle School $11,372,192 Vocational Agriculture $936,436 New Fayette H.S./Gym & Music $11,203,125 Home Ec. & Ind. Arts $849,805 4 Lighted Poles, Football Field $34,030 Superintendent Office $552,654 Press Box $89,778 Concession Stand - Softball Field $47,077 Union School Building $68,387 Football Field Entrance $41,818 Pre-school Storage Bldg $2,660 Maintenance/Transportation Shop and Bus Barn $1,039,358 Storage Building $229,445 Total $26,466,765 Vehicles Number Cars 1 Trailers 2 Trucks 1 Buses 10 Vans 2 Source: Fayette R-III School District Insurance Statement

Future Development Plans Fayette schools applied for saferoom funding but have not received any update or response to their application. The school district would like to add a safe room if funds permit and their application is approved.

Central Methodist University

Central Methodist University was founded in 1854. It is a private, nonprofit educational institution. Any applicant who meets CMU’s admission requirements may enroll. Central Methodist University does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, sexual preference, religion, sex, national origin, age, or federally defined disability in its recruitment and admission of students. The University complies with all federal and state non-discrimination requirements.

Campus officials work closely with the City of Fayette Police and Fire Departments on safety issues and emergency response. A large number of the campus maintenance staff are volunteer firemen and carry pagers; this provides one connection to local emergency alerts.

The CMU Crisis Committee, composed of faculty and staff, is responsible for coordinating emergency drills which are held during each school year. There are two emergency call stations located on campus which connect directly to campus security. In addition, there is an outdoor PA (Public Address) system.

The Fayette warning siren can be heard in outdoor locations on campus as well as in parts of some buildings. The campus has a text messaging/computer banner alert system for emergency information. Faculty, staff, and students can all sign up for the alerts.

The CMU website contains pages addressing both earthquake and tornado safety procedures in the Campus Safety section3. The information is thorough and covers what to do both during and after the event.

The Philips Recreation Center on campus has been designated as a Red Cross shelter by the American Red Cross. The field house is an auxiliary location for bedding, if needed, and the outdoor athletic facility is designated for laundry. It would be open to Fayette community members in addition to CMU faculty, staff, and students, should it become operational during a hazard event.

3 http://www.centralmethodist.edu/about/offices/safety/

Building Counts and Replacement Costs

Figure 2.10.27 University Owned Property Property Insured Value Buildings and Structures $69,919,000 Vehicles (12) $199,795 Total $70,118,795 (See Appendix D for a detailed listing of CMU Property and Values) Source: Central Methodist University Insurance Statement

Population The main campus of Central Methodist University, located in Fayette, had a student enrollment of 1,176 in 2016. A faculty and staff of 358 (includes full-time and part-time employees) brings the total population on campus to 1,530.

Future Development Plans The University is currently working on updating its Facilities Master Plan which was written sometime in the 1990s. The Steering Committee for this project is looking at various factors, including:

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

In addition, the campus Crisis Committee is looking at ways to make the campus safer. The two emergency call stations on campus are slated for replacement with new stations.

Safe rooms are an ongoing consideration in Facilities Master Plan updates.

Howard Co. Consolidated Public Water Supply District #1

Howard Co. Consolidated Public Water Supply District #1 (CPWSD#1) is governed by an elected Board of Directors composed of five members. The board meets monthly to monitor all expenditures and issues associated with the water district. Planning takes place at these meetings with a budget determined annually.

The district has two full-time employees (Chief Water Operator and Clerk/Treasurer).

Power to the district is provided by Howard Electric Cooperative and Ameren Missouri. The district does not have its own backup power supply but this is not a concern. Even during the historic Flood of 1993, there was no loss of power to the district. Guidelines from the Missouri Department of Natural Resources (MoDNR) specify that water tanks are sized so as to have one and half days’ backup supply of water. If it would become necessary to generate power, water supply districts are on a priority list for the rental of generators. There are six or seven places where the district could rent a generator.

Building Counts and Replacement Costs

Figure 2.10.28 Howard Co. CPWSD #1 Owned Property Insured Property Value Buildings (13) Standpipe & Controls - Hill Old Franklin $39,638 Pump, Controls & Motor at Well - MKT Crossing $8,820 Booster Pump Station - Clarks Chapel $114,500 Water Treatment Plant - Crews Avenue $24,255 Water Standpipe & Controls - Co. Road 303 $109,200 Booster Pump Station & Control - Co. Road 336 $44,100 Water Treatment Plant $458,850 Well Pump, Controls & Motor at Well - Co. Road 345 $7,875 Water Standpipe & Controls - Route P $152,201 Water Standpipe & Controls $180,718 Water Standpipe & Controls - Boonsboro Co. Road 316 $390,000 Total $1,538,032

Vehicles (5) - Current estimated value

Ford Truck 22,734 2015 JD 2025R Utility Tractor 14,165 2015 JD 620 Mower 2,444 2015 JD Loader 3,165 2015 Frontier Tiller 1,890

Source: Howard Co. CPWSD#1 Personnel and Insurance Statement

Future Development Plans Howard Co. Consolidated Public Water Supply District #1 has joined with the Cities of Fayette and New Franklin to form the Howard Co. Regional Water Commission. Since the regional water system became operational, in 2016, the CPWSD #1 wells and water treatment plant will no longer be used. CPWSD #1 will purchase water from the Howard Co. Regional Water Commission but will continue to take care of its own lines, tanks, and other infrastructure.

CPWSD#1 would like to relocate the district offices, boardroom and warehouse out of the floodplain. A mitigation action to that effect has been included in this plan.

Howard Co. Regional Water Commission

In 2008, Fayette, New Franklin and Howard Co. Consolidated Public Water Supply District #1 joined together to form the Howard Co. Regional Water Commission. The Regional Water Commission began providing water to roughly 2/3rds of Howard County in Spring 2017.

Discussions on the possibility of a regional water commission in Howard County began in 2006. New, and more stringent, regulations from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the MO Department of Natural Resources (MoDNR) spurred the discussion. The new requirements concerning sources and distribution of water were going to necessitate costly upgrades to a number of the existing treatment plants in the county. Information from the EPA indicated that grants and low-interest loans would be more readily available to groups taking a regional approach to water supply and distribution.

In 2007, MECO Engineering conducted a Water Regionalization Study, funded by the City of Fayette, to explore viable options. Initial discussions on a regionalization plan included the Cities of Fayette, Glasgow, New Franklin, Howard Co. Consolidated Public Water Supply Districts #1 and #2, and Thomas Hill Public Water Supply District #1 (located in Randolph County).

Glasgow had completed an upgrade of its water treatment plant and chose not to join the commission; likewise, PWSD #2 and Thomas Hill PWSD #1 did not join. Thomas Hill is interested in establishing an agreement for emergency access to the regional water supply (for example, Thomas Hill can purchase water from City of Fayette for emergency purposes), so it had a representative attends meetings of the commission and made monetary contribution to the effort. This continues to be a possibility.

The Commission has a three member Board of Directors which meets monthly. The Commission received the following grant and loan funding or assurances of future funding:

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

In addition, in the summer of 2009 the Commission issued $980,000 in bonds for interim financing.

In 2010, the Commission purchased a 12.49 acre piece of land just north of New Franklin for the water treatment plant site. This land is not within the flood plain and it is not expected to be subject to any flooding issues, including flooding levels similar to 1993.

Building Counts and Replacement Costs Hazard vulnerabilities for the Howard Co. Regional Water Commission have been assessed based on the known plans for the future and general knowledge regarding water infrastructure.

Figure 2.10.29 Howard Co. Regional Water Commission Owned Property Property Insured Value Buildings and Structures Water Plant $8,371,242 Wells and Pump $200,000 Water Tower $1,189,460 Total $9,760,702 Vehicles (none) 0 Total $9,760,702 (See Appendix D for a detailed listing of Howard Co. Regional Water Commission’s Property and Values) Source: Howard Co. Regional Water Commission

Future Development Plans

The Howard Co. Regional Water Commission system was fully completed and operated in March 2017. Currently there are no distinctive development plans.

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Section 3: Risk Assessment

3.1 Introduction and Methodology

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

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

Identification of Hazards

Requirement [The risk assessment shall include a] description of the type…of all

§201.6(c)(2)(i): natural hazards than can affect the jurisdiction.

The following natural hazards have been identified as posing potential risk in the planning area:

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

The Missouri State Hazard Mitigation Plan (2013) indicates that expansive soils, landslides, and rockfalls are recognized as hazards in Missouri but occur infrequently and with minimal impact. For this reason, those hazards were not profiled in the State Plan nor will they be profiled in the Howard County Plan.

There are certain other natural hazards which FEMA requires to be addressed in Hazard Mitigation Plans if they are applicable to the planning area. Avalanches and volcanoes have not

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

Profiling of Hazards

[The risk assessment shall include a] description of the…location Requirement and extent of all natural hazards that can affect the jurisdiction.

§201.6(c)(2)(i): The plan shall include information on previous occurrences of hazard events and on the probability of future hazard events.

Each of the natural hazards identified as posing a risk to the planning area has been studied and analyzed in order to provide the information required in the plan. The extent of each natural hazard has been described through a Measure of Severity (a measure of the strength or magnitude of a hazard event).

The information has been organized in the following way for each hazard profile in Section 3.2:  Description of Hazard  Geographic location  Previous occurrences  Measures of Probability and Severity

The definitions of the Measures of Probability and Severity included in each profile in the Missouri State Hazard Mitigation Plan (2013) are as follows:

Probability – The likelihood that the hazard will occur.  Low – The hazard has little or no chance of happening (less than 1 percent chance of occurrence in any given year)  Moderate – The hazard has a reasonable probability of occurring (between 1 and 10 percent chance of occurrence in any given year).  High – The probability is considered sufficiently high to assume that the event will occur (between 10 and 100 percent chance of occurrence in any given year).

Severity – The deaths, injuries, or damage (property or environmental) that could result from the hazard.  Low – Few or minor damage or injuries are likely.  Moderate – Injuries to personnel and damage to property and the environment is expected.  High – Deaths/major injuries and/or major damage will likely occur.

The Measures of Probability and Severity are summarized in chart form in Figure 3.1.1.

Figure 3.1.1 Measures of Probability and Severity Probability Severity

Chance of occurrence in any Potential injuries/death/damage given year

Few or minor Low Less than 1% damage/injuries likely Injuries, property damage, Moderate Between 1% and 10% and environmental damage expected Deaths/major injuries and/or High Greater than 10% major damage will likely occur.

Assessment of Vulnerability

[The risk assessment shall include a] description of the Requirement jurisdiction's vulnerability to the hazards described in paragraph

§201.6(c)(2)(ii): (c)(2)(i) of this section. This description shall include an overall summary of each hazard and its impact on the community.

For multi-jurisdictional plans, the risk assessment must assess each Requirement jurisdiction's risks where they vary from the risks facing the entire §201.6(c)(2)(iii): planning area.

A community’s vulnerability to a hazard is linked to the probability that a hazard event will occur (Measure of Probability) and to the extent of that event (Measure of Severity). For each identified hazard, a Vulnerability Rating was determined for each participating jurisdiction and for the planning area as a whole. This was done by considering the geographic location, historical record, and Measures of Probability and Severity for each hazard in relation to the particulars of each jurisdiction.

In many cases, the potential severity of the hazard event contributes the greatest weight to the Vulnerability Rating. In some cases, however, a low severity event with high frequency can cause economic strain which translates into a higher vulnerability.

A Vulnerability Overview follows each hazard profile in Section 3.2. The overview includes the Vulnerability Ratings for the hazard and the rationale behind the ratings. Also included are brief descriptions of any mitigation strategies currently in place for the hazard under discussion. A summary of the Vulnerability Ratings for the planning area and each of the participating jurisdictions, by hazard, is shown in Figure 3.1.2.

A complete chart showing Measures of Probability and Severity and Vulnerability Ratings for each jurisdiction is included in Appendix E.

Figure 3.1.2

Hazard Vulnerability

I I

II II

III School

District

Fayette

Glasgow

University

Armstrong

HowardCo.

NewFranklin

SchoolDistrict SchoolDistrict

Howard Co. Howard R

PlanningArea

New Franklin New R

Howard Co. Howard Reg.

Central Methodist

(unincorporated) WaterCommission FayetteR H H na H na na na na na na na Dam Failure M M L L L L L L L L na Drought M M M M M M M M M M M Earthquake M M M M M M M M M M M Extreme Heat M M M M Flood H H H H H H L L L L L L L L L L L L Land Subsidence/Sinkhole na na na na na na na Levee Failure H H H H M M M M M M M M M M L Severe Winter Weather L L L L L L L Wildfire H H H H M M M M M M M M M M L Windstorm

Tornado H H H H H H H H H H H L Hailstorm H H H H H H H H H H

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

Inventory of Assets

Requirement The plan should describe vulnerability in terms of the types and §201.6(c)(2)(ii) numbers of existing and future buildings, infrastructure, and (A): critical facilities located in the identified hazard area….

[The plan should describe vulnerability in terms of an] estimate of Requirement the potential dollar losses to vulnerable structures identified in §201.6(c)(2)(ii) paragraph (c)(2)(11)(A) of this section and a description of the (B): methodology used to prepare the estimate…

[The plan should describe vulnerability in terms of] providing a Requirement general description of land uses and development trends within the §201.6(c)(2)(ii) community so that mitigation options can be considered in future (C): land use decisions.

An overall inventory of the assets in the planning area is included in Section 2.10. An assessment of structures, equipment, and populations in the planning area which are vulnerable to a specific hazard is included after each hazard profile in Section 3.2. As prescribed by FEMA guidelines, critical structures, building counts, and assessed values are included. All people, structures, and equipment are vulnerable to one or more hazards in the planning area. This assessment can be used to identify potential areas where mitigation activities are needed.

The impact of future development is only generally addressed with some hazards because of their unpredictable nature.

3.2 Hazard Profiles and Vulnerability Overviews

This section contains a profile of each hazard followed by a general overview of the planning area’s vulnerability to that hazard. More information on the vulnerability to each hazard in each participating jurisdiction is covered in Section 3.3 (Vulnerability Assessment by Participating Jurisdiction).

3.2.1 Dam Failure

Description of Hazard A dam is defined by the National Dam Safety Act as an artificial barrier which impounds or diverts water and: (1) is more than 6 feet high and stores 50 acre feet or more, or (2) is 25 feet or higher and stores more than 15 acre feet. Based on this definition, there are over 80,000 dams in the United States. Over 95% are non-federal, with most being owned by state governments, municipalities, watershed districts, industries, lake associations, land developers, or private citizens.

Dam construction varies widely throughout Missouri. A majority of dams are of earthen construction. Missouri's mining industry has produced numerous tailing dams for the surface disposal of mine waste. These dams are made from mining material deposited in slurry form in an impoundment. Other types of earthen dams are reinforced with a core of concrete and/or asphalt. The largest dams in the state, hydroelectric dams, are built of reinforced concrete.

Dams can fail for many reasons. The most common are:  Overtopping: inadequate spillway design, debris blockage of spillways, or settlement of the dam crest.  Piping: internal erosion caused by embankment leakage, foundation leakage and deterioration of pertinent structures appended to the dam  Erosion: inadequate spillway capacity causing overtopping of the dam, flow erosion, and inadequate slope protection  Structural Failure: caused by an earthquake, slope instability, or faulty construction.

These failures are often interrelated. For example, erosion, either surface or internal, may weaken the dam and lead to structural failure. Similarly a structural failure may shorten the seepage path and lead to a piping failure.

Dam owners have the primary responsibility for the safe design, operation and maintenance of dams. They also have responsibility for providing early warning of problems, for developing effective emergency action plans, and for coordinating plans with local officials. The State has ultimate responsibility for public safety. Many states regulate construction, modification, maintenance, and operation of dams and support dam safety programs.

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

88 formation; it did not address engineering concerns or potential downstream damage from dam failure.

In the late 1970’s, legislation was introduced into the state legislature to further dam regulation. This was in response to indications from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers inspection program that Missouri had more unsafe dams than any other state in the nation.

The Dam and Reservoir Safety Law passed and became effective September 1979 as Sections 236.400 - 236.500 of the Revised Statutes of Missouri (RSMo). Under the law, Missouri regulates dams which are 35 feet and higher. The law exempts from state regulation any dam less than 35 feet in height, those licensed under the Federal Power Act, agricultural dams, and dams regulated by other agencies with standards as stringent as the Missouri law.

State regulation makes a dam subject to permit and inspection requirements. The inspection cycle is dictated by the state classification system for dams.

The state classification system is based upon the type and number of structures downstream from a dam. An inventory of all the dams of the state was done in the late 1970s and early 1980s, according to Glenn Lloyd, Civil Engineer and Dam Safety Inspector with the Dam Safety Program of the MO Department of Natural Resources (DNR). All of the known dams were classified at that time. According to the Association of State Dam Safety Officials, only 653 of the 5206 classified dams fall into the regulated category.

There is also a federal classification system. The federal classification system is based upon the probable loss of human life and the impact on economic, environmental and lifeline interests from dam failure. It should be noted that there is always the possibility of loss of human life when a dam fails; this classification system does not account for the possibility of people occasionally passing through an inundation area which is usually unoccupied (e.g. occasional recreational users, daytime user of downstream lands, etc.)

A summary of the federal and state classification systems, how the two systems relate to each other, and inspection requirements for state regulated dams is shown in Figure 3.2.1A.

Figure 3.2.1A Dam Hazard Classification Systems Inspection State of Requirement Federal Downstream Federal Criterion Missouri (State Classification Environment Classification Regulated Dams) 10 or more permanent Class 1 Every 2 years dwellings; or any public building 1-9 permanent Probable loss of human dwellings; or 1 or High Hazard life more campgrounds with permanent Class 2 Every 3 years water, sewer and electrical services; or one or more industrial buildings No probable loss of human life but potential economic loss, Significant environmental damage, Hazard disruption of lifeline facilities or other impact of concern Class 3 Everything else Every 5 years No probable loss of human life; low economic and/or environmental Low Hazard loss; loss principally limited to owner's property Sources: Federal Guidelines for Dam Safety, Hazard Potential Classification System for Dams, April 2004, http://www.fema.gov/library/viewRecord.do?id=1830; http://www.sos.mo.gov/adrules/csr/current/10csr/10c22-2.pdf; Glenn Lloyd, Civil Engineer/Dam Safety Inspector, MO DNR, Water Resources Center, Dam Safety Program

Classification is a dynamic system. Development can change the downstream situation and thus the hazard potential of a dam. The inspection cycle for state regulated dams allows for a regulated dam’s classification to be updated when appropriate; a regulated dam would have its classification appraised at least once every 5 years.

However, by their very definition, unregulated dams are not routinely inspected by the state. There is no system in place to routinely evaluate the classification of these unregulated dams. One must, therefore, use caution in assuming the classifications of unregulated dams is currently accurate. It is very probable that, for most of the unregulated dams, the classification does not take into account almost 30 years of development and change in Howard County.

In addition, the DNR database of dams in Missouri reflects only the known dams; a dam less than 35 feet in height which was built since the inventory was taken some 30 years ago may not appear in the database.

There are 72 dams listed for Howard County in the DNR database (see Figure 3.2.1B). Only 6 of these are regulated. It should be noted that 6 of the 8 dams classified as High Hazard (probable loss of human life were failure to occur) are under 35 feet in height and thus not regulated by the State.

Four of these unregulated high hazard dams are State Class #1, indicating the following downstream environment at the time of the survey:  10 or more permanent buildings; or any public building

Two of these unregulated high hazard dams are State Class #2, indicating the following downstream environment at the time of the survey:  1-9 permanent dwellings; or 1 or more campgrounds with permanent water, sewer and electrical services; or one of more industrial buildings

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

Figure 3.2.1B Hazard Categories of Howard County Dams Federal Hazard Percentage of State Dams Unregulated Category Total Dams Regulated High 8 10% 2 6

Significant 64 90% 4 60 Low

Total Dams 71 100% 5 66

Source: http://dnr.mo.gov/geology/wrc/dam-safety/damsinmissouri.htm

Recent dam failures in other parts of the State have brought attention both to the general problem of dam failure and to the potential threat posed by unregulated dams.

Inundation studies are now being conducted on regulated dams in the state beginning with the high hazard dams. (For a full discussion of this topic, see “Existing Mitigation Strategies” at the end of this section.)

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

Figure 3.2.1C

Figure 3.2.1D REGULATED Howard County Dams Reservoir Drainage Year Ht State ID # Name Area Area Built (feet) Class (Acres) (Acres) MO12415 DAVID PEELER DAM 1999 47 0.44 5 3 MO10129 DAVIS LAKE DAM 1962 35 54 361 3 MO12382 MONITEAU CREEK WTRSHD A-3a DAM 1990 50 47 95200 3 MO10370 ROGERS LAKE DAM 1970 45 184 2510 1 MO12238 SUNSET LAKE DAM 1990 47 22 90 3 UNREGULATED Howard County Dams MO11520 ARMSTRONG RESERVOIR DAM 1960 30 9 330 3 MO10481 BANKHEAD LAKE DAM 1962 22 5 29 3 MO11650 CAMPBELL LAKE DAM 1977 30 4 15 3 MO10482 COLLINS LAKE DAM 1950 25 12 210 3 MO11524 DAVIS LAKE DAM 1977 30 4 35 3 MO11535 DAVIS LAKE DAM 1950 25 5 43 3 MO10130 FAYETTE NEW CITY LAKE DAM 1961 33 107 895 1 MO10131 FAYETTE OLD CITY LAKE DAM 1909 30 12 117 1 MO10385 HEYEN LAKE DAM 1973 24 19 390 2 MO11536 HOWELL LAKE DAM 1935 25 4 45 3 MO10478 JOHNMEYER LAKE DAM 1952 32 6 32 2 MO11537 LIPPOLD LAKE DAM 1820 21 14 290 3 MO50860 MECHLIN 1999 33 3 0 NA MO50667 MONITEAU CREEK WS DAM H- 7 1996 16 7 0 NA MO50666 MONITEAU CREEK WS DAM H- 8 1996 22 6 0 NA MO51323 MONITEAU CREEK WS DAM H- 10 2004 28 6 0 NA MO51325 MONITEAU CREEK WS DAM H- 14 2004 30 8 0 NA MO50991 MONITEAU CREEK WS DAM H- 16 2000 26 3 0 NA MO51044 MONITEAU CREEK WS DAM H- 18 2002 23 5 0 NA MO51045 MONITEAU CREEK WS DAM H- 19 2002 27 8 0 NA MO51046 MONITEAU CREEK WS DAM H- 20 2002 25 9 0 NA MO50992 MONITEAU CREEK WS DAM H- 21 2000 30 6 0 NA MO51322 MONITEAU CREEK WS DAM H- 24 2003 28 5 0 NA MO50669 MONITEAU CREEK WS DAM L- 2 1996 24 6 0 NA MO50697 MONITEAU CREEK WS DAM L- 3 1996 28 7 0 NA MO50668 MONITEAU CREEK WS DAM L- 5 1996 27 8 0 NA MO51324 MONITEAU CREEK WS DAM L- 9 2003 29 8 0 NA MO50994 MONITEAU CREEK WS DAM L- 11 2000 25 5 0 NA MO51003 MONITEAU CREEK WS DAM L- 17 1998 25 5 0 NA MO51004 MONITEAU CREEK WS DAM L- 18 1998 29 5 0 NA

MO51005 MONITEAU CREEK WS DAM L- 19 1998 26 4 0 NA MO50995 MONITEAU CREEK WS DAM M- 17 1999 28 6 0 NA MO51001 MONITEAU CREEK WS DAM M- 18 1998 29 7 0 NA MO51363 MONITEAU CREEK WS DAM M- 25 2004 30 8 0 NA MO50996 MONITEAU CREEK WS DAM M- 26 1999 22 6 0 NA MO50997 MONITEAU CREEK WS DAM M- 30 1999 25 8 0 NA MO51002 MONITEAU CREEK WS DAM M- 33 1998 24 7 0 NA MO50998 MONITEAU CREEK WS DAM M- 34 1999 27 9 0 NA MO51327 MONITEAU CREEK WS DAM M- 35 2004 26 4 0 NA MO51364 MONITEAU CREEK WS DAM M- 37 2005 31 6 0 NA MO51328 MONITEAU CREEK WS DAM M- 41 2004 26 5 0 NA MO50999 MONITEAU CREEK WS DAM M- 43 1999 24 5 0 NA MO51326 MONITEAU CREEK WS DAM M- 44 2004 26 7 0 NA MO51000 MONITEAU CREEK WS DAM M- 46 1999 29 6 0 NA MO51047 MONITEAU CREEK WS DAM M- 51 2002 24 6 0 NA MO51048 MONITEAU CREEK WS DAM M- 68 2002 28 6 0 NA MO10484 MONONAME 121 1923 15 3 57 3 MO11532 MUELLER LAKE DAM 1977 30 4 32 3 MO10790 NEW HORTICULTURE FARM DAM 1956 26 8 86 1 MO11487 PALMER LAKE DAM 1971 25 6 42 3 MO10792 PETERSEN LAKE DAM 1972 31 7 60 3 MO12210 POND 4-011 NA 28 15 80 3 MO10001 RESERVOIR DAM 1954 23 32 1403 1 MO11521 ROBERTSON FARMS INC DAM 1965 25 9 125 3 MO11203 ROSS LAKE DAM 1964 29 12 55 3 MO51124 RUTH BRILL DAM 2000 28 2 0 NA MO51126 SAM STROUPE DAM 2000 28 4 0 NA MO50859 SNODDY 1999 28 3 0 NA MO10483 STRODTMAN LAKE DAM 1965 25 8 185 3 MO11522 STROUPE LAKE DAM 1977 25 5 180 3 MO10132 TAYLOR LAKE DAM LOWER 1955 25 18 700 3 MO11533 TAYLOR LAKE DAM UPPER 1915 25 8 480 3 MO10120 WEST TOWN LAKE DAM 1966 24 11 120 3 MO51125 WESTHUES FAMILY TRUST DAM 2000 30 2 0 NA MO11531 WIEBERG LAKE DAM 1977 30 5 65 3 MO11488 WIES LAKE DAM 1977 25 7 65 3 Source: http://dnr.mo.gov/geology/wrc/dam-safety/Crystal_Reports/howard_dams.pdf

The following dams not included in the DNR database were identified by the Planning Committee:  Dam northeast of Franklin, with a reservoir of 6.7 acres  Meadow View Lake Dam located 6-7 miles south of Fayette near Highway 240 with an estimated reservoir of 2-3 acre  Twin Lakes dams located south of Fayette (west of Highway 240 and north of Route P ), with an estimated upper reservoir of 7-8 acres  Dam west of Twin Lakes dams

Previous Occurrences While there have been no dam failures in Howard County, the issue was highlighted in the mid- Missouri region by a dam failure in neighboring Boone County in 2008 and a near failure in Cole County in 2009. The Moon Valley Lake Dam in Columbia (Boone County) failed in March 2008. This 18-foot high unregulated dam had been built in 1964; it drained 2,100 acres and had a 13-acre reservoir, according to the DNR database. Moon Valley Lake Dam was classified as high hazard, but there was no loss of life with the dam failure. This may be partially attributable to the fact that Moon Valley Lake was silted in and the main release from the dam failure was silt which went down the Hominy Branch into the Hinkson Creek. The added silt has caused greater flooding problems on the Hinkson Creek since the time of the dam failure. The City of Columbia estimated the cost of removing the sediment and stabilizing about 2,000 feet of the stream bank to be in the vicinity of $400,000. Failure of the Renn’s Lake Dam in Jefferson City (Cole County) was averted in late October/early November 2009 through the work of emergency crews and volunteers who relieved pressure on the earthen dam by pumping thousands of gallons of water from 7-acre Renn’s Lake. The 30-foot high unregulated dam, built in 1950, had been weakened by the growth of trees; heavy rainfall caused a 15-foot section to erode. Renn’s Lake is located immediately to the west of U.S. Highway 54 and the failure of the dam would have threatened the highway. The deed to Renn Lake was subsequently transferred to Cole County with plans to breach the dam and drain the lake. Boone and Cole Counties are not the only counties in Missouri to experience dam failures. According to the Missouri State Hazard Mitigation Plan (2013), the Stanford University’s National Performance of Dams Program documented 82 dam incidents in Missouri between 1975 and 2013, of which, 17 (21%) were failures, not including the two known incidents of Taum Sauk failure in 2005 and Moon Valley Lake Dam failure in 2008 (the database has not been updated since 2001). More recently, there was a major dam failure which destroyed Johnson Shut-Ins State Park in Reynolds County. On December 14, 2005, the AmerenUE’s Taum Sauk reservoir dam at their hydroelectric complex failed; 1.5 billion gallons of water were released into the park in 10 minutes. There was no loss of life, even though the superintendent’s family was forced out of their home. However, if this failure had occurred during the summer when the popular park has many visitors, it could have resulted in a catastrophic loss of life.

These dam failures indicated that this is a serious problem which needs attention. Many of Missouri’s smaller dams are becoming a greater hazard as they age and deteriorate. While hundreds of them need to be rehabilitated, lack of available funding and often questions of ownership loom as difficult obstacles to overcome.

Measures of Probability and Severity Probability: Low Severity: High

Seven dams in Howard County are considered to pose high hazard should there be a dam break, according to their state classification. Of these dams, six are not regulated by the state and thus not subject to inspection requirements.

The Planning Committee, however, disputed the classification of many of these high hazard dams as, in many cases, there are no buildings within the downstream distance of these dams which could reasonably be considered to be impacted by a dam failure. Knowledge of the planning area’s topography and a thorough inspection of the maps included in this plan led the Planning Committee to determine that the severity of a dam failure in the planning area should be considered low, but due to the number of high hazard dams, the severity is considered high.

Dam Failure Vulnerability Overview Vulnerable Jurisdictions: Howard County (unincorporated), Fayette, Howard Co. Regional Water Commission

Vulnerability Rating: High

There are seven dams in the planning area classified by the state as High Hazard; only one of these are regulated by the State of Missouri and inspected on a regular basis. There are 64 dams in the planning area classified as significant or low hazard. The Planning Committee disputed the accuracy of the classification of many of these High Hazard dams due to the current lack of any buildings within the downstream distance which could reasonably be considered to be impacted by a dam failure. The total damage sustained by a dam failure would depend on many varying factors such as the size and location of the dam, advance warning of the possibility of a break, the amount of water released, time and season of the break, presence/absence of debris carried by the water, structures downstream, and the presence/absence of people in the downstream area. It was the assessment of the Planning Committee, after inspection and discussion of the dam location maps, that the vulnerability rating for dam failure in the planning area should be low. Despite this, the vulnerability rating of dam failure is considered high due to the sheer number of high hazard dams within the county.

Potential Impact on Existing Structures

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

Figure 3.2.1E

Without specific inundation studies, it is difficult to know the exact areas which would be impacted by the failure of these dams. The Dam and Reservoir Safety Program of the MO DNR is currently leading a program to conduct inundation studies on state regulated dams throughout Missouri. Studies are initially being conducted on the high hazard dams (State Classes 1 and 2). Maps will likely be abailable in 2018 for annual plan updates.

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

Figure 3.2.1F

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

Figure 3.2.1G

100

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

Figure 3.2.1H

101

Figure 3.2.1 I

102

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

There are currently no county-wide zoning regulations or building codes in Howard County, although there are municipal building codes throughout the county in incorporated areas; public sentiment indicates that this will be true for the foreseeable future. Therefore, there are no legal means to control development to lessen the threat of flooding from dam failure in the unincorporated areas of Howard County.

Fayette does have zoning regulations and could restrict development in any dam inundation areas which might exist within its city limits. However, inundation areas are not known at this time and if development occurs outside of city limits, Fayette regulations would not apply.

Where the legal power is lacking, public education can be used to help raise awareness of the issue so that is taken into consideration when purchasing or developing property. The inundation studies and development of EAPs for the two state regulated high hazard dams in the planning area will provide information helpful for making informed decision in the area of those dams, if this information is readily available and the public is aware of its existence. Eventually, it is hoped that inundation studies will be completed on all of the state regulated dams; this would provide inundation information on four more dams in the planning area.

Existing Mitigation Strategies County Evacuation - Centrally located and easily accessible staging areas have been identified by Howard County Emergency Management in the event that an evacuation is ordered (Howard County LEOP, Appendix 3 to Annex J). Transportation will be provided from the staging areas to designated safe areas for those persons who do not have their own transportation. In addition, the staging areas can be used as drop-off and pick-up sites for resources and supplies. The identified staging areas are:  Central Methodist Baseball and Football Field (Fayette)  Fayette R-III Schools (Fayette)  Howard County R-II Schools (Glasgow)  New Franklin R-I (New Franklin)

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

103

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

Inundation Maps and Emergency Action Plans (EAPs) (While these inundation maps and EAPs are not yet available for Howard County, they are discussed in this section because they are a mitigation strategy which is currently underway statewide.) All owners of state regulated dams in Missouri are required to complete an Emergency Action Plan (EAP). However, according to the Missouri State Hazard Mitigation Plan (2013), “…the State is still in the stages of a concentrated effort to have inundation maps and Emergency Action Plans completed for all high hazard potential dams…”

To address this issue, inundation studies are currently underway on state regulated dams, beginning with the high hazard dams (State Classes 1 and 2). In 2009, the State hired an outside firm to develop the inundation maps. They are being completed on a county by county basis, beginning with the counties with the greatest number of regulated high hazard dams. In conjunction with the inundation mapping, Emergency Action Plans (EAPs) will be developed for state regulated dams under the lead of the Dam and Reservoir Safety Program of the MO DNR, working in conjunction with the dam owners, County Emergency Management Directors, and other state and federal officials. The Missouri Dam and Reservoir Safety Program provides the following information about the importance and content of EAPS on their website: Completion of Emergency Action Plans can help save lives and reduce property damage during a dam safety emergency. Plans increase preparedness by organizing emergency contact information and evacuation procedures into an official document and by providing enhanced communications between dam owners and local emergency management officials. Emergency Action Plans will contain the following information:

 Guidance for evaluating emergency situations occurring at a dam.  Notification charts and emergency contact information.  A list of residents, businesses and entities within the downstream inundation zone.  A list of resources available for responding to a dam emergency.  An inundation zone map (estimated boundary of the maximum water elevation resulting from a dam breach.  Basic physical and geographical data for the regulated dam.

104

3.2.2 Drought

Description of Hazard The National Weather Service defines a drought as “a period of abnormally dry weather which persists long enough to produce a serious hydrologic imbalance (for example crop damage, water supply shortage, etc.) The severity of the drought depends upon the degree of moisture deficiency, and the duration and the size of the affected area.”

Droughts occur either through a lack of precipitation (supply droughts) or overuse of water (water use droughts). Supply droughts are natural phenomenon associated with lower than normal precipitation. Water use droughts are when the uses of water by humans outpace what the surrounding environment can naturally support. Water use droughts can theoretically happen anywhere but are generally seen in arid climates, not humid places such as Missouri. At the present time, Missouri is most vulnerable to supply droughts brought on by a lack of precipitation.

The period of lack of precipitation needed to produce a supply drought will vary between regions and the particular manifestations of a drought are influenced by many factors. As an aid to analysis and discussion, the research literature has defined different categories of drought (see Figure 3.2.2A). These are also the types of drought addressed by the Missouri Dought Plan.

Figure 3.2.2A Drought Categories

Agricultural drought Defined by soil moisture deficiencies

Hydrological drought Defined by declining surface and groundwater supplies

Meteorological drought Defined by precipitation deficiencies

Defined as meteorological drought in one area that has Hydrological drought and land use hydrological impacts in another area Defined as drought impacting supply and demand of Socioeconomic drought some economic commodity Source: “Missouri Drought Plan,” Missouri Department of Natural Resources – Geological Survey and Resource Assessment, Water Resources Report No. 69, 2002

The most common type of drought in Mid-Missouri is the agricultural drought which happens on average every several years, according to data from the USDA Risk Management Agency1. Widespread crop damage, particularly to corn, is associated with agricultural drought in Missouri. The socioeconomic consequences of a drought can reach far beyond those immediately damaged.

1 https://www.rma.usda.gov/data/cause.html 105

Measuring Drought Droughts vary in severity. Numerous indices have been developed to measure drought severity; each tool has its strengths and weaknesses.

One of the oldest and most widely used indices is the Palmer Drought Severity Index (PDSI, see Figure 3.2.2B), which is published jointly by NOAA and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). The PDSI measures the difference between water supply (precipitation and soil moisture) and water demand (amount needed to replenish soil moisture and keep larger bodies of water at normal levels.)

Figure 3.2.2B Palmer Drought Severity Index (PDSI) Score Characteristics Greater than 4 Extreme wet 3.0 to 3.9 Very wet 2.0 to 2.9 Moderately wet 1.0 to 1.9 Slightly wet .5 to .9 Incipient wet spell .4 to -.4 Near normal -.5 to -.9 Incipient dry spell -1 to –1.9 Mild drought -2 to –2.9 Moderate drought -3 to –3.9 Severe drought Below -4 Extreme drought

Missouri is divided into six regions of similar climactic conditions for PDSI reporting; Howard County is located in the Northwest Region, boarding the West Central region to the south and Northeast to the east.

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

 Phase 1: Advisory Phase - Water monitoring analysis indicates anticipated drought.  Phase 2: Drought Alert - PDSI reads -1 to -2; and stream flow, reservoir levels and groundwater levels are below normal over a period of several months.  Phase 3: Conservation Phase - PDSI reads between -2 to -4; stream flow, reservoir levels and groundwater levels continue to decline; and forecasts indicate an extended period of below-normal precipitation.  Phase 4: Drought Emergency - PSDI reads lower than -4.

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

106

The NDMC uses the PDSI, SPI, and three other indicators to classify the severity of droughts throughout the country on a 5-point scale ranging from D0 Abnormally Dry to D4 Exceptional Drought for reports on the U.S. Drought Monitor (Figure 3.2.2B1).

107

Figure 3.2.2B1 U.S. Drought Monitor - Drought Severity Classification Ranges

Objective Short and Palmer CPC Soil USGS Weekly Standardized Category Description Long-term Drought Possible Impacts Drought Moisture Model Streamflow Precipitation Indicator Blends Index (Percentiles) (Percentiles) Index (SPI) (Percentiles)

Going into drought: short-term dryness slowing planting, growth of Abnormally crops or pastures. Coming out of D0 -1.0 to -1.9 21-30 21-30 -0.5 to -0.7 21-30 Dry drought: some lingering water deficits; pastures or crops not fully recovered Some damage to crops, pastures; streams, reservoirs, or wells low, Moderate D1 some water shortages developing or -2.0 to -2.9 11-20 11-20 -0.8 to -1.2 11-20 Drought imminent; voluntary water-use restrictions requested

Crop or pasture losses likely; water Severe D2 shortages common; water -3.0 to -3.9 6-10 6-10 -1.3 to -1.5 6-10 Drought restrictions imposed Major crop/pasture losses; Extreme D3 widespread water shortages or -4.0 to -4.9 3-5 3-5 -1.6 to -1.9 3-5 Drought restrictions Exceptional and widespread Exceptional crop/pasture losses; shortages of D4 -5.0 or less 0-2 0-2 -2.0 or less 0-2 Drought water in reservoirs, streams, and wells creating water emergencies Source: http://droughtmonitorunl.edu

108

Geographic Location The entire planning area is potentially at risk for drought. However, the problem of drought in Missouri is primarily an issue of rural water supply, according to the Missouri State Hazard Mitigation Plan (2013). Since most droughts in central Missouri are agricultural droughts, the jurisdiction most at risk of drought damage is the unincorporated area of Howard County.

In the rural agricultural areas, farmers are at risk for crop failure and would suffer the most immediate and severe economic loss. This economic loss can spread out into an entire region, however, and the more prolonged the drought, the greater the economic ripple effect.

There is also an increased chance of wildfire during periods of drought, just when water resources are at a premium for all needs. Wildfire is addressed in Section 3.2.9.

In terms of participating jurisdictions, Howard Co. Regional Water Commission have been evaluated as not vulnerable to drought for reasons which will be explained in the Drought Vulnerability Overview. The Missouri Department of Natural Resources has defined different regions of drought susceptibility in the Missouri Drought Plan (2002). A map of the different regions is shown in Figure 3.2.2 C.

Most of Howard County lies in Region C which is defined as having “…severe surface and groundwater supply drought vulnerability. Surface water sources usually become inadequate during extended drought. Groundwater resources are naturally of poor quality and typically only supply enough water for domestic needs. Irrigation is generally not feasible. When irrigation is practical, groundwater withdrawal may affect other users. Surface water sources are used to supplement irrigation supplied by groundwater sources.”

The land bordering the Missouri River lies in Region A which is defined as having “…minor surface and groundwater supply drought susceptibility. It is a region underlain by saturated sands and gravels (alluvial deposits). Surface and groundwater resources are generally adequate for domestic, municipal, and agricultural needs.”

109

Figure 3.2.2 C

110

Previous Occurrences Even though Howard County averages about 37” of precipitation per year, it has been subject to droughts in the past.

Historical information concerning droughts prior to the 20th Century is difficult to find. However, tree-ring research at the University of Missouri, chronicling the years 912 to 2004, indicates a regular 18.6 year cycle of drought in the Midwest.

More information is available for droughts in the 20th and current centuries:

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

 1953-1957 - These were actually drier years in Missouri than the Dust Bowl years. Missouri was specifically hit in 1954 and 1956 by an extreme decrease in precipitation. Crop yields were down by as much as 50%, leading to negative impacts on the agricultural and regional economies of the region.

 1980’s - he last major nationwide drought was in the late 1980’s. The Northern Great Plains and Northern Midwest were hit particularly hard. Missouri suffered economic losses due to decreased barge traffic and low water in the Missouri and Mississippi Rivers. Some Missouri municipalities suffered from very low water resources and in some instances exhausted all of their normal water sources, according to the Missouri Hazard Analysis (SEMA, August 1997).

 1999-2000 - Most of Missouri was in a drought condition during the last half of 1999, according to the Missouri State Hazard Mitigation Plan (2013). In September, the governor declared an agricultural emergency for the entire state. In October, all counties were declared agricultural disaster areas by the U.S. Secretary of Agriculture. The period July- November averaged only 9.38 inches of rain and was the driest recorded since 1895. By May of 2000, the entire state was under a Phase 2 Drought Alert. The drought continued through the summer of 2000 in various parts of the state.

 2002-2004 - Another drought hit western and northwestern Missouri; many crop and livestock producers suffered great financial hardship during this time. In July 2003, Howard County was in a Phase 1 Drought Advisory; by January 2004 this advisory was no longer in effect in the county.

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

111

disaster areas due to losses from the drought conditions of 2006. Conditions began to improve with a large snowstorm in late November/early December.

In 2012, there was a major drought that covered most of the state and continued into 2013. This drought was rated at a D4, categorizing it as a drought emergency. The overall damage done by this drought was significant enough that every county in Missouri was declared to be a disaster area. Cattle across the state were fed hay due to a shortage of grass, which is abnormal outside of winter months. The Northwest region of Missouri, where Howard County is located, suffered the most extreme drought (Extreme Drought) during this period, according to PDSI record on Jan 19, 2013 (Missouri State Hazard Mitigation Plan (2013)).

In the following chart, the information is taking from NCDC and collected from the Drought Monitor and other government agencies. NCDC only has data for droughts from 2000 to the present, although there have been droughts prior to 2000. We should assume that data collection for droughts changed at some point near 2000. The crop damage amount is not in agreement with the USDA crop insurance payments for drought disaster estimates in Figure 3.2.2D.

Figure 3.2.2B2 Drought Events-Howard County Property Start Date End Date Deaths Injuries Crop Damage Damage 4/1/2000 4/30/2000 0 0 0 0 7/1/2012 7/31/2012 0 0 0 0 8/1/2012 8/31/2012 0 0 0 0 9/1/2012 9/30/2012 0 0 0 0 10/1/2012 10/31/2012 0 0 0 0

The probability of drought occurrence based on the number of reported events over the course of the years data was collected (2000-2016) is 31.25%. This is inflated due to the fact that we can assume the drought events reported in 2012 are actually one drought spanning from July to October. Assuming this is the case, there were actually two droughts during the reporting period making the adjusted probability of drought occurrence 12.5%. Even with the conservative calculation for drought, the probability of occurrence is high.

Measures of Probability and Severity

Probability: High – Howard Co. (unincorporated) Low – Armstrong, Fayette, New Franklin, Glasgow, New Franklin R-I School District, Howard County R-II School District, Fayette R-III School District, Central Methodist University

Severity:

112

Moderate – Howard Co. (unincorporated) Low - Armstrong, Fayette, New Franklin, Glasgow, New Franklin R-I School District, Howard County R-II School District, Fayette R-III School District, Central Methodist University

Drought Vulnerability Overview

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

Vulnerability Rating: Moderate – Howard Co. (unincorporated) Low – Armstrong, Fayette, New Franklin, Glasgow, New Franklin R-I School District, Howard County R-II School District, Fayette R-III School District, Central Methodist University

Howard Co. Consolidated Public Water Supply District #1 has been evaluated as not vulnerable to Drought because the source of its water, the alluvial water of the Missouri River, is abundant and is pumped from wells 90-100 feet deep. The Chief Water Operator of the District noted that water supply has never been a problem nor, due to the abundance of alluvial water, can he imagine a situation when it ever would be. (See Region A in Figure 3.3.2C.) As of Fall 2011, the Howard Co. Regional Water Commission does not have any infrastructure. The Commission plans to locate its wells in the Missouri River floodplain also, so it is not being considered vulnerable to Drought. The unincorporated agricultural areas of Howard County are most vulnerable to the immediate threat of inadequate water and resultant crop loss. In addition to damage to crops, produce, livestock, and soil, and the resulting economic consequences, the arid conditions created by drought pose an increased risk of fire.

While the Missouri Drought Plan (2002) indicates that Howard County is in an area which is highly susceptible to drought, the Missouri State Hazard Mitigation Plan (2013) found that the County had a low vulnerability to crop loss from drought for the period assessed in the plan (1998-2012). Information on claims paid for crop damage to drought during this period is shown in Figure 3.2.2D.

113

Figure 3.2.2D Crops and Drought Insurance - Howard County (1998-2012)

Total Insurance Annualized Claims for Crop Exposure Annual Crop Claims Paid for Drought Damage (2007 Census of Agriculture) Claims Ratio Drought Damage

$6,047,383 $403,159 $34,407,000 1.17%

Source: Missouri State Hazard Mitigation Plan (2013)

Taking both plans’ information into account, the Planning Committee assessed a Vulnerability Rating of Moderate for the unincorporated area of the County.

Drought can have far reaching economic consequences when it results in reduced crop harvest or crop failure. The losses incurred impact not only the producers themselves but also businesses connected to the agricultural sector and eventually the wider community. For this reason, all other participating jurisdictions (with the exception of the Water District and Water Commission) are assessed as having a Low Vulnerability to Drought through its cascading effects.

In the 2017 plan update, the vulnerability for drought did not change as there has not been a severe drought since 2013, but it is possible for it to happen again. It is not a regular occurrence.

Potential Impact on Existing Structures Structural impact in regard to this hazard is minimal. Drought can play a role in road and street damage when periods of drought are followed by heavy rains.

Potential Impact of Future Development Drought is primarily an issue of water supply for the rural and agricultural parts of the planning area. Good land management techniques and the interconnection of water supplies are crucial in mitigating future impacts. The jurisdictions of the planning area are planning for the future through such actions as the formation of the Howard Co. Regional Water Commission and continuing discussions of other interconnections arrangements and agreements.

Existing Mitigation Strategies Local Drought Insurance Data from the USDA Risk Management Agency indicates that 81.2% of crops in Missouri were insured for drought damage in 2011 (Missouri State Hazard Mitigation Plan (2013)). Data from the same agency indicates that $6,047,383 was paid in Howard County on claims for crop losses due to drought in the period 1998-2012.

114

State The Revised Statutes of Missouri (RSMo 640.415) requires that the MoDNR “…ensure that the quality and quantity of the water resources of the state are maintained at the highest level practicable to support present and future beneficial uses. The provision was established to provide for the development, maintenance, and periodic updating of a long-range comprehensive statewide plan for the use of surface water and groundwater. It includes existing and future requirements for drinking water supplies, agriculture, industry, recreation, environmental protection, and related needs.” (Missouri DNR, 2013)

The Missouri Department of Natural Resources (MoDNR) publishes a weekly map from The Drought Monitor on their website at: http://www.dnr.mo.gov/env/wrc/drought/nationalcondition.htm. (The Drought Monitor is a comprehensive drought monitoring effort involving numerous federal agencies, state climatologists, and the National Drought Mitigation Center. It is located at the National Drought Mitigation Center in Lincoln, Nebraska. The new Drought Monitor Map, based on analysis of data collected, is released weekly on Thursday at 8:30 a.m. Eastern Time. The map focuses on broad-scale conditions and is linked to the data sets analyzed.)

The University of Missouri Extension has a number of publications for both farmers and homeowners to help mitigate the effects of drought. They are available at: http://extension.missouri.edu/main/DisplayCategory.aspx?C=257

National The National Drought Mitigation Center (NDMC) is located at the University of Nebraska- Lincoln. The following is a description of their activities from their website2: “The National Drought Mitigation Center (NDMC) helps people and institutions develop and implement measures to reduce societal vulnerability to drought, stressing preparedness and risk management rather than crisis management. Most of the NDMC’s services are directed to state, federal, regional, and tribal governments that are involved in drought and water supply planning….The NDMC’s activities include maintaining an information clearinghouse and drought portal; drought monitoring, including participation in the preparation of the U.S. Drought Monitor and maintenance of the web site3; drought planning and mitigation; drought policy; advising policy makers; collaborative research; K-12 outreach; workshops for federal, state, and foreign governments and international organizations; organizing and conducting seminars, workshops, and conferences; and providing data to and answering questions for the media and the general public.”

2 http://drought.unl.edu/AboutUs/MissionandHistory.aspx 3 http://droughtmonitor.unl.edu 115

3.2.3 Earthquake

Description of Hazard

The United States Geological Society (USGS) describes an earthquake as “a sudden movement of the earth's crust caused by the release of stress accumulated along geologic faults or by volcanic activity.” Earthquakes can be one of the most destructive forces of nature causing death, destruction of property, and billions of dollars of damage.

The New Madrid Seismic Zone (NMSZ), which runs through southeastern Missouri, is the most active seismic zone east of the Rocky Mountains. Any hazard mitigation planning in Missouri must, of necessity, take possible earthquakes into account.

Missouri and much of the Midwest can feel earthquakes from very far away because the geology of the area is more amenable to ground shaking than the California geology. New Madrid earthquakes can cover up to twenty times the area of typical California earthquakes because of this differing geology.

Measuring Earthquake Magnitude and Intensity In any discussion of earthquakes, it is important to distinguish between two measurements: magnitude and intensity.

The magnitude of an earthquake is a measurement of the actual energy released by the quake at its epicenter. In the U.S., it is commonly measured by the Richter Scale denoted with an Arabic numeral (e.g. 6.0).

The intensity of an earthquake refers to the potentially damaging effects of a quake at any particular site. Intensity is measured by the Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale (MMI) and expressed by a Roman numeral (e.g. VI).

A single earthquake will thus have one magnitude but different intensities depending on a location’s distance from the epicenter of the quake, intervening soil type, and other factors.

Geographic Location The entire planning area is at risk for the effects of an earthquake along the New Madrid Seismic Zone. Areas close to the Missouri River may be particularly vulnerable. The soil, or alluvium, along river channels is especially vulnerable to liquefaction from earthquake waves; river alluvium also tends to amplify the waves.

Previous Occurrences Historical quakes along the New Madrid Seismic Zone in southeastern Missouri have been some of the largest in U.S. history since European settlement. The Great New Madrid Earthquake of 1811-1812 was a series of over 2000 quakes which caused destruction over a very large area. According to information from Missouri SEMA’s Earthquake Program, some of the quakes measured at least 7.6 in magnitude and five of them measured 8.0 or more. 116

The 1811-1812 quakes changed the course of the Mississippi River. Some of the shocks were felt as far away as Washington D.C. and Boston.

The first federal disaster relief act was a result of the Great New Madrid Earthquake of 1811- 1812. President James Madison signed an act into law which issued “New Madrid Certificates” for government lands in other territories to residents of New Madrid County who wanted to leave the area.

Figure 3.2.5D-Recent Earthquakes in the Region

Image Source: http://arcg.is/1KiGPb

There have been two earthquakes near Howard County in the previous 13 years. In 2004, there were two earthquakes on February 8th in Monroe County. One earthquake had a magnitude of 2.30 and the other had a magnitude of 2.90. In 2005, an earthquake occurred in Cooper County near its border with Moniteau County with a magnitude of 3.30.

117

Measures of Probability and Severity

Probability: Low to Moderate Severity: Moderate to High

How likely are earthquakes along the New Madrid Seismic Zone? According to the Missouri State Hazard Mitigation Plan (2013): “Small earthquakes occur often in Missouri. About 200 are detected every year in the New Madrid Seismic Zone. Most can only be detected by sensitive instruments, but southeast Missouri experiences an earthquake once or twice every 18 months that is strong enough to crack plaster in buildings.”

In 2002, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) released the following expectations for earthquakes in the zone in following 50 years4:  25 - 40% percent chance of a magnitude 6.0 and greater earthquake  7 - 10% chance of a magnitude 7.5 - 8.0 quake (magnitudes similar to those in 1811-1812)

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

Figure 3.2.3A Projected Earthquake Hazard for Planning Area Probability of Intensity in Magnitude MMI** Occurrence Planning Area Expected Damage at NMSZ* Descriptor (2002-2052) (MMI**) Felt by all; many frightened and run outdoors, walk unsteadily. Windows, dishes, glassware 6.7 25-40% VI "Strong" broken; books fall off shelves; some heavy furniture moved or overturned; a few instances of fallen plaster. Damage slight. Difficult to stand; furniture broken; damage negligible in building of good design and construction; slight to moderate in well-built "Very 7.6 7-10% VII ordinary structures; considerable damage in Strong" poorly built or badly designed structures; some chimneys broken. Noticed by people driving motor cars. * New Madrid Seismic Zone; ** Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale

4 https://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs-131-02/ 118

Source: http://dnr.mo.gov/geology/geosrv/geores/techbulletin1.htm, http://sema.dps.mo.gov/docs/EQ_Map.pdf

According to the USGS, Howard County is one of the 47 counties in Missouri that would be severely impacted by a 7.6 magnitude earthquake with an epicenter on or near the New Madrid Seismic Zone. As noted above, the probability of an earthquake of this magnitude was between 7 and 10% over a 50 year period. This translates into a low probability for an earthquake of such magnitude impacting the planning area. However, should an earthquake of this magnitude occur, the consequences would be significant in the planning area, particularly for poorly constructed structures.

There is a 25-40% probability of the occurrence of an earthquake with “Strong” effects felt in the planning area. The damages to structures from such a quake would be minimal but the psychological effects of having the earth move under one’s feet should not be underestimated.

119

Figure 3.2.3B Highest Projected Modified Mercalli Intensities by County

Source: http://sema.dps.mo.gov/docs/EQ_Map.pdf

120

Figure 3.2.3C Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale I. Instrumental Not felt by many people unless in favorable conditions. Felt only by a few people at best, especially on the upper floors of buildings. II. Feeble Delicately suspended objects may swing. Felt quite noticeably by people indoors, especially on the upper floors of buildings. Many do not recognize it as an earthquake. Standing motor cars III. Slight may rock slightly. Vibration similar to the passing of a truck. Duration estimated.

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

Felt outside by most, may not be felt by some outside in non-favorable V. Rather Strong conditions. Dishes and windows may break and large bells will ring. Vibrations like large train passing close to house. Felt by all; many frightened and run outdoors, walk unsteadily. Windows, VI. Strong dishes, glassware broken; books fall off shelves; some heavy furniture moved or overturned; a few instances of fallen plaster. Damage slight.

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

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

General panic; damage considerable in specially designed structures, well IX. Ruinous designed frame structures thrown out of plumb. Damage great in substantial buildings, with partial collapse. Buildings shifted off foundations. Some well built wooden structures destroyed; most masonry and frame X. Disastrous structures destroyed with foundation. Rails bent. Few, if any masonry structures remain standing. Bridges destroyed. Rails XI. Very Disastrous bent greatly. Total damage - Almost everything is destroyed. Lines of sight and level XII. Catastrophic distorted. Objects thrown into the air. The ground moves in waves or ripples. Large amounts of rock may move position.

Source: http://sema.dps.mo.gov/docs/EQ_Map.pdf

121

Earthquake Vulnerability Overview

Vulnerable Jurisdictions: Entire Planning Area

Vulnerability Rating: Moderate

As discussed previously, the USGS in 2002 projected a fairly high chance of an earthquake in the New Madrid Seismic Zone in the following 50 years which, according to SEMA, would cause “Strong” (6.7 quake along NMSZ) or “Very Strong” (7.6 quake along NMSZ) effects in the planning area.

“Strong” effects would feel frightening to many in the population and walking would be unsteady. Damage would be minimal but would increase to effects like moved/overturned furniture and possibly fallen plaster. “Very Strong” effects would make it difficult to stand and would cause slight to moderate damage in well-built ordinary structures and considerable damage in poorly built or designed structures.

One question raised during Hazard Mitigation planning meetings was whether a specific earthquake vulnerability existed for the Fayette Elementary and Middle Schools because of their location downhill from the Fayette Park Road Water Tower. Communication between the City of Fayette and MECO Engineering, a firm which works with the city, confirmed that the tank was designed to AWWA (American Water Works Association) standards “..including Seismic Use Group III that is recommended for Howard County by AWWA.” It should also be reiterated that the “Very Strong” effects which are projected for Howard County from a 7.6 quake along the NMSZ would cause only slight to moderate damage in “well-built structures”; the water tower is above and beyond “well built” in that it was constructed to appropriate seismic standards.

A significant earthquake event in the NMSZ which does not cause great damage in Howard County could still very possibly show cascading economic effects in the county. There is the very real potential for disruption of roads and rail traffic to the eastern part of the state which includes the metropolitan area of St. Louis. Other regions of the state would very possibly be called upon for emergency and recovery assistance.

In addition, the potential for “emotional aftershocks” exists with any earthquake event. Major earthquake events require mental health services for people dealing with loss, stress, anxiety, fear, and other difficult emotions. Even a smaller quake, however, has the potential for emotional repercussions; the sudden movement of something experienced as stable for one’s entire life (the earth itself) can be very traumatic.

The following concern regarding earthquake was raised by a citizen at the first Public Presentation of the update of the Howard County Hazard Mitigation Plan: How does the hazard mitigation plan address the possible release of nuclear material due to earthquake damage at Callaway Nuclear Power Plant to the east? While this is a legitimate concern, the scope of this plan is the mitigation of natural hazard events and not emergency response to disasters such as nuclear releases. Emergency response to this scenario would be covered in the Local Emergency Response Plan (LEOP). As a side note, it

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

Potential Impact on Existing Structures The vulnerability to earthquakes across the state of Missouri was analyzed in the Missouri State Hazard Mitigation Plan (2013) using HAZUS-MH MR4, modeling software used by FEMA to compare relative risk from earthquakes and other natural hazards. The analysis used an enhanced Level 2 inventory database comprised of updated demographic and aggregated data based on the 2010 census. The site-specific essential facility data were updated based on 2011 HSIP inventory data. Two types of analysis were done: an Annualized Loss Scenario and a 2% Probability of Exceedance in 50 Years Scenario. Annualized Loss Scenario The State Hazard Mitigation Plan explains the annualized loss scenario that was run as follows: HAZUS defines annualized loss as the expected value of loss in any one year. The software develops annualized loss estimates by aggregating the losses and their exceedance probabilities from the eight return periods. (Editors note: 100, 200, 500, 750, 1000, 1500, 2000, and 2500 years.) Annualized loss is the maximum potential annual dollar loss resulting from various return periods averaged on a ‘per year’ basis. It is the summation of all HAZUS-supplied return periods multiplied by the return period probability (as a weighted calculation). The results of the modeling for Howard County are shown in Figure 3.2.3D.

Figure 3.2.3D HAZUS-MH Earthquake Loss Estimation Annualized Loss Scenario for Howard County

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

$22,000 0.00 $7,000 $29,000 81

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

** Out of 115 (114 counties and the City of St. Louis) Source: Missouri State Hazard Mitigation Plan (2013)

The loss ratio gives an indication of the potential economic impacts of an earthquake and the difficulty of recovery in the county. To put the estimated loss ratio for Howard County in perspective, the highest loss ratio in Missouri was 0.13% in Pemiscot County which lies directly over the New Madrid Fault. The lowest loss ratio was 0.000% in Adair County in northwest Missouri. In the map created from this Annualized Loss Scenario data, Howard County lies adjacent to, but outside of, the delineation of “critical counties”.

123

2% Probability of Exceedance in 50 Years Scenario

This analysis models a worst case scenario using a level of ground shaking recognized in earthquake design. The Missouri State Hazard Mitigation Plan (2013) gives the following explanation of the modeling:

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

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

Figure 3.2.3E HAZUS-MH Earthquake Loss Estimation 2% Probability of Exceedance in 50 Years Scenario for Howard County Contents Total Structural Non-Structural Loss Loss Ratio Damage and Income Loss Economic Damage Damage Ratio* Rank*** Inventory Loss Loss** $3,,508,000 $10,464,000 $3,614,000 1.38 $4,406,000 $21,992,000 69 * Loss ratio equals the sum of structural and nonstructural damage divided by the entire building inventory value within the county. ** Total economic loss includes inventory loss, relocation loss, capital-related loss, wages loss, and rental income loss

*** Out of 115 (114 counties and the City of St. Louis) Source: Missouri State Hazard Mitigation Plan (2013) To put the estimated loss ratio for Howard County for this scenario in perspective, the highest loss ratio in Missouri was 76.15% in Pemiscot County which lies directly over the New Madrid Fault. The lowest loss ratio was 0.32% in Worth County in northwest Missouri. In the map created from this 2% Probability of Exceedance in 50 Years Scenario data, Howard County also lies adjacent to, but outside of, the delineation of “critical counties”. The 2% Probability model assumed a higher magnitude (7.7) and still did not include Howard County in the “critical counties”. Caution indicates that mitigation and preparedness be focused on the most conservative estimates (in this case, those which predict greater injury and damage) unless these have been shown to be incorrect.

124

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

 Level 1 – Injuries will require medical attention but hospitalization is not needed  Level 2 – Injuries will require hospitalization but are not considered life-threatening  Level 3 – Injuries will require hospitalization and can become life threatening if not promptly treated.  Level 4 – Victims are killed by the earthquake.

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

Figure 3.2.3F Social Impact Estimates (HAZUS-MH Modeling) 2% Probability of Exceedance in 50 Years Scenario for Howard County 2 a.m. Time of Occurrence

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

5 1 0 0 6 4

Source: Missouri State Hazard Mitigation Plan (2013)

Potential Impact of Future Development The standards followed in new construction will impact vulnerability to earthquake damage. Building new structures according to more stringent earthquake resistant codes will lessen the potential damage should an earthquake occur, just as poor construction will increase vulnerability.

Building codes exist in the cities of Fayette, Glasgow, and New Franklin so there is a mechanism for mandating standards in these communities. However, standards of construction will be a matter of choice when new development occurs in unincorporated Howard County, Armstrong, and Franklin due to the lack of building regulations. Movement toward building codes in those jurisdictions is not expected in the near future.

125

Existing Mitigation Strategies Participation in National Level Exercise – May 18, 2011 Howard County participated in the National Level Exercise on Earthquakes on May 18, 2011. This exercise was carried out in eight states along the New Madrid Seismic Zone. Howard County Emergency Management sent an invitation to this event to jurisdictions in the planning area (see Appendix F.) Almost 30 representatives from jurisdictions and agencies throughout Howard County took part in the tabletop exercise and discussed/developed appropriate responses to changing local scenarios stemming from an imagined earthquake along the NMSZ.

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

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

WHEN THE SHAKING STARTS, STAY WHERE YOU ARE -- IF INDOORS, STAY INDOORS; IF OUTSIDE, STAY OUTSIDE.

IF YOU ARE INDOORS, GET UNDER A DESK, BED, OR OTHER HEAVY PIECE OF FURNITURE. STAY AWAY FROM GLASS AND WINDOWS.

IF YOU ARE OUTSIDE, GET AWAY FROM BUILDINGS AND UTILITY WIRES UNTIL THE SHAKING STOPS.

126

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

(SAMPLE MEDIA MESSAGE)

NO INFORMATION AVAILABLE This is ______at the ______. An earthquake of undetermined magnitude has just been felt in the ______area.

At this time, we have no confirmed reports of injuries or damage. Police and fire units are responding to the area. We will keep you informed as reports come in. Meanwhile, be prepared for after shocks.

If shaking begins again, quickly seek shelter under a sturdy piece of furniture or in a supporting doorway. If your house has been damaged and you smell gas, shut off the main gas valve. Switch off electrical power if you suspect damage to the wiring. Do not use your telephone unless you need emergency help

(SAMPLE MEDIA MESSAGE)

UPDATE ON EARTHQUAKE

This is ______at the ______. The magnitude of the earthquake, which

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

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

This office has received reports of _____ deaths, _____ injuries, and _____ homes damaged. No dollar figure is yet available. Police and fire units are on the scene to assist residents. (Continue with summary of the situation.)

After shocks continue to be felt in the area. If you feel shaking, quickly seek shelter under a sturdy piece of furniture or in a supporting doorway. Do not use your telephone unless you need emergency help.

127

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

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

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

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

The governing body of each school district which can be expected to experience an intensity of ground shaking equivalent to a Modified Mercalli of VII or above from an earthquake occurring along the New Madrid Fault with a potential magnitude of 7.6 on the Richter Scale shall establish an earthquake emergency procedure system in every school building under its jurisdiction. (RSMo 160.451.1)

This earthquake emergency system shall include 1) A school building disaster plan; 2) An emergency exercise to be held at least twice each school year whereby students and staff simulate earthquake emergency conditions and the procedures for safety and protection to be implemented under such conditions; provided the department of education shall not require any school district to perform more than two earthquake preparedness drills during any one school year; 3) Protective measures to be taken before, during, and following an earthquake; and 4) A program to ensure that the students and certified and noncertified employees of the school district are aware of, and properly trained in, the earthquake emergency procedure system. (RSMo 160.453.1)

At the beginning of each school year, each school district shall distribute to each student materials that have been prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, SEMA, or by agencies that are authorities in the area of earthquake safety and that provide the following objectives: 1) Developing public awareness regarding the causes of earthquakes, the forces and effects of earthquakes, and the need for school and community action in coping with earthquake hazards; 2) Promoting understanding of the impact of earthquakes on natural features and manmade structures; and 3) Explaining what safety measures should be taken by individuals and households prior to, during and following an earthquake. (RSMo 160.455.1)

Training and exercises are carried out in all three public school districts in the planning area.

128

3.2.4 Extreme Heat

Description of Hazard Extreme Heat is one of the top weather-related killer in the United States, according to National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration5. In contrast to the visible, destructive, and violent nature of floods, hurricanes, and tornadoes, extreme heat is a silent killer. Heat kills by overloading the human body’s capacity to cool itself. According to information from the Environmental Protection Agency, roughly 765,233,180 people died from heat related causes in the United States6.

Air temperature is not the only factor to consider when assessing the likely effects of extreme heat. High humidity often accompanies heat in Missouri and increases the danger. The human body cools itself by perspiring; the evaporation of perspiration carries excess heat from the body. High humidity makes it difficult for perspiration to evaporate and thus interferes with this natural cooling mechanism. Hyperthermia, an acute and serious condition, results when the body takes in more heat than it can dissipate.

The Heat Index devised by the National Weather Service (NWS) takes into account both air temperature and relative humidity (see Figure 3.2.4A). The Heat Index is a measure of how hot it really feels and more accurately measures the danger posed by the combination of temperature and humidity. The color coding in the Heat Index Chart indicates the level of danger at the various heat index readings.

Figure 3.2.4 A

Source: National Weather Service. http://www.nws.noaa.gov/os/heat/heat_index.shtml (May 2017)

5 NOAA. http://www.nws.noaa.gov/os/heat/ 6 EPA. https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-08/heat-deaths_fig-1.csv 129

The National Weather Service has put together information that correlates heat index temperatures with the effects on the human body (see Figure 3.2.4 B). These effects are based on the interaction of both heat and humidity levels.

Figure 3.2.4B Effects of Extreme Heat on the Human Body Heat Index Heat Disorder

80 - 90º F Fatigue possible with prolonged exposure or physical activity. Sunstroke, heat cramps, and heat exhaustion possible with prolonged 90 - 105º F exposure or physical activity. Sunstroke, heat cramps, and heat exhaustion likely, and heat stroke possible 105 - 130º F with prolonged exposure or physical activity. 130º F and higher Heat stroke or sunstroke likely with continued exposure.

Source: National Weather Service. http://www.wrh.noaa.gov/psr/general/safety/heat/heatindex.png (May 2017)

Residents of both urban and rural areas are vulnerable to excessive heat. Some of the factors which increase the level of risk are:  Age (infants, children, and seniors)  Underlying medical conditions  Physical activity or employment outdoors  Lack of access to air conditioning, water, and shadeLack of access to public communication regarding heat hazards and protective measures The elderly in particular are susceptible to complications from excessive and/or prolonged heat. According to the American Community Survey (2011-2015), the planning area has an estimated population of 1,629 citizens who are 65 years and older.

Geographic Location The entire planning area is at risk from extreme heat events.

Previous Occurrences Howard County has had many periods of extreme heat in the last two decades (see Figure 3.2.4C). The data indicates that Extreme Heat usually occurs in July and August.

When examining the data in Figure 3.2.4C, it is important to take into consideration that the deaths, injuries, and economic losses represent all counties in Missouri affected by the period of Extreme Heat. In addition, the heat index indicated for any particular Extreme Heat event is the range for all counties in Missouri affected by the event.

None of the deaths recorded in the data occurred in Howard County. The majority of deaths from Extreme Heat in the state of Missouri occur in the two major metropolitan areas of St. Louis and Kansas City but these also hold a majority of the population.

130

Data from the MO Department of Health and Senior Services (DHSS) indicates that 39% of the 358 deaths from Extreme Heat in the years 2000-2013 occurred outside of Jackson County, St. Louis County, and St. Louis City (major metropolitan areas of Missouri) (http://health.mo.gov/living/healthcondiseases/hyperthermia/data.php). This percentage correlates fairly closely with the percentage of the population residing outside the two major metropolitan areas (33.1%), according to the 2011-2015 ACS 5-Year Estimate. It cannot be said that extreme heat is a concern only for major cities.

The DHSS data also indicates that, for the years 2007-2013, underlying medical conditions and physical activity were known contributing factors for many of the deaths occurring outside the major metropolitan areas7.

Figure 3.2.4C Periods of Extreme Heat in Howard County, (6/12/1994-6/20/2017)

Heat Duration Property Crop Date Deaths* Injuries* Index (days) Damage* Damage*

07/18/99 100-115 14 22 0 0 0 08/28/00 105-110 4 0 0 0 0 09/01/00 100+ 3 3 0 0 0 07/06/01 115 3 2 0 0 0 07/17/01 NA 8 2 0 0 0 08/01/01 105-113 5 4 0 0 0 08/09/01 105-110 1 1 0 0 0 07/04/03 105 2 1 0 0 0 07/21/05 105-110 5 0 0 0 0 07/16/06 105-115 5 4 0 0 0 07/29/06 105-115 3 0 0 0 0 08/01/06 105-115 2 2 0 0 0 08/06/07 105-115 12 0 0 0 0 07/18/12 100-110 8 0 0 0 0 TOTALS 41 0 0 0 * Data are total for all affected counties by the Extreme Heat event. Source: https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/stormevents/

*The information collected from NOAA rearding crop damage is not in agreement with the information collected from USDA Risk Management Agency.

Based on the data observation period (1994-2017) and actual number of reported events during the 23 years of observation, there is a 60.9% chance that an extreme heat event will occur in Howard County. Adjusting the events that occurred to the probability that an extreme heat event will happen in any given year based on the number of years with at least one heat event is 34.8%. This number is from eight years with heat events over the course of 23 years.

7 (http://health.mo.gov/living/healthcondiseases/hyperthermia/data.php) 131

Measures of Probability and Severity Probability: High Severity: Low

Extreme Heat Vulnerability Overview

Vulnerable Jurisdictions: Entire planning area

Vulnerability Rating: Moderate

All jurisdictions are vulnerable to the effects of extreme heat. Given the high probability of an extreme heat event (and despite the Low Severity rating), the Planning Committee decided on a Moderate Vulnerability rating for the hazard. Extreme heat is a very serious natural hazard which threatens human life and deserves thoughtful mitigation measures; without existing mitigation measures such as established cooling centers, the severity rating of this hazard might be greater in the planning area.

Heat stroke and loss of life is the most significant consequence of extreme heat. The elderly are one of the segments of the population most susceptible to complications from excessive and/or prolonged heat. According to the American Community Survey (2011-2015), the planning area has an estimated population of 1,629 citizens who are 65 years and older.

While heat-related illness and death can occur due to exposure to intense heat in just one afternoon, heat stress on the body has a cumulative effect. The persistence of a heat wave increases the danger.

In addition to the human toll, the Midwestern Climate Center, in a paper on the 1999 heat wave, points out other possible impacts such as electrical infrastructure damage and failure, highway damage, crop damage, water shortages, livestock deaths, fish kills, and lost productivity among outdoor-oriented businesses8. Drought in conjunction with extreme heat exacerbates the situation.

Crop claims totaling $61,626 were paid in Howard County in the period 1998-2016 for losses due to heat, according to data from the USDA Risk Management Agency9. This is separate from the $7,948,496 paid in that period for losses due to drought. The numbers that are reported from USDA do not match those listed on NCDC. This explanation is unknown, but it is likely due to a lack of communication between datasets.

Potential Impact on Existing Structures

8 Michael A. Palecki, Stanley A. Changnon, and Kenneth E. Kunkel, “The Nature and Impacts of the July 1999 Heat Wave in the Midwestern United States: Learning from the Lessons of 1995,” Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 82, no. 7 (July 2001): 1353-1367. 9 https://www.rma.usda.gov/data/cause.html 132

While illness and loss of life are of the most concern with extreme heat, structural impacts may also occur. Structural impacts depend on the length of the period of extreme heat and exacerbating factors such as concurrent drought. Road damage and electrical infrastructure damage may occur with intense and prolonged heat.

Potential Impact of Future Development Thoughtful future development has the potential to include mitigation for extreme heat into its design. This is true on all levels ranging from actions by individual homeowners to larger redevelopment projects planned by cities.

Properly placed shade trees can greatly contribute to lowering inside temperatures and the load placed on cooling systems.

In addition, developers would be wise to minimize the amount of earth that is paved over with concrete or asphalt when planning any new development. Surface material significantly affects the ambient air temperature above it. The inclusion of naturally vegetated areas for relaxation and cooling contribute to mitigation for both extreme heat and stormwater problems.

Existing Mitigation Activities Cooling Centers The following locations serve as cooling centers in the planning area:  Fayette Senior Citizens Center, 600 S. Cleveland St., Fayette  Glasgow Senior Center, 603 2nd St., Glasgow  Lewis Library of Glasgow, 315 Market St., Glasgow  There is an agreement with the New Franklin R-I School District to use the high school gym as a cooling center, if needed; the gym has generator backup.

The Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services (DHSS) maintains a searchable online map/database of cooling centers throughout the state at: http://gis.dhss.mo.gov/Website/coolingCenter/coolingCenter.html#

Hyperthermia Surveillance Program Missouri has an on-going statewide surveillance for illnesses and death connected to extreme heat. Health care workers are required to report cases of hyperthermia to the Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services (DHSS). In addition, citizens can call the state's toll- free abuse and neglect hotline at 1-800-392-0210 to report senior citizens or adults with disabilities suffering from the heat and needing assistance. The hotline operates 8 a.m. to 8 p.m., seven days a week. The surveillance program was started in 1980 and the data is maintained at DHSS.

Warnings and Alerts

133

The following departments, agencies, and organizations all are involved in educating the public about the dangers of extreme heat and/ or issuing alerts when the threat of extreme heat is imminent:

Local media publishes and broadcasts alerts and information about dangerously hot weather.

The Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services (DHSS) announces statewide hot weather health alerts according to the following criteria (Missouri State Hazard Mitigation Plan (2013)):

 Hot Weather Health Alert – Heat indices of 105°F in a large portion of the state are first reached (or predicted)  Hot Weather Health Warning – Heat indices have been 105°F or more for two days in a large portion of the state, or weather forecasts call for continued heat stress conditions for at least 24 to 48 hours over a large portion of the state.  Hot Weather Health Emergency – When extensive areas of the state meet all of the following criteria: . High sustained level of heat stress (Heat Index of 105°F for 3 days) . Increased numbers of heat-related illnesses and deaths statewide . The NWS predicts hot, humid temperatures for the next several days for a large portion of the state.

The Missouri State High School Activities Association (MSHSAA) provides coaches with educational pamphlets on the dangers of excessive heat10.

The National Weather Service (NWS) has devised a method to warn of advancing heat waves up to seven days in advance. The Mean Heat Index is a measure of how hot the temperatures actually feel to a person over the course of a full 24 hours. It differs from the traditional Heat Index in that it is an average of the Heat Index from the hottest and coldest times of each day.

The NWS initiates alert procedures when the Heat Index is expected to exceed 105°- 110°F for at least two consecutive days. (The exact Heat Index temperature used depends on specifics of the local climate.) The following are released to the media and over NOAA All-Hazard Weather Radio11:

 Heat Index values are included in zone and city forecasts.  Special Weather Statements and/or Public Information Statements are issued which present a detailed discussion of the Heat Index Values, who is most at risk, and safety rules for reducing risk.  In severe heat waves, State and local health officials are assisted in preparing Civil Emergency Messages which include Special Weather Statements and more detailed medical information, advice, and names and telephone numbers of health officials.

10 http://www.mshsaa.org/resources/pdf/2010-11SportsMedicineManual.pdf 11 https://www.weather.gov/media/owlie/heatwave.pdf 134

Weather Forecast Offices of the National Weather Service (NWS) can issue the following warnings about excessive heat12:

 Excessive Heat Warning - An excessive heat event is expected in the next 12 hours. The warning is used for conditions posing a threat to life or property.  Excessive Heat Watches - Conditions are favorable for an excessive heat event in the next 24 to 72 hours. A watch is used when the risk of a heat wave has increased, but its occurrence and timing is still uncertain. It is intended to provide enough lead time so those who need to set their plans in motion can do so, such as established individual city excessive heat event mitigation plans.  Heat Advisory – A heat advisory is issued 12 hours before a heat event which has its maximum HI temperature exceeding 100 °F for at least 2 days and night temperature not dropping below 75 °F.  Excessive Heat Outlook - Potential exists for an excessive heat event in the next 3 to 7 days. An outlook is used to indicate that a heat event may develop. It is intended to provide information to those who need considerable lead time to prepare for the event, such as public utilities, emergency management and public health officials.

12 http://www.nws.noaa.gov/om/heat/ww.shtml 135

3.2.5 Flood

Description of Hazard Howard County and its jurisdictions are at great risk for flooding because the southwestern and southern border of the county are situated on the bank of the Missouri River, the longest river in the United States. The Missouri River drains approximately one-sixth of the area of the continental United States, according to the USGS. Based on the Missouri State Hazard Mitigation Plan (2013), Missouri River drains over half the state of Missouri as it flows eastward to join the Mississippi River at St. Louis. Since Howard County is located less than 200 miles upstream from the mouth of this 2,540 mile river, flooding is a major concern for the county. There are also numerous creeks throughout the county with year-round water flows draining into the Missouri River.

Flooding is defined as partial or complete inundation of usually dry areas. Riverine flooding refers to when a river or creek overflows its normal boundaries. A rapid accumulation or runoff of surface waters may impact smaller rivers and creeks and cause flash flooding. Flash flooding can also occur as a result of dams being breached or overtopped. Flash floods can develop in a matter of hours and are responsible for more flood related deaths than any other type of flooding.

The areas adjacent to rivers and stream banks that serve to carry excess floodwater during rapid runoff are called floodplains. A floodplain is defined as the lowland and relatively flat areas adjoining rivers and streams. The term base flood, or 100-year flood, is the area in the floodplain that is subject to a one percent or greater chance of flooding in any given year, based upon historical records.

In some cases, however, flooding may not be directly attributable to a river, stream or lake overflowing its banks. It may simply be the combination of excessive rainfall and/or snowmelt, saturated ground, and inadequate drainage. With no place else to go, water will find the lowest elevations, areas that are often not in a floodplain. This type of flooding, often referred to as sheet flooding, is becoming increasingly prevalent as development outstrips the ability of the drainage infrastructure to properly carry and disburse the water flow (Missouri State Hazard Mitigation Plan (2013)).

Local storm water flooding can result when tremendous flow of water occurs due to large rain events. Local flooding can create public safety issues due to flooded roadways and drainage structures.

Most flooding in Howard County occurs in spring and summer but floods can occur during any season.

136

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

Low Water Crossings and Flash Flooding Howard County has been proactive about low-water crossings and roads affected by potential flooding within the county. The county addresses these issues on an ongoing basis and is aware of all low-water crossings. There are five low water crossings in the planning area that have not been mitigated and numerous places where flash flooding necessitates the closure of roads (see Figure 3.2.5A). Two of the low water crossings are in the Howard County Road District, two are in the Glasgow Special Road District, and one is in the Armstrong Road District.

The two low water crossings and flash flooding areas in the County Road District are posted with signs indicating “Flash Flood Area”. When flash flooding occurs, “Road Closed” signs are put up and traffic is rerouted. According to the County Road and Bridge Department, the flooding from rains of around 3” will recede in a couple of hours. It may take 8 hours for the flooding from rains of 4-6” to recede.

The two low water crossings in the Glasgow Special Road District will temporarily flood with rainfalls of 2-3” of rain but the crossings never become impassable but may become more difficult to travel through. The locations are not sign posted.

On May 13, 2011 four inches of rain fell in one-half hour and swept away a bridge on County Road 431 on the southeastern edge of the County. Nobody was hurt in the incident. The “lost” bridge and two others in the area are going to be replaced in a project with total engineering and construction costs estimated at close to $500,000. This bridge was addressed by Howard County in 2012.

137

Figure 3.2.5A

138

Previous Occurrences The floods of 1993 and 1995 were the worst repetitive flood events in Missouri history, according to the Missouri State Hazard Mitigation Plan (2013). All levees in Howard County were overtopped during the Flood of 1993. (Levee Failure is discussed in Section 3.2.7.) There was one death in the County during the 1993 Flood.

Franklin, Glasgow, New Franklin and the unincorporated areas near the Missouri River experienced elevated loss statistics during the Missouri River floods of 1993 and 1995 as compared with damages in the remainder of the county. The extent of the 1993 flood is shown in Figure 3.2.5B.

Figure 3.2.5B

139

Howard County was included in Presidential Disaster Declarations for both the 1993 and 1995 floods: #995 (July 9, 1993) and #1054 (June 2, 1995). Howard County and its jurisdictions were eligible for both Public Assistance (PA) and Individual Assistance (IA) from each of these disaster declarations.

In addition to the river floods of 1993 and 1995, data from NOAA and SEMA indicates numerous other flooding events in Howard County since 1993 (see Figure 3.2.5C). It is important to note that the total losses shown in the chart include the statewide losses from the events listed.

The Missouri River flood in April 1994 caused $5 million in property damage and $5 million in crop damage across 79 Missouri counties; the portion of this reported loss which occurred in Howard County is not indicated in the NOAA data. The death reported from the flooding in June 1999 did not occur in Howard County.

Flash flooding can be particularly hazardous, as there may be very little warning for travelers. The NOAA data contains specific information about such an incident in Howard County. A water rescue was needed on Rte Z SE of Petersburg on March 17, 2008; there were no injuries associated with this rescue.

Howard County was included in Presidential Disaster Declarations for flooding in 2010, 2011, and 2013:  2010 - Disaster Declaration #1934 - PA (Categories A-G) was made available to Howard County jurisdictions. Flooding in the City of Glasgow resulted in damage to the riverbank along Water Street and approximately 2,000 tons of silt and sand deposited in the city lagoon. More information on the lagoon can be found under the City of Glasgow in this flooding section.

 2011 - Disaster Declaration #4012 – PA (Categories A-G) was made available to Howard County jurisdictions. One of the more costly effects of this flood of the Missouri River was the large pumping costs incurred by the levee districts. (More information on this can be found in Section 3.2.7 Levee Failure.) Howard County itself had expenses associated with damage on county roads near the Missouri River.

 2013 – Disaster Declaration #4130 – PA (Categories A-G) was made available to Howard County jurisdictios. Flooding and storms throughout the county caused a per capita impact of $9.19.

140

Figure 3.2.5C Flood Events in Howard County (4/11/1994-6/20/2017) Property Crop Location Date Type Deaths* Injuries* Damage* Damage* 79 counties and City of St. Louis 4/11-4/19/1994 River 0 0 5.0M 5.0M Franklin, New Franklin, so. county 4/11/1994 Flash 0 0 0 0 32 counties 5/7/-5/31/1995 River 0 0 2.8M 2.0M W of New Franklin 5/17/1995 Flash 0 0 0 0 16 counties 6/6-6/30/1995 River 0 0 700K 2.0M 16 counties 7/4- 7/22/1995 River 0 0 0 0 16 counties 8/2-8/10/1995 River 0 0 0 0 Glasgow and county 5/9-5/15/1996 Flood 0 0 0 0 Glasgow and county 5/25-5/31/1996 Flood 0 0 0 0 Fayette, county (Moniteau River) 5/27-5/28/1996 Flood 0 0 0 0 Glasgow and county 6/1-6/11/1996 Flood 0 0 0 0 Glasgow and county 6/18-6/20/1996 Flood 0 0 0 0 Glasgow and county 6/25-6/29/1996 Flood 0 0 0 0 Glasgow and county 7/21-7/24/1996 Flood 0 0 0 0 13 counties 2/21-2/28/1997 Flood 0 0 0 0 6 counties 4/5- 4/30/1997 Flood 0 0 0 0 13 counties 4/11-4/20/1997 Flood 0 0 0 0 6 counties 5/1-5/31/1997 Flood 0 0 0 0 7 counties 3/8-3/13/1998 Flood 0 0 0 0 14 counties 3/28-3/31/1998 Flood 0 0 0 0 12 counties 4/1- 4/6/1998 Flood 0 0 0 0 10 counties 4/8-4/18/1998 Flood 0 0 0 0 6 counties 6/10-6/25/1998 Flood 0 0 0 0 6 counties 6/14-6/19/1998 Flood 0 0 0 0 10 counties 6/20-6/26/1998 Flood 0 0 0 0 4 counties 7/4-7/11/1998 Flood 0 0 0 0 15 counties 10/1-10/11/1998 Flood 0 0 0 0 9 counties 10/17-10/23/1998 Flood 0 0 0 0 14 counties 11/1-11/15/1998 Flood 0 0 0 0 3 counties (Moniteau Creek at 1/22-1/23/1999 Flood 0 0 0 0 Fayette) 5 counties (Moniteau Creek at 2/7-2/8/1999 Flood 0 0 0 0 Fayette, Lamine River at Otterville) 6 counties (Moniteau Creek at 3/8-3/12/1999 Flood 0 0 0 0 Fayette, Lamine River at Otterville) 16 counties (Mo River at Glasgow, Moniteau Creek at Fayette, Lamine 4/14-4/22/1999 Flood 0 0 0 0 River at Otterville) 12 counties (Mo River at Glasgow, 4/22-4/30/1999 Flood 0 0 0 2.5M Moniteau Creek at Fayette)

141

6 counties (Mo River at Glasgow) 5/1-5/2/1999 Flood 0 0 0 0 12 counties (Mo River at Glasgow, Moniteau Creek near Fayette, 5/4-5/10/1999 Flood 0 0 0 0 Lamine River near Otterville) 9 counties (Mo River at Glasgow) 5/16-5/30/1999 Flood 0 0 0 0 2 counties (Mo River at Glasgow) 5/23-5/25/1999 Flood 0 0 0 0 NE County (Hungry Mother Creek Urban/Small 6/8/1999 0 0 0 0 north of Bunker Hill) Stream Fld 12 counties (Mo River at Glasgow, 6/27-6/30/1999 Flood 1 0 0 750K Lamine River at Otterville) 8 counties (Mo River at Glasgow, 7/1-7/14/1999 Flood 0 0 0 0 Moniteau Creek at Fayette) 3 counties (Moniteau Creek at 1/29-1/30/2001 Flood 0 0 0 0 Fayette, Lamine River at Otterville) 11 counties 2/9-2/11/2001 Flood 0 0 0 0 16 counties 2/24-2/28/2001 Flood 0 0 0 0 11 counties 3/13-3/20/2001 Flood 0 0 0 0 6 counties (Moniteau Creek at 4/10-4/17/2001 Flood 0 0 0 0 Fayette) 14 counties 6/3-6/12/2001 Flood 0 0 0 0 16 counties 6/20-6/26/2001 Flood 0 0 0 0 2 counties (Moniteau Creek near 4/21-4/22/2002 Flood 0 0 0 0 Fayette) 13 counties 5/6-5/17/2002 Flood 0 0 0 0 13 counties 5/11-5/17/2002 Flood 0 0 40K 0 4 counties (Moniteau Creek near 6/12-6/14/2002 Flood 0 0 0 0 Fayette) Moniteau Creek near Fayette 5/8-5/9/2003 Flood 0 0 0 0 County roads near Fayette 5/10/2003 Flash 0 0 0 0 6 counties (Moniteau Creek near 5/10-5/12/2003 Flood 0 0 0 0 Fayette) 2 counties (Moniteau Creek near 6/12-6/13/2003 Flood 0 0 0 0 Fayette) County NE of Fayette 6/12-6/13/2003 Flash 0 0 0 0 3 counties (Moniteau Creek near 9/1-9/2/2003 Flood 0 0 0 0 Fayette) 4 counties (Moniteau Creek near 12/10-2/12/2003 Flood 0 0 0 0 Fayette) 2 counties (Moniteau Creek near 3/4-3/5/2004 Flood 0 0 0 0 Fayette) 2 counties (countywide) 3/26/2004 Flood 0 0 0 0 Highway 5 S of Fayette 3/26/2004 Flash 0 0 0 0 Moniteau Creek near Fayette 3/26-3/27/2004 Flood 0 0 0 0 11 counties (Moniteau Creek near 5/19-5/23/2004 Flood 0 0 0 0 Fayette)

142

Co. Rd. 433 NE of New Franklin 6/14/2004 Flash 0 0 0 0 Moniteau Creek near Fayette 7/6/2004 Flood 0 0 0 0 Route Z W/NW of Franklin 7/6/2004 Flash 0 0 0 0 Moniteau Creek near Fayette 8/4/2004 Flood 0 0 0 0 Route Z W/NW of Franklin 8/4/2004 Flash 0 0 0 0 Moniteau Creek near Fayette 8/28/2004 Flood 0 0 0 0 2 counties (Moniteau Creek near 11/1/2004 Flood 0 0 0 0 Fayette) Moniteau Creek near Fayette 11/27/2004 Flood 0 0 0 0 Moniteau Creek near Fayette 1/3/2005 Flood 0 0 0 0 Highway 5 and Co. Rd 320 S/SW 1/4-1/5/2005 Flash 0 0 0 0 of Fayette Moniteau Creek near Fayette 1/4-1/5/2005 Flood 0 0 0 0 Route H and Highway 124 E/SE of 1/12-1/13/2005 Flash 0 0 0 0 Fayette Moniteau Creek near Fayette 2/13-2/14/2005 Flood 0 0 0 0 Mo River at Glasgow 6/13-6/15/2005 Flood 0 0 0 0 County roads NE of Fayette 7/4/2006 Flash 0 0 0 0 Moniteau Creek near Fayette 11/30/2006 Flood 0 0 0 0 Moniteau Creek near Fayette 2/24-2/25/2007 Flood 0 0 0 0 Moniteau Creek near Fayette 3/30/2007 Flood 0 0 0 0 Moniteau Creek near Fayette 4/26/2007 Flood 0 0 0 0 Moniteau Creek near Fayette 5/6-5/7/2007 Flood 0 0 0 0 Moniteau Creek near Fayette 2/5- 2/6/2008 Flood 0 0 0 0 Moniteau Creek near Fayette 2/17/2008 Flood 0 0 0 0 W of Franklin (Rte Z at Bartlett 3/17/2008 Flood 0 0 0 0 Creek) to SE of Petersburg (Rte Z) Moniteau Creek near Fayette 3/17-3/18/2008 Flood 0 0 0 0 Moniteau Creek near Fayette 4/10-4/11/2008 Flood 0 0 0 0 Moniteau Creek near Fayette 12/27-12/28/2008 Flood 0 0 0 0 SE of Fayette 4/24-4/25/2010 Flash 0 0 0 0 Rte H near Highway O, NE of 4/24-4/25/2010 Flash 0 0 0 0 Fayette 37 Counties - Federal Disaster 6/12-7/31/2010 River na na na na Declaration #1934 11 Counties - Federal Disaster 6/1-8/1/2011 River na na na na Declaration #4012 E Fayette 5/26/2013 Flash 0 0 0 0 E Fayette 5/15-5/16/2015 Flash 0 0 0 0 Armstrong 7/3/2016 Flood 0 0 0 0 Fayette 7/13/2016 Flash 0 0 0 0 TOTALS*: 1 0 8.540M 12.250M * Reported death, injury and damage data is for all locations in Missouri affected by the hazard event. Source: https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/stormevents/

143

Based on the number of reported flood events over the data observation period, there is a 100% chance that flooding will occur in any given year. Adjusting this for the number of years that flooding occurred at least once within that year gives the probability of 82.6% for occurrence. We can say there are only four of the last 23 years without a flooding event in Howard County. Only 17.4% of the last 23 years did not have flooding within the county.

Measures of Probability and Severity Probability: High Severity: Varies widely in planning area

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

Moderate - Planning Area as a whole, Howard Co. (unincorporated), Fayette, Fayette R-III School District

Low - Armstrong, New Franklin R-I School District, Howard Co. R-II School District, Central Methodist University

Flood Vulnerability Overview Vulnerable Jurisdictions: Entire planning area Vulnerability Rating: High - Howard Co. (unincorporated), Fayette, Glasgow, New Franklin, Fayette R-III School District, Howard Co. Consolidated PWSD #1, Howard Co. Regional Water Commission Moderate - Armstrong, New Franklin R-I School District, Howard Co. R-II School District, Central Methodist University Flooding is a frequent occurrence in the planning area but the type and severity of flooding varies widely. Some jurisdictions must contend with the high flood waters of the Missouri River or its branches throughout the County. Others deal mostly with flash flooding of streets during periods of heavy rains. Some school districts are primarily concerned with the rerouting of buses due to road closures from flooding. For these reasons, the Planning Committee assessed a Vulnerability rating of either High or Moderate for each jurisdiction in the planning area. More specific information on the situation in each jurisdiction follows.

144

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

Figure 3.2.5D Estimate of Structures in 100-year Floodplain Number of NFIP # of Structures Amount Insured*** Jurisdiction Policies*** (Estimate*) (as of 3/31/17) (as of 3/31/17) Howard County (unincorporated) 391 9 $702,600 Armstrong 0 0 0 Fayette 5 1 $210,000 Glasgow 17 0 0 Franklin 67 3 $150,800 New Franklin 75 13 $682,500 New Franklin R-I School District 0 Howard Co. R-II School District 0 Fayette R-III School District 0 Central Methodist University 0 Howard Co. CPWSD #1 6** Howard Co. Regional Water Commission 0 * Estimate developed from comparison of aerial imagery with floodplain map. ** Actual number provided by CPWSD #1. Source: *** https://bsa.nfipstat.fema.gov/reports/1011.htm

145

Figure 3.2.5E

146

Specific information about flooding in the participating jurisdictions follows. Jurisdictions with high vulnerability to flooding are discussed first; those with moderate vulnerability follow.

Maps of all the participating incorporated communities (Armstrong, Fayette, Glasgow, and New Franklin) and the Howard Co. Consolidated Public Water Supply District #1 showing the 100- year floodplain are included with the discussion (see Figures 3.2.5F-J).

Participating Jurisdictions with High Vulnerability to Flood: Howard County (unincorporated) There is extensive 100-year floodplain along branches and creeks throughout Howard County in addition to the floodplain along the Missouri River (see Figure 3.2.5A). There are definitely occupied homes in the floodplain, according to county personnel. The actual number of occupied residences in the floodplain is not known. While the estimate from aerial imagery put the number of structures at 391, this reflects any and all types of structures within the floodplain – residences, pole barns, sheds, grain bins, etc. There are 9 NFIP policies in effect in unincorporated Howard County insuring $702,600 in property. While all of these policies may not reflect property within the 100-year floodplain, this may give a more realistic view of what is considered at threat from flood. Fayette The biggest flooding issue in Fayette is flash flooding in the area of Shield Street in the southwestern part of the city (see Figure 3.2.5F). This area is within the 100-year flood plain. Shield Street is both a city street and a county road. The City would like to do a road buildup and drainage project at Shield Street to mitigate the flash flooding problem. Other areas within the 100-year flood plain are almost devoid of structures, other than roads, with the exception of three structures: the Fayette Waste Water Treatment Plant, Howard County Farm Bureau, and an auto business (O’Brien’s). The road leading into the treatment plant was formerly subject to flash flooding. The road was built up to mitigate this problem and flash flooding is no longer an issue in that area (see Figure 3.2.5F). Outside of the 100-year floodplain, the Fayette High School and the Elementary/Middle School are subject to flash flooding from water draining downhill from the City Park, but this does not present as an issue for the schools. Schools in Fayette have addressed any flooding issues within the period of 2011-2017 and no longer have significant flooding problems.

147

Figure 3.2.5F

148

Glasgow

While the Vulnerability rating for flooding in Glasgow is the same as that for the planning area as a whole (High), it should be noted that Glasgow also received a High rating for both the Probability and the Severity of flooding. This reflects Glasgow’s location near the Missouri River (see Figure 3.2.5G).

Except four single-family houses, there are no other residential structures sitting in the100-year floodplain in Glasgow but signficant parts of the city’s water and wastewater system are in the floodplain, according to geographic information provided by Missouri Geographic Resource Center and FEMA Flood Map Service Center.

 The two city wells are located in Chariton County, north of the main part of City of Glasgow; they flood at a river stage of 28 feet (Boonville gage). When flooding threatens, city workers check to make sure everything is working properly at the wells. The wells will function until a river stage of 44 feet, a point at which Glasgow would need to be evacuated anyway.  The Waste Water Treatment Facility (lagoons) south of the city floods at a river stage of 32 feet. In the flood of 2010, there were approximately 2,000 tons of sand and silt deposited in the 9 acre Waste Water Treatment Facility Cell #1; the average depth of sludge fill was 18 inches. The City of Glasgow was approved for PA from Disaster Declaration #1934 to dispose of this sludge; the total project cost was estimated to be $633,674. To date, the project has exceeded $1.2 million and it is not a permanent solution.  After the last update of this plan, the City of Glasgow, with the Mid-Missouri Regional Planning Commission, began to address this issue. As previously stated, the project has exceeded costs of $1.2 million to date. At the current time, the project is ongoing but the levee has been elevated as well as areas of the treatment plant to prevent any future silt/sand deposits and lagoon leakage. If funding becomes available, the City of Glasgow would like to find long term solutions to this issue.

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

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

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

149

Figure 3.2.5G

150

New Franklin

While the Vulnerability rating for flooding in New Franklin is the same as that for the planning area as a whole (High), it should be noted that New Franklin received a High rating for both the Probability and the Severity of flooding. (The Severity rating for the planning area as a whole was Moderate.) This reflects New Franklin’s location near the Missouri River (see Figure 3.2.5F).

The following significant city infrastructure is located in the 100-year floodplain: the water treatment plant, the wastewater lagoon, the two city wells, the animal control shelter and a maintenance shed.

The following mitigation actions have been taken in the past to alleviate issues with flooding:  An 8 foot wall surrounds the water treatment plant. When flood threatens, a backhoe is used to drop a metal door into the opening in the wall.  The wastewater lagoon is elevated on a platform to a height above the 500-year floodplain.  A well is located about one mile southwest of the city (in unincorporated Howard County). It is also elevated on a platform above the 500-year floodplain.

When Missouri River stages reach about 25’ (Boonville gage), the city will begin to sandbag around the well located in the city limits. Any animals in the animal shelter are moved to Fayette and the contents of the maintenance shed are moved to storage in the City Park.

When significant flooding occurs, the water treatment plant and the lagoon can only be accessed by boat even though they are protected from flooding.

There are also homes and an MFA (Missouri Farmers Association) grain elevator complex located in the 100-year floodplain. Private citizens will either sandbag (if sandbags are available) or evacuate their homes when flood threatens. The main building at the MFA complex is elevated.

An area of flash flooding from runoff was identified on the western side of the city (see Figure 3.2.5H).

151

Figure 3.2.5H

152

Figure 3.2.5I

153

Howard Co. Regional Water Commission As of 2017, the Howard County Regional Water Commission does not have any structures in the 100-year floodplain. The water treatment plant is not located in the 100-year floodplain nor would flooding at 1993 levels be a concern. Future wells, however, could be located in the 100- year floodplain. Fayette R-III School District Fayette R-III School District is not in the 100-year floodplain but has experienced flash flooding problems in the past at both the High School and Elementary/Middle School. A signficant amount of money was spent to fix drainage near the High School; flash flooding problems are no longer a problem in this area. The elementary and middle schools are situated down the hill from the Fayette City Park. Water from the hillside drains down to the area of the schools. This has been a problem in the past; there was one occurrence during the past ten years when there was significant water inside the schools during heavy rains. The school district has taken a number of measures to mitigate this flash flooding. Drainage ditches on school property have been widened, deepened and riprapped. This has helped mitigate the flooding so it is no longer as serious as in the past. However, in times of heavy rain there are still some flash flooding problems in the area. The School District has taken the actions within its power to mitigate this flooding. Any further mitigation action would need to be taken by the City of Fayette on city property.

Participating Jurisdictions with Moderate Vulnerability to Flood: Armstrong Armstrong received a moderate vulnerability rating for flood because it is while the measure of probability for flooding is high for Armstrong, the measure of severity is low. While Armstrong does have area which lies within the 100-year floodplain, there are no vulnerable structures in these areas. There is one area in the very northeast of the City which experiences flash flooding; the water usually recedes within about 12 hours (see Figure 3.2.5J). City officials indicated that a culvert needs to be installed under a driveway in this area and they plan to encourage the owner to do so. New Franklin R-I School District and Howard Co. R-II School District The main effect flooding has on these school districts is the necessity of rerouting bus routes during certain periods of flooding. Central Methodist University The main portion of the campus of Central Methodist University is located on a hill. At times there will be minor flooding from a creek near one of the parking lots. A shed is located within the flood plain near the football field, but there has been no issues to date and the shed and its contents are not essential or of high value to the school. 154

Figure 3.2.5J

155

Figure 3.2.6K

156

Figure 3.2.8L

157

Figure 3.2.8M

Flood RiskMap Products

Figure 3.2.8M shows that Howard County is a part of the Lower Missouri-Moreau watershed which means that Flood Risk Products are available for selected streams inside the watershed. Within the watershed very high resolution (~1 meter) flood depth and probability data for Howard County were calculated using LIDAR remote sensing technology and posted for public download on June 19th, 2015. Two map examples using these data were included in Figure 3.2.8K and Figure 3.2.8L. The availability of this data allows for any individual or institution to make educated judgements regarding flood risk that were not possible before.

158

National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) Repetitive Loss Properties

[The risk assessment] must also address National Flood Insurance Requirement Program (NFIP)insured structures that have been repetitively §201.6(c)(2)(ii): damaged by floods.

The NFIP defines a Repetitive Loss Property as “any insurable building for which two or more claims of more than $1,000 were paid by the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) within any rolling ten-year period, since 1978. At least two of the claims must be more than 10-days apart.”

Repetitive loss property claims paid in the planning area during the last three decades are shown in Figure 3.2.5J.

Figure 3.2.5J Howard County Repetitive Loss Properties 1978-2009 Average # of Properties # of Losses Total Paid Payment 3 10 $100,833 $10,083

Source: Missouri State Hazard Mitigation Plan (2013)

A repetitive loss property may or may not currently be insured by the NFIP.

A Severe Repetitive Loss (SRL) property is defined as a single family property that is covered under an NFIP flood insurance policy and:

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

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

For both (a) and (b) above, at least two of the referenced claims must have occurred within any ten-year period, and must be greater than 10 days apart13.

The Missouri State Hazard Mitigation Plan (2013) indicates no Severe Repetitive Loss Properties in the planning area

13 https://www.fema.gov/pdf/nfip/manual201205/content/20_srl.pdf 159

Potential Impact of Future Development Howard County and all of its incorporated communities have recognized the hazards posed to their lives and livelihood by the threat of flooding. The County and all the incorporated communities belong the NFIP; adopting floodplain regulations is a requirement for membership in the NFIP. This insures that future development in the floodplain will adhere to standards set forth to minimize the hazard posed by flooding.

Planning is currently underway for a project which would involve the location of critical infrastructure in the floodplain. The Howard County Regional Water Commission has been formed to develop a new water system and treatment plant to serve the customers of Fayette, New Franklin, and Consolidated Public Water Supply District #1. Wells for the new water system would be located in the floodplain. The exact locations are not known at this time.

While the location of new critical infrastructure in the floodplain will raise the assets vulnerable to flooding in the planning area, proper construction according to floodplain regulations will mitigate for this increase in vulnerability.

Existing Mitigation Activities

National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP)

The U.S. Congress established the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) with the passage of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968. The NFIP is a Federal program enabling property owners in participating communities to purchase insurance as a protection against flood losses in exchange for state and community floodplain management regulations that reduce future flood damages.

Participation in the NFIP is based on an agreement between communities and the Federal Government. If a community adopts and enforces a floodplain management ordinance to reduce future flood risk to new construction in floodplains, the Federal Government will make flood insurance available within the community as a financial protection against flood losses. This insurance is designed to provide an insurance alternative to disaster assistance to reduce the escalating costs of repairing damage to buildings and their contents caused by floods.

Participation in the National Flood Insurance Program is a critical aspect of hazard mitigation planning for it provides communities with direct resources that can be used for controlling the potentially devastating impacts of floods. Furthermore, participation in the program helps communities recover from flood impacts easier.

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

160

Figure 3.2.5K Howard County Jurisdictions Participating in NFIP Jurisdiction Entry into Program Date of Current FIRM Howard County 1/5/1989 3/21/2017 Armstrong 8/3/1984 10/16/2009 (M) Fayette 1/19/1983 10/16/2009 Franklin 3/2/1983 3/21/2017 Glasgow 8/2/1982 3/21/2017 New Franklin 1/19/1983 3/21/2017 * (M) indicates that no elevation was determined

Source: FEMA. May 2017, https://www.fema.gov/cis/MO.pdf

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

Figure 3.2.5L NFIP Policies in Howard County as of 3/31/2017 Number of Amount Insured Total Community Policies ($) Premium ($) Howard County (unincorporated) 9 702,600 4,405 Armstrong 0 0 0 Fayette 1 210,000 351 Franklin 3 150,800 980 Glasgow 0 0 0 New Franklin 13 682,500 6,112 Source: FEMA. 3/31/2017. Accessed May 2017.

https://bsa.nfipstat.fema.gov/reports/1011.htm

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

Figure 3.2.5M Flood Response Levels Response level Description Flood Watch Flash flooding or flooding is possible within a designated area Flood Warning Flash flooding or flooding has been reported or is imminent Flooding of small streams, streets, and low lying areas, such as Flood Advisory railroad underpasses and some urban drains is occurring Source: Missouri State Hazard Mitigation Plan (2013)

161

Maps Floodplain maps for the county are kept on file at the County Emergency Operations Center.

Evacuation The Howard County LEOP (Appendix 5 To Annex J) contains a well-defined procedure to be followed in case flood evacuation is necessary.

In addition, centrally located and easily accessible staging areas have been identified by Howard County Emergency Management in the event that an evacuation is ordered (Howard County LEOP, Appendix 3 to Annex J). Transportation will be provided from the staging areas to designated safe areas for those persons who do not have their own transportation. In addition, the staging areas can be used as drop-off and pick-up sites for resources and supplies. The identified staging areas are:  Central Methodist Baseball and Football Field (Fayette)  Fayette R-III Schools (Fayette)  Howard County R-II Schools (Glasgow)  New Franklin R-I (New Franklin)

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

The Howard County LEOP (Appendix 7 to Annex C ) also contains the following sample news release for flood evacuation:

FLOOD EVACUATION ORDERED

This is ______. The flooding situation continues in parts of

______(county/city) and may worsen.

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

boundaries of local area, evacuation routes).

Be sure to take essential items -- medicine, special foods, personal items, baby supplies, clothing, money, and valuable papers -- but do not overload your car. Secure your home before you leave.

Be sure to check on any neighbors who may need assistance. If you cannot stay with relatives or friends outside of the evacuation area, go to (one of) the Red

Cross shelter(s) at ______.

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

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

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

162

3.2.6 Land Subsidence/Sinkhole

Description of Hazard The Missouri State Hazard Mitigation Plan (2013) gives the following information about land subsidence: “Land subsidence is sinking of the earth’s surface due to the movement of earth materials below the surface….In Missouri, subsidence is primarily associated with sinkholes but they can also occur from void space left by mining, and natural caves.”

Sinkholes are common in areas of the country with carbonate bedrock, that is found in many parts of Missouri. Carbonate bedrock is commonly fractured; fractures provide a passageway for water which dissolves the rock and can lead to sinkholes (see Figure 3.2.6A).

Figure 3.2.6A

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

-By James E. Kaufmann Source: US Geological Survey

According to the Missouri Department of Natural Resources (DNR), sinkholes can occur due to human activities such as construction excavation, well drilling, or mining operations. These activities can cause shifts in buoyancy and/or disturb subsurface voids.

Sinkholes vary in size and can potentially cause damage to roads, water/sewer lines, buildings, and lagoons. As mentioned in the Missouri State Hazard Mitigation Plan (2013), Missouri is one of the seven states where sinkholes are most likely to cause damage due to the state’s geologic composition.

163

Geographic Location Information in the Missouri State Hazard Mitigation Plan (2013) indicates twelve known sinkholes in the planning area (see Figure 3.2.6B). SEMA also created a dataset for areas of elevated risk for ground collapse (see Figure 3.2.6C). All of the known sinkholes or high risk ground collapse areas are located in unincorporated Howard County.

It is important to note that future sinkhole development has the potential to occur near these areas and also in other areas that currently do not have sinkholes or ground collapse. Gradual or sudden land subsidence is a key sign of sinkhole formation. Figure 3.2.6B

164

Figure 3.2.6C

165

Previous Occurrences There have been no recorded occurrences of recent sinkhole collapse in Howard County. This does not necessarily mean that none have occurred. As with many situations, the information is limited to what has been reported.

Measures of Probability and Severity Probability: Low Severity: Low

Land Subsidence/Sinkhole Vulnerability Overview

Vulnerable Jurisdictions: planning area; greater risk in Howard County (unincorporated)

Vulnerability Rating: Low

Given the low number of known sinkholes in the planning area, their location in the unincorporated area, and no known history of sinkhole collapse in the area, the Vulnerability Rating for this hazard was assessed as low.

Potential Impact on Existing Structures It is difficult to determine the potential impact of land subsidence and sinkholes on existing structures for a number of reasons:  There is a lack of data on historic damages caused by land subsidence and sinkhole collapse in Missouri.  Even with the mapping of known and possible sinkhole locations, it is difficult to predict where a sinkhole will collapse and if the collapse will be significant enough to damage any structures in the vicinity.

There are few structures near the known sinkholes in the planning area. According to the Missouri State Hazard Mitigation Plan (2013), the MO DNR examined more than 160 sinkhole collapses reported by the public between 1970 and 2007. The vast majority of the collapses were small, less than 10 feet in diameter and 10 feet deep. While larger collapses are rare than bowl-shaped sinkholes in Missouri, they are not uncommon events. And the vulnerability will increase when development occurs on unmapped land subsidence area.

Potential Impact of Future Development It could be generally supposed that greater development in areas where sinkholes are known or presumed to occur would increase the probability of damages from sinkhole collapse. However, sinkhole collapse is very hard to predict, so it is difficult to predict the impact of future development. To err on the side of caution, development which avoids known and probable sinkhole areas would be the wise course of action.

166

3.2.7 Levee Failure

Description of Hazard A levee is defined by the National Flood Insurance Program “a man-made structure, usually an earthen embankment, designed and constructed in accordance with sound engineering practices to contain, control, or divert the flow of water so as to provide protection from temporary flooding.”

Levee failure, according to FEMA, can occur by the following means:

 Overtopping-When a large flood occurs, water can flow over a levee. The stress exerted by flowing water during overtopping can cause rapid erosion.

 Piping-Levees are often built over old stream beds. Flood waters will follow these sub grade channels causing a levee to erode internally thereby allowing flood waters to rupture the levee structure.

 Seepage and Saturation-If flood waters sit up against a levee for a long period, the levee may become saturated and eventually collapse.

 Erosion-Most levees are constructed of sand or soil which erodes easily under high- velocity flood waters.

 Structural Failures-Lack of regular maintenance is a key reason levees fail at gates, walls, or closure sites.

Levee Oversight:

Federally authorized levees are typically designed and built by the US Army Corps of Engineers in cooperation with a local sponsor then turned over to the local sponsor to operate and maintain.

Non-federal levees are designed, built, and managed by a non-federal entity.

There is no single agency with responsibility for levee oversight. The Army Corps of Engineers inspects and oversees 2,500 levees nationwide through their levee program. They estimate in 2011 that levees prevented more than $120 billion in damages.

The responsibilities of local levee owners or sponsors are broad and may include levee safety; land use planning and development; building codes; and operations, maintenance, repair, rehabilitation and/or replacement of the levee. The certification of levees for FEMA’s National Flood Insurance Program is the responsibility of the local levee owner or sponsor.

Federally authorized and some non-federal levees may be eligible for Army Corps of Engineers rehabilitation assistance funding.

167

Geographic Location The major levees in the planning area are located along the Missouri River in the southwestern and southern part of Howard County (see Figure 3.2.7A). Vulnerability is being assessed for failure of these main levees which are managed by six separate levee and drainage districts.

Other privately owned levees exist in the planning area but official data on their locations is not available. Vulnerability assessments are not being completed for these private levees due to the lack of official data on their locations.

The lack of information and condition of these private levees is an area for concern.

“Operations and Maintenance is important to levee safety, but it is not the only factor that affects risk and reliability of a levee, and should not be represented as such. It is important to note, there is still a large universe of private and other non Corps levees that have not been inventoried or inspected/assessed. We don’t know the size of this universe, where the levees are located, their condition, or the consequences of failure, loss of life being of paramount concern.”

– US Army Corps of Engineers

The levees managed by the levee districts are agricultural levees and part of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Rehabilitation Program. They are currently eligible for levee rehabilitation assistance should they undergo damage during a flood event.

168

Figure 3.2.7A

169

Previous Occurrences All levees in the planning area were overtopped in the flood of 1993. Levee District #4’s levee was overtopped again in the flood of 1995; subsequently, there were major updates made to the levee which has allowed it to hold higher floodwater than the 1995 floodwater. In 1997, water came close to the top of Levee District #4’s levee but it was not overtopped.

The floodwaters causing the most problems for flooding of levees in the planning area are those entering the Missouri River from the Grand River and Chariton River. These rivers enter the Missouri in neighboring Chariton County to the north, approximately 23 miles and 12 miles respectively upstream from where the Missouri River reaches the Howard County border at the City of Glasgow.

There was extensive flooding on the Missouri River in 2011. While the levees in the planning area were not overtopped in 2011, there was a large problem with seepage and water that could not be drained from fields due to the high river levels. Some of the levee districts incurred high costs for pumping during the prolonged period of elevated river waters.

Howard County was included in Disaster Declaration #4012 for flooding between June 1 and August 1 of 2011. Most of the damage in Howard County was connected to pumping expenses associated with flooding in the levee districts; total pumping costs in three levee districts (#2, #3 and Bonne Femme #1) and one drainage district (#7) totaled around $152,000.

Measures of Probability and Severity Probability: Moderate Severity: High

The levees in the planning area have been built considerably higher since the Flood of 1993. While this has protected areas from flooding in the short run, higher levees mean a greater volume of water will be released if the levees are topped. It was the considered opinion of levee district and emergency management personnel that a flood of the magnitude of 1993 would have devastating effects in the planning area at this point, partially due to the higher levees.

170

Levee Failure Vulnerability Jurisdictions: Howard County (unincorporated areas near the Missouri River), New Franklin, Howard Co. PWSD #1, Howard Co. Regional Water Commission (Howard Co. Regional Water Commission as of fall 2011 does not have any infrastructure vulnerable to Levee Failure; however, the Commission plans to locate wells in the 100-year floodplain of the Missouri River, so there is a good chance that in the future they will have assets vulnerable to Levee Failure. )

New Franklin R-I School District, Howard County R-II School District and Fayette R-III School District are not vulnerable to Levee Failure.

Vulnerability Rating: High

The levees in the planning area have been built higher since the devastating Flood of 1993; an overtopping of the higher levees would release greater volumes of water into the protected areas in a shorter period of time thanhas occurred in previous floods.

Even without overtopping, high river levels are a challenge for the levee districts due to seepage and lack of ability to drain fields into the river. Breaches of the levees can cause major damage to agricultural fields through the deposit of large quantities of sand and silt.

For all of these reasons, the Planning Committee assessed vulnerability to Levee Failure as high.

Potential Impact on Existing Structures Each levee district protects various assets. A closer view of each levee district is presented in this section; information is included on land and structures protected. The districts are presented in the order one would encounter them if traveling downstream on the Missouri River.

171

Howard County Levee District #6

Figure 3.2.7B

172

Figure 3.2.7C Howard County Levee District #6 Embankment Data General location: Left descending bank of Missouri River, river mile 222.5 to 222.0; right descending bank of Richland Creek Levee designed gage function reading/station: 33.0' Glasgow Gage Level of protection provided: Exceeds a 5-year event Average height of levee: 4' to 12' Average crown width: 10' to 14' Average side slope: Landside ranges from 1 on 3 to 1 on 6, riverside ranges from 1 on 3 to 1 on 6 Annual maintenance costs: $500 Protected Features Total acres protected: 417 Agricultural production acres protected: 417 Roads: Approximately 2 miles of gravel surfaced County road, approximately 0.5 miles of unimproved farm to market road Sponsorship and Contact Information Sponsor: Howard County Commission Contact for information on levee: William Lay (Secretary) 660-728-0125 Sources: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Inspection Report (March 2, 2010)

In 2011, approximately two-thirds of the crops in the levee district were lost due to seepage from the Missouri River. The district does not have any pumping stations.

173

Howard County Drainage District #3 (Sections 1 and 2), Howard County Levee District #7, and Howard County Levee District #2

These three districts comprise one flood control unit along almost 14 miles of the Missouri River (see Figure 3.2.7E for District #3 and #7, and Figure 3.2.7I for District #2). The districts have discussed the possibility of merging into one district. The features protected by the flood control unit as a whole are shown in Figure 3.2.7D; specific information for District #3 and #7 is shown in Figures 3.2.7F, G, and H, and information for District #2 is shown in Figure 3.2.7J. All three districts applied for Public Assistance (PA) available through Disaster Declaration #4012 for pumping costs associated with flooding in 2011.

Figure 3.2.7D Protected Features of Flood Control Unit - River Mile 211.7 to 198.0 Districts Comprising Flood Control Unit Howard County Drainage District #3, Section 2 (river mile 211.7 to 209.0) Howard County Drainage District #7 (river mile 209.0 to 204.5) Howard County Levee District #2 (river mile 204.5 to 198.0) Protected Features Total acres protected: 13,861 Agricultural production acres protected: 13,400 Towns: Community of Petersburg, City of Franklin Residences: 2 Roads: Approximately 4 miles of State Highway Route Z, approximately 30 miles of gravel surfaced County roads, approximately 21 miles of unimproved farm to market roads Utilities: Numerous miles of overhead power lines Barns: 31 Machine Sheds: 2 Irrigation Systems: 14 Grain Bins: 49 Other facilities: Panhandle Eastern Pipeline Sources: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Inspection Report (Feb./March 2005); Eric Colvin, Director, Howard County Drainage District #3

174

Figure 3.2.7E

175

Figure 3.2.7F Howard County Drainage District #3 - Section 1 Embankment Data General location: Left descending bank of the Missouri River, river mile 212.3 to 211.7 and the right descending bank of Salt Creek Levee designed gage function reading/station: 35.0' Boonville Gage Level of protection provided: Exceeds a 10-yr. flood event Average height of levee: 6' to 12' Average crown width: 10' to 12' Average side slope: Landside and riverside slopes 1 on 3 Annual maintenance costs: $300 Protected Features Total acres protected: 100 Agricultural production acres protected: 100 Roads: Approximately 0.5 mile of gravel surfaced County Road 319 and approximately 0.3 mile of unimproved farm to market road. Sponsorship and Contact Information Sponsor: Howard County Circuit Court Contact for information on levee: Eric Colvin, Secretary, 660-338-2678 Sources: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Inspection Report (March 3, 2005); Eric Colvin, Drainage District Secretary

Figure 3.2.7G Howard County Drainage District #3 - Section 2 Embankment Data General location: Left descending bank of the Missouri River, river mile 211.7 to 209.0 and the right descending bank of Salt Creek Levee designed gage function reading/station: 35.0' Boonville Gage Level of protection provided: Exceeds a 10-yr. flood event Average height of levee: 8' to 12' Average crown width: 8' to 12' Average side slope: Landside ranges from 1 on 3 to 1 on 6; riverside ranges from 1 on 3 to 1 on 4 Annual maintenance costs: $600 Protected Features* Total acres protected: 2,420 Agricultural production acres protected: 2,230 * In addition to the specific acreage listed here as protected, this levee protects numerous features in conjunction with other levees in the complete flood control unit (see Figure 3.2.7I). Sponsorship and Inspection Sponsor: Howard County Circuit Court Contact for information on levee: Eric Colvin, Secretary, 660-338-2678 Sources: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Inspection Report (March 3, 2005); Eric Colvin, Drainage District Secretary

176

Figure 3.2.7H Howard County Drainage District #7 Embankment Data General location: Left descending bank of the Missouri River, river mile 209.0 to 204.5 Levee designed gage function reading/station: 35.0' Boonville Gage Level of protection provided: Exceeds a 10-yr. flood event Average height of levee: 10' to 16' Average crown width: 8' to 14' Average side slope: Landside ranges from 1 on 3 to 1 on 4; riverside ranges from 1on 3 to 1 on 5 Annual maintenance costs: $3500 (estimate from Drainage District President) Protected Features* Total acres protected: 3,000 Agricultural production acres protected: 2,700 * In addition to the specific acreage listed here as protected, this levee protects numerous features in conjunction with other levees in the complete flood control unit (see Figure 3.2.7I). Sponsorship and Contact Information Sponsor: Howard County Circuit Court Contact for information on levee: Robert Seltsam, President, 573-445-0321 Sources: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Inspection Report (Feb. 28, 2005); Robert Seltsam, Drainage District President

The landowners in Howard County Drainage District #7 inspect the levee on a regular basis. In addition to these inspections, an engineer is paid to inspect it each year.

177

Figure 3.2.7I

178

Figure 3.2.7J Howard County Levee District #2 Embankment Data Location: Left descending bank of the Missouri River, river mile 204.5 to 198.0 and the right descending bank of Dortlett Creek Levee designed gage function reading/station: 35.0' Boonville Gage Level of protection provided: Exceeds a 10-yr. flood event Average height of levee: 6' to 16' Average crown width: 10' to 16' Average side slope: Landside ranges from 1 on 3 to 1 on 6; riverside ranges from 1 on 2 to 1 on 5 Annual maintenance costs: $2,000 Protected Features* Total acres protected: 8,441 Agricultural production acres protected: 8,300 * In addition to the specific acreage listed here as protected, this levee protects numerous features in conjunction with other levees in the complete flood control unit (see Figure 3.2.7I). Sponsorship and Inspection Sponsor: Howard County Commission Contact for information on levee: Larry Wilmsmeyer, Secretary, 660-848-2051 Sources: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Inspection Report (March 1, 2005)

The levee in Levee District #2 is very wide and made mostly of black dirt, according to Larry Wilmsmeyer, Secretary of the District. The levee hasn’t overtopped since the 1993 flood; the levee was heavily sandbagged for the flood of 1995.

179

Howard County Levee District #4

Figure 3.2.7K

Howard Co. Levee District #4 has a problem with one of its protected fields flooding and sustaining a total crop loss each year, according to the President of the Levee District. High levels of the Missouri River keep the drainage gates to the river closed much of the time; the flooded field receives drainage from all the other land protected by the levee. The district plans to put in a second levee with a drainage pipe and pump to drain this field into a wetlands.

180

Figure 3.2.7L Howard County Levee District #4 Embankment Data General location: Left descending bank of Missouri River, river mile 198.0 to 194.3; left descending bank of Dorlett Creek; right descending banks of Bonne Femme and Sulphur Creeks Levee designed gage function reading/station: 35.0' Boonville Gage Level of protection provided: Exceeds a 50-year event Average height of levee: 25' Average crown width: 10' Average side slope: Landside ranges from 1 on 3 to 1 on 4, riverside ranges from 1 on 2.5 to 1 on 4 Annual maintenance costs: $20,000+ (estimate from District President) Protected Features Total acres protected: 6,000 Agricultural production acres protected: 5000+ Towns: Portions of Franklin and New Franklin Businesses: 15 Residences: 4 Roads: Approximately 4 miles of State Highway Route 87, approximately 6 miles of U.S. Highway Route 40 (detour route in case of road block on I-70 at Rocheport Bridge), approximately 2 miles of State Highway Route 5, approximately 12 miles of gravel surfaced County roads, approximately 15 miles of unimproved farm to market roads Utilities: Approximately 14 miles of 18 and 24 inch Panhandle Eastern Pipeline natural gas lines, approximately 20 miles of overhead power lines, approximately 8 miles of fiber optic lines, approximately 20 miles of phone lines, approximately 15 miles of Howard County Consolidated Public Water Supply District #1 water lines, approximately 2 miles of Cities Utilities 6 inch natural gas line Barns: 4 Machine Sheds: 5 Irrigation Systems: 2

Other facilities: Approximately 3 miles of Katy Trail State Park; Franklin Island Conservation Area. Water supply systems: Howard County Consolidated Public Water Supply District #1 3-phase electric water wells (3 wells at 200 gallons per minute each - 680 water meters served and approximately 0.5 miles of 6 inch water transmission lines for wells). The City of New Franklin municipal 3-phase electric water well (1 well at 200 gallons per minute - 442 water meters served for 512 lining units and approximately 0.85 miles of 6 inch water transmission lines for well). NOTE: For the level of flood protection provided by the District, the levee system "deflects" Missouri River floodwaters from flowing against and into the treatment plants for these two potable water supply systems and the City's 3-cell wastewater treatment lagoon system. This provides access and continued operation of these facilities. Sponsorship and Contact Information Sponsor: Howard County Commission Contact for information on levee: Kendall Kircher (President) 660-621-1985 Other officers of Levee District: Dick Rohlfing (Vice-President); Dennis Grotjan (Secretary) Sources: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Inspection Report (March 2, 2005); Kendall Kircher, Levee District President

181

Bonne Femme Levee District #1 Figure 3.2.7M

Figure 3.2.7N

182

Bonne Femme Levee District #1 Embankment Data General location: Left descending bank of Missouri River, river mile 192.0 to 187.5; left descending bank of Bonne Femme Creek and right descending bank of Salt Creek Levee designed gage function reading/station: 35.0' Boonville Gage Level of protection provided: Exceeds a 25-year flood event Average height of levee: 8' to 16' above landside natural ground surface Average crown width: 8' to 16' Average side slope: Landside ranges from 1 on 3 to 1 on 5, riverside ranges from 1 on 3 to 1 on 5 Annual maintenance costs: $2,200 Protected Features Total acres protected: 5,165 Agricultural production acres protected: 5,075 Businesses: 1 Residences: 2 (vacant) Roads: Approximately 5 miles of U.S. Highway 40, approximately 10.1 miles of gravel surfaced County roads and numerous miles of unimproved farm to market roads Utilities: Approximately 5 miles of fiber optic lines, approximately 5 miles of Union Electric overhead power lines and approximately 0.25 mile of buried pipeline Barns: 0 Machine Sheds: 3 Irrigation Systems: 9 Grain Bins: 11 Other facilities: Approximately 5 miles of Katy Trail State Park Sponsorship and Contact Information Sponsor: Howard County Commission Contact for information on levee: Randy Kircher (President), 660-848-2325; Brian Haskamp (Secretary/Treasurer) 573-698-5111 Sources: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Inspection Report (March 2, 2005); Gene Sandner, Levee District Secretary/Treasurer

According to an officer with the Bonne Femme Levee District #1, when the Missouri River is high, it backs up into the Bonne Femme Creek. The district sandbags and closes the road.

In 2011, due to the high levels in the Missouri River, all drainage pipes to the river were closed; the district incurred high costs for pumping both drainage water from higher ground and seepage water from the river. The district applied for Public Assistance (PA) available through Disaster Declaration #4012 to help with these costs.

Currently there is a 70% coverage by crop insurance for agriculture in the levee district. The Risk Management Agency (RMA) of the USDA lowered the crop insurance rates for the district farmers because of numerous pumping station the district has installed.

183

Potential Impact of Future Development Howard County and its vulnerable communities are well aware of the hazard posed to their lives and livelihood by the threat of flooding. The County and three of the incorporated communities belong to the NFIP; adopting floodplain regulations is a requirement for membership in the NFIP. This insures that future development in the floodplain will adhere to standards set forth to minimize the hazard posed by flooding.

Existing Mitigation Strategies The levee districts have raised the levees since the Flood of 1993 and added pipes for drainage from behind the levees. As previously discussed, the elevating of the levees offers greater protection for lower flood levels but puts the areas protected by the levees at greater risk should they be overtopped.

All of the levees are maintained by the districts and inspected on a regular basis.

A significant issue for Drainage District #3 is the erosion of the streambank of Salt Creek which threatens the nearby levee. The bank of Salt Creek has been reinforced with rock near the Missouri River; this mitigation project cost the levee district approximately $10,000.

The levee districts during the update process raised concerns with actions of the US Fisheries and Wildlife Services (or possibly the Missouri Department of Conservation) on levees to maintain habitats for unknown wildlife. They reported there has been “notching” of the levees giving levee districts concern with reducing the longevity of the levee structures. Their concerns are with potential levee failure due to the weakening of levees for this activity. The lack of communication between the levee districts, the US Fisheries and Wildlife Services, and the Army Corps of Engineers was raised multiple times during the planning meetings. This has been addressed in the updated mitigation actions for Howard County.

184

3.2.8 Severe Winter Weather

Description of Hazard Howard County generally experiences a winter storm at least every other year; certain years are particularly notable for their storm frequency and/or intensity. Winter storms in central Missouri contain ice, snow, severe cold, sleet, and wind; each of these has the potential to disrupt life in the region by making normal activity difficult and/or dangerous.

Winter storms pose a threat to central Missouri by creating disruptions in electricity, telephone, and other critical infrastructures. Employees may be unable to get to work due to icy conditions, unplowed roadways, disruptions in transportation services, or facility damage. Homes, businesses, and care facilities without backup generator may go without utilities making a winter storm all the more dangerous for those without access to heat and/or water. A shortage of supplies may ensue with a longer stretch of Severe Winter Weather.

Snowstorms do not generally impact the region for long periods of time but ice storms have shut down schools and businesses for extended periods. Ice is also the biggest threat to reliable power and phone service. Additionally, winter weather includes the potential for frostbite as a result of wind chill. Wind chill can occur when a combination of low temperatures and strong winds combine. Exposure during a wind chill warning can be a life threatening situation (Missouri State Hazard Mitigation Plan 2013).

Wind chill advisory- Combination of low temperatures and strong winds resulting in readings of -20°F or lower.

Wind chill warning- Wind chill temperatures are -35°F or lower.

Figure 3.2.8- Wind Chill and Frostbite Correlation

Image source: http://www.nws.noaa.gov/om/cold/windchill-images/windchillchart3.pdf 185

Geographic Location The entire planning area is at risk from Severe Winter Weather.

Previous Occurrences Howard County experienced 35 officially recorded winter storms or periods of extreme cold in the period Jan. 14, 1994 –Jun. 20, 2017, according to data from NOAA and FEMA. Figure 3.2.8A summarizes available data for these storms including additional information from SEMA Situation Reports.

Severe Winter Weather typically moves through a large area. The number of counties affected by a storm is indicated in Figure 3.2.8 A for those events where deaths, injuries, and/or costs are reported. The deaths, injuries, and estimated costs reflect all counties in Missouri affected by the Severe Winter Weather. The death associated with one of the periods of extreme cold did not occur in Howard County; information on the locations of the injuries was not available. While it can be seen from the data that Severe Winter Weather can result in great financial cost, the exact cost of these storms to Howard County is not available in the data.

More cost information is available for storms for which Presidential Disaster Declarations were made. After a Presidential Disaster Declaration, Public Assistance (PA) and/or Individual Assistance (IA) is made available through FEMA. The PA is available in some or all of the following categories dependent on the disaster event: A – Debris Removal B – Emergency Protective Measures C – Roads & Bridges D – Water Control Facilities E – Public Buildings/Equipment F – Public Utilities G – Other

Details of four periods of Severe Winter Weather in recent years are outlined below:  January 30, 2002 ice storm:

 Presidential Disaster Declaration #1403 - Both PA and IA were made available to Howard County to help with the damage from this storm.

 Nov. 30 – Dec. 1, 2006 winter storm:

 The Governor of Missouri declared a State of Emergency in the State which allowed state funds to be used in disaster response.

 SEMA Situation Reports contained no reports of problems in Howard County during this storm.

 December 6-15, 2007 winter storm, including ice storm of December 8:

186

 SEMA activated the State Emergency Operations Center and the Governor of Missouri declared a State Emergency which made state resources available to assist local governments.

 Presidential Emergency Declaration #3281 for ice storm of December 8, 2007 included entire state of Missouri. Public Assistance (PA), Categories A and B, was made available from this Emergency Declaration.

 SEMA Situation Reports indicated no power outages in Howard County from this storm; however, roads were slick and two traffic accidents, one serious, were reported.

 January 26, 2009 winter storm:

 Presidential Emergency Declaration #3303 included entire state of Missouri. Public Assistance (PA), Category B, was made available with this declaration.

 Jan. 31 – Feb. 1, 2011 winter storm:  A severe winter storm with blizzard conditions affected much of the state. Wind gusts reached over 40 mph and snow depths of up to 23 inches were recorded; ice and sleet were a problem in many areas. The region was brought to a standstill for many days.

 I-70 was closed across most of the state and I-44 was closed from Springfield to the state of Oklahoma.

 Presidential Emergency Declaration #1961 included 62 counties in Missouri. Public Assistance (PA), Categories A-G, were made available with this declaration. A total of $9,553,722 in PA was obligated in the state ($6,956,550 in Categories A and B and $2,597,173 in Categories C-G.)

Figure 3.2.8A Severe Winter Storms in Howard County (1/14/1994-6/20/2017) Presidential Assistance Estimated Disaster or in Howard Date Storm Type Deaths* Injuries* Cost* Emergency # of Counties County (Million $) Declaration (IA or PA) # 51 plus City 1/14/1994 Extreme Cold 0 15 5.0 of St. Louis 9 plus City of 2/22/1994 Glaze/ice Storm 0 15 0 St. Louis 31 plus City 4/5/1994 Winter Storm 0 0 0.5 of St. Louis 1/18/1995 Heavy Snow 0 0 0.2 13 9/22/1995 Freeze 0 0 0 11/11/1995 Snow/ice 0 0 0 12/6/1995 Snow 0 0 0 12/8/1995 Snow 0 0 0

187

1/10/1997 Extreme Cold 0 0 0 1/27/1997 Heavy Snow 0 0 0 1/11/1998 Ice Storm 0 0 0 10/6/2000 Extreme Cold 0 0 0 12/10/2000 Extreme Cold 1 0 0 37 12/11/2000 Ice Storm 0 0 0 12/13/2000 Heavy Snow 0 0 0 1/28/2001 Winter Storm 0 0 0 2/9/2001 Winter Storm 0 0 0 1/30/2002 Ice Storm 0 0 82.5** 1403 43 IA and PA 1/25/2004 Winter Storm 0 0 0 11/30/2006 Heavy Snow 0 0 0 12/1/2006 Heavy Snow 0 0 0 1/12/2007 Winter Storm 0 0 0 12/9/2007 Ice Storm 0 0 NA 3281 entire state PA (A,B) 1/26/2009 Winter Storm NA NA NA 3303 entire state PA (B) 1/10/11 Winter Weather 0 0 0 1/19/11 Winter Storm 0 0 0 1/31- Winter Storm 0 0 12.8** 1961 62 PA (A-G) 2/1/2011 Snow/winter 2/13/2012 0 0 0 weather 2/21- Winter Storm 0 0 0 2/22/2013 2/25- Winter Storm 0 0 0 2/27/2013 3/23- Winter Storm 0 0 0 3/24/2013 12/21- Winter Storm 0 0 0 12/22/2013 1/6/2014 Cold/Wind chill 0 0 0 2/4- Winter Storm 0 0 0 2/5/2014 3/1- Winter Storm 0 0 0 3/2/2014 TOTAL 1 30 101 * Data is total for acounties in Missouri affected by the Severe Winter Weather event. ** This is a minimal estimate calculated from the 75% PA reimbursements received by local governments; the actual cost of the event was undoubtedly higher.

Sources: https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/stormevents/; http://www.fema.gov/news/disasters.fema; SEMA Situation Reports

The probability of occurrence based on past events is 100%. This is based on the number of total events occurring over the data observation period of 23 years (1994-2017). Calculating the probability based on only the years that at least one event has occurred in the year results in a probability of 65.2% that at least one winter weather event will happen in any given year. Over

188 the 23 year range, there were only 8 years without a winter weather event. These probabilities exclude extreme cold and freeze recorded in the above table.

Measures of Probability and Severity Probability: High Severity: Low

Severe Winter Weather Vulnerability Overview

Vulnerable Jurisdictions: Entire planning area

Moderate - All participating jurisdictions with the exception of Howard Co. Consolidated PWSD #1 and Howard Co. Regional Water Commission Low – Howard Co. Consolidated PWSD #1 and Howard Co. Regional Water Commission

The Missouri State Hazard Mitigation (2013) analyzed data for all counties in the state to develop vulnerability ratings for Severe Winter Weather.

The following data was analyzed:  NOAA storm event data (1993 to December 2012)  U.S. Census Data (2000)  Total building exposure from HAZUS-MR4  FEMA Public Assistance (PA) funds from Disasters #1672, #1736, #1748 and#1822, and #1961  Census of Agriculture 2007 (USDA)  Crop Insurance Claims data (1998-2012) from the Risk Management Agency of the USDA  Calculated Social Vulnerability Index (SoVI™) for Missouri Counties from the Hazards and Vulnerability Research Institute of the Geography Department at the University of South Carolina Each factor analyzed was given a vulnerability rating from 1 to 5 with 1 indicating Low Vulnerability and 5 indicating High Vulnerability. (The Social Vulnerability Index ratings also follow this same pattern.) The results for Howard County and its communities as a whole (the planning area and the City of Franklin) are shown in Figure 3.2.8B.

189

Howard Figure 3.2.8B Impact Assessment - Severe Winter Weather Housing Total Crop Social Overall Total Total Building Total Property 2007 Crop Units/ Insurance Vulnerability Vulnerability Incidents Exposure ($) Loss ($) Exposure ($) sq. mile Paid ($) Index (1-5) Rating

Data 22 9.9 $1,010,144,000 $32,650,000 $34,407,000 $23,013 4 Medium Vulnerability Rating 1 1 2 5 3 1

* The 2012 USDA data was not available when the 2013 MO State Hazard Mitigation Plan was published. Source: Missouri State Hazard Mitigation Plan (2013)

It is notable that the planning area received a medium-high Social Vulnerability Index. In terms of Severe Winter Weather, the elderly are the population most vulnerable to complications from extended exposure. According to the 2011-2015 ACS 5-Year Estimates, the planning area (including the City of Franklin) has 1,629 citizens (16% of the population) who are 65 years and older.

The Planning Committee is well aware of the importance of protecting vulnerable populations. There are ten mitigation actions in this updated hazard mitigation plan under the Objective “Protect vulnerable populations”. Six of these actions help mitigate the effects of Severe Winter Weather.

Severe winter storms also pose a general threat to human life. Many deaths from winter storms are a result of traffic accidents caused by a combination of poor driving surfaces and speeds too fast for the conditions. Accidents during winter storms can be particularly devastating because of possible multiple car involvement. Response times for emergency vehicles may also be slowed by poor road conditions.

The Planning Committee assessed the vulnerability for Severe Winter Weather for most jurisdictions in the planning area as Moderate; this is in accord with the assessment in the State Plan.

Howard Co. Consolidated PWSD #1 and the Howard Co. Regional Water Commission were assessed a low vulnerability rating for Severe Winter Weather. The Chief Water Operator for Howard Co. Consolidated PWSD #1 indicated that winter storms have never been a problem for the continuity of operations in the district.

Guidelines from the Missouri Department of Natural Resources (MoDNR) specify that water tanks are sized so as to have one and half days’ backup supply of water. If it would become necessary to generate power, water supply districts are on a priority list for the rental of generators. There are six or seven places where the district could rent a generator.

Potential Impact on Existing Structures The Missouri State Hazard Mitigation Plan (2013) analysis determined a Medium-Low Building Exposure Vulnerability Rating ($1,010,144,000 in total building exposure) but a High Total Property Loss Vulnerability Rating ($32,650,000 in total property loss). This property loss

190 figure represents PA damage in the planning area since there are no specific damage losses for Howard County in the NOAA data. The majority of this PA was probably not connected to building damage but to the cost of snow/ice removal and cleanup. It should be remembered that PA only covers uninsured losses; any individual private losses due to these winter storm events would not be recorded in this data as they may be covered by insurance or they are unreported. The cost of these winter storms may well be higher than indicated by the data.

As previously mentioned, damage to buildings is not the primary threat posed by winter storms in the planning area. Structural damage is more likely to involve the following:  Power Lines - Ice storms often adversely impact consistent power supplies. Ice buildup on wires can cause them to fall; tree limbs downed by ice can knock out power lines. When this happens power outages occur that can be dangerous. For instance, if the population relies on electricity for heat, people run the risk of hypothermia. This is a particular concern for more vulnerable populations such as the elderly.

 Water Lines - Winter storms and their associated cold weather lead to the ground freezing and thawing. As the ground freezes and thaws, pipes in the ground shift and sometimes break causing a lack of potable water. Also, when a pipe breaks, damage to property can be extensive and expensive.

Currently, there is not a reliable or accurate way to estimate all potential costs associated with Severe Winter Weather. Too many variables exist to accurately portray how much damage would be incurred by a winter storm. The type of precipitation (snow versus ice), time of day, and other characteristics all play a role in determining the cost of a winter storm.

Potential Impact of Future Development According to the Missouri State Hazard Mitigation Plan (2013), “…future development could potentially increase vulnerability to this hazard by increasing demand on the utilities and increasing the exposure of infrastructure networks.” While this is true, there is currently not much development occurring in the planning area. If this trend should reverse, the assets vulnerable to Severe Winter Weather would probably increase.

Existing Mitigation Activities Howard County Emergency Management Agency (EMA) The Howard County LEOP contains extensive “in place shelter guidance”. The EMA has working relationships with many churches throughout the county where sheltering assistance would be provided if requested. In Fayette, the EMA has formal agreements for sheltering in place with the First Baptist and First Christian Churches. In addition, a large, non- denominational church in the city which has a propane supply and the Catholic Church Hall would be made available, if needed.

191

Howard Co. Family Support (State of MO Social Services) is in charge of opening shelters and works closely with the EMA; all of the personnel of Howard Co. Family Support (currently eight staff members) are mandated volunteers. The Red Cross from neighboring Boone County assists with sheltering needs.

City of Fayette The City of Fayette has agreements with both the Fayette High School and Central Methodist University to use their facilities as shelters. The gymnasium at Fayette High School would be used as a shelter; the Phillip Recreation Center at CMU is a designated Red Cross shelter (see Central Methodist University in Section 2.10). City of New Franklin The school buildings of the New Franklin R-I School District can be used for sheltering; a kitchen is available for sheltering needs. There are also three churches and a community building available in the city for sheltering. Utility Companies Utility companies in Howard County have policies regarding tree trimming and brush removal around power lines. Consistent maintenance of trees and brush around utility lines limits the possibility of power outages during a severe winter storm. Maintenance also provides fiscal savings because repairing fallen utility lines and poles is both costly and dangerous.

National Weather Service and Local Media The Kansas City Office of the National Weather Service at Pleasant Hill coordinates with local jurisdictions and media outlets to disperse information regarding severe winter storm watches and warnings. Early warning allows the public to prepare for a severe storm. Should a storm reach catastrophic proportions and officials need to communicate directly with the public, the Emergency Alert System exists to spread that information.

The National Weather Service sets up winter weather warnings in stages of severity14. These stages are shown in Figure 3.2.8C.

14 http://www.skyviewweather.com/learning/winter-weather-definitions/ 192

Figure 3.2.8C National Weather Service Winter Warnings Winter weather conditions are expected to cause significant Winter Weather inconveniences and may be hazardous. If caution is Advisory exercised, these situations should not become life- threatening. The greatest hazard is often to motorists.

Severe winter conditions, such as heavy snow and/or ice, are Winter Storm Watch possible within the next day or two. Severe winter conditions have begun or are about to begin Winter Storm Warning in your area. Snow and strong winds will combine to produce a blinding Blizzard Warning snow (near zero visibility), deep drifts, and life-threatening wind chill. Seek refuge immediately. Below freezing temperatures are expected and may cause significant damage to plants, crops, or fruit trees. In areas Frost/Freeze Warning unaccustomed to freezing temperatures, people who have homes without heat need to take added precautions.

193

3.2.9 Wildfire

Description of Hazard Wildfire is defined as an uncontrolled fire that destroys forests and many other types of vegetation, as well as animal species. Forest, grassland, and natural cover fires can and have occurred at any time throughout the year in Missouri.

According to statistics from the Missouri Department of Conservation, the major causes of wildfires in Missouri are various human activities, according to statistics from the Missouri Department of Conservation (see Figure 3.2.9A). Debris burning is consistently the largest single cause of wildfires in the State of Missouri. Fires caused by lightning are rare despite 50 to 70 thunderstorm days per year.

Figure 3.2.9A Causes of Wildfire in Missouri 2016 Children 0.4% Lightning Campfire 3% Railroad 0.4% 0.3%

Smoking 2% Equipment 8%

Arson 7%

Misc. 17% Debris 62%

Source: http://mdc7.mdc.mo.gov/applications/FireReporting/Report.aspx

In Howard County, the majority of the fires and the greatest acreage loss occur during the spring fire season (February 15 - May 10). Spring is the time of the year when rural residents burn garden spots and brush piles. Many landowners also believe it is necessary to burn the woods in the spring to grow more grass, kill ticks, and get rid of brush. These factors, combined with low humidity and high winds, result in higher fire danger at this time of year. The spring fire season abates with the growth of the new season’s grasses and other green vegetation.

A lot of acreage in Howard County is in the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) of the USDA. The periodic burning of this land for management purposes was cited by fire personnel as probably the number one cause of wildfires in the planning area. In at least one instance, natural cover fires were started from power lines downed during a windstorm (March 1991). 194

Numerous fires also occur in October and November due to the dryness associated with fall in Missouri. Like during the spring, many rural residents use this time of year to burn leaves and debris thus raising the possibility of a fire spreading or buring out of control.

Geographic Location Due to the unpredictability of wildfire, the entire planning area is considered to be at some risk. However, the unincorporated area of Howard County and the Cities of Fayette and New Franklin are most at risk from wildfire due to Wildland Urban Interfaces (WUIs).

Wildland Urban Interfaces are those areas where “… structures and other human development meet or intermingle with undeveloped wildland”, according to Federal Register (66:751, 2001) report on WUI communities at risk from fire (USDA & USDI, 2001). There is a higher risk scenario for wildfire in these areas because of the proximity of high fuel loads on wildland to urban structures.

According to this federal report, the specific interface definitions used are:  Interface Community Structures directly abut wildland fuels. There is a clear line of demarcation between wildland fuels and residential, business, and public structures. Wildland fuels do not generally continue into the developed area. The development density for an interface community is usually three or more structures per acre, with shared municipal services.  Intermix Community Structures are scattered throughout a wildland area. There is no clear line of demarcation; wildland fuels are continuous outside of and within the developed area. The development density in the intermix ranges from structures very close together to one structure per 40 acres.  Occluded Community Often found within a city, structures abut an island of wildland fuels (e.g. park or open space). There is a clear line of demarcation between structures and wildland fuels. The development density is usually similar to those found in the interface community, but the occluded area is usually less than 1,000 acres in size.

Data provided by the University of Wisconsin-Madison have been used to map the WUI for the planning area (see Figure 3.2.9B).

195

Figure 3.2.9B

196

The only incorporated community in the planning area with significant WUI, according to this data, is the City of Glasgow (see Figure 3.2.9C). However, discussion with local fire agency personnel indicates that the areas mapped in Glasgow for WUI no longer present a problem; the areas have been cleared of brush and, in one instance, the area noted is a park with mowed grass. For this reason, the City of Glasgow is not considered to be a geographic location of particular concern for Wildfire.

Figure 3.2.9C

197

Fire personnel did note that there are some areas of potential concern for wildfire in the cities of Fayette and New Franklin. There is WUI on the west side of the Fayette between Besgrove Street and Spring Street and additionally on the northern border of the City of New Franklin. These cities have been included as geographic locations of particular concern for wildfire.

Previous Occurrences The Missouri Department of Conservation (MDC) maintains a database of wildfires reported within the state, which can be found on the MDC website. The database indicates 104 wildfire events in Howard County between January 2012 and February 2017 (see Figure 3.2.9 D). That is close to an average of 10 wildfires per year in the planning area, although some years are much worse for wildfire due to the existing weather conditions.

An inspection of the data for Howard County indicates that the largest reported burnt acreage was 170 acres (January 2012 to February 2017); Within the first two months of 2017, 106 acres in Howard County burned as a result of wildfire.. In 2016 alone, there were a total of 7 reported fires which burned 14 acres. Although not included in the data below, the largest wildire in Howard County (since 2003) was in 2009 where 400 acres burned in Fayette.

Figure 3.2.9D Reported Wildfires in Howard County (2012-2017) Acres Date City Cause Response Type Station Burnt 1/1/2012 Clark Unknown 2 Primary Responder Howard Co FPD 1/1/2012 New Franklin Miscellaneous 0.5 Primary Responder Howard Co FPD 1/2/2012 New Franklin Miscellaneous 1 Primary Responder Howard Co FPD 1/2/2012 New Franklin Debris 0.5 Primary Responder Howard Co FPD 1/2/2012 New Franklin Debris 3 Primary Responder Howard Co FPD 1/5/2012 Salisbury Debris 0.5 Mutual Aid Salisbury Fire Dept 1/5/2012 New Franklin Debris 50 Primary Responder Howard Co FPD 1/11/2012 Fayette Unknown 15 Primary Responder Howard Co FPD 1/12/2012 Fayette Miscellaneous 5 Primary Responder Howard Co FPD 1/16/2012 Fayette Miscellaneous 1 Primary Responder Howard Co FPD 2/11/2012 Fayette Miscellaneous 1 Primary Responder Howard Co FPD 2/12/2012 Fayette Miscellaneous 1 Primary Responder Howard Co FPD 2/19/2012 Fayette Miscellaneous 30 Primary Responder Howard Co FPD 3/6/2012 Armstrong Unknown 1 Primary Responder Howard Co FPD 3/6/2012 Fayette Unknown 1 Primary Responder Howard Co FPD 3/6/2012 Fayette Unknown 6 Primary Responder Howard Co FPD 3/6/2012 Harrisburg Unknown 3 Primary Responder Howard Co FPD 3/6/2012 New Franklin Unknown 2 Primary Responder Howard Co FPD 3/7/2012 New Franklin Debris 25 Primary Responder Howard Co FPD 3/10/2012 Fayette Unknown 1 Primary Responder Howard Co FPD

198

3/13/2012 Harrisburg Unknown 5 Primary Responder Howard Co FPD 5/2/2012 New Franklin Debris 0.5 Primary Responder Howard Co FPD 5/12/2012 New Franklin Debris 2 Primary Responder Howard Co FPD 5/16/2012 New Franklin Debris 0.5 Primary Responder Howard Co FPD 5/17/2012 New Franklin Debris 0.5 Primary Responder Howard Co FPD 5/19/2012 Fayette Miscellaneous 5 Primary Responder Howard Co FPD 5/23/2012 Fayette Equipment 15 Primary Responder Howard Co FPD 5/30/2012 Fayette Unknown 1 Primary Responder Howard Co FPD 6/18/2012 Fayette Miscellaneous 1 Primary Responder Howard Co FPD 6/25/2012 Fayette Debris 1 Primary Responder Howard Co FPD 7/8/2012 Fayette Unknown 1 Primary Responder Howard Co FPD 7/21/2012 New Franklin Debris 0.5 Primary Responder Howard Co FPD 7/21/2012 Fayette Miscellaneous 1 Primary Responder Howard Co FPD 7/23/2012 Fayette Miscellaneous 10 Primary Responder Howard Co FPD 7/29/2012 Fayette Unknown 10 Primary Responder Howard Co FPD 7/29/2012 Fayette Debris 10 Primary Responder Howard Co FPD 8/11/2012 Harrisburg Debris 1 Primary Responder Howard Co FPD 8/20/2012 New Franklin Debris 1 Primary Responder Howard Co FPD 8/21/2012 Fayette Equipment 15 Primary Responder Howard Co FPD 8/28/2012 New Franklin Unknown 15 Primary Responder Howard Co FPD 8/28/2012 New Franklin Equipment 1 Primary Responder Howard Co FPD 8/29/2012 New Franklin Debris 5 Primary Responder Howard Co FPD 8/29/2012 Fayette Equipment 150 Primary Responder Howard Co FPD 8/30/2012 New Franklin Debris 3 Primary Responder Howard Co FPD 11/14/2012 Fayette Unknown 1 Primary Responder Howard Co FPD 11/21/2012 New Franklin Debris 1 Primary Responder Howard Co FPD 11/24/2012 New Franklin Debris 2 Primary Responder Howard Co FPD 11/25/2012 Harrisburg Debris 2 Primary Responder Howard Co FPD 12/2/2012 Fayette Unknown 1 Primary Responder Howard Co FPD 12/11/2012 Fayette Debris 1 Primary Responder Howard Co FPD 1/25/2013 Fayette Debris 1 Primary Responder Howard Co FPD 3/19/2013 Higbee Unknown 2 Primary Responder Howard Co FPD 4/3/2013 Fayette Debris 1 Primary Responder Howard Co FPD 7/8/2013 Fayette Debris 1 Primary Responder Howard Co FPD 7/8/2013 Fayette Debris 1 Primary Responder Howard Co FPD 9/11/2013 Fayette Debris 4 Primary Responder Howard Co FPD 11/30/2013 Fayette Debris 5 Primary Responder Howard Co FPD 11/30/2013 Fayette Campfire 5 Primary Responder Howard Co FPD 11/30/2013 Fayette Debris 1 Primary Responder Howard Co FPD 1/26/2014 Fayette Campfire 15 Primary Responder Howard Co FPD 2/26/2014 Fayette Miscellaneous 30 Primary Responder Howard Co FPD

199

3/9/2014 Fayette Debris 8 Primary Responder Howard Co FPD 3/10/2014 Armstrong Equipment 30 Mutual Aid Higbee Area FPD 3/14/2014 Higbee Miscellaneous 40 Mutual Aid Higbee Area FPD 3/15/2014 Fayette Smoking 1 Primary Responder Howard Co FPD 3/15/2014 Fayette Debris 40 Primary Responder Howard Co FPD 3/15/2014 Fayette Miscellaneous 30 Primary Responder Howard Co FPD 3/15/2014 Fayette Equipment 1 Primary Responder Howard Co FPD 3/15/2014 Harrisburg Miscellaneous 170 Primary Responder Howard Co FPD 3/16/2014 New Franklin Not Reported 4 Primary Responder Howard Co FPD 3/22/2014 Harrisburg Debris 5 Primary Responder Howard Co FPD 3/25/2014 Harrisburg Miscellaneous 50 Primary Responder Howard Co FPD 3/29/2014 Harrisburg Miscellaneous 100 Primary Responder Howard Co FPD 3/29/2014 Fayette Miscellaneous 40 Primary Responder Howard Co FPD 3/30/2014 Higbee Miscellaneous 2 Primary Responder Howard Co FPD 4/1/2014 Fayette Miscellaneous 1 Primary Responder Howard Co FPD 4/12/2014 New Franklin Unknown 1 Primary Responder Howard Co FPD 4/18/2014 New Franklin Unknown 0.5 Primary Responder Howard Co FPD 7/24/2014 Fayette Debris 1 Primary Responder Howard Co FPD 1/1/2015 Fayette Debris 4 Primary Responder Howard Co FPD 1/28/2015 Fayette Debris 1 Primary Responder Howard Co FPD 2/14/2015 New Franklin Debris 1 Primary Responder Howard Co FPD 3/8/2015 Fayette Debris 3 Primary Responder Howard Co FPD 3/11/2015 Fayette Debris 5 Primary Responder Howard Co FPD 3/11/2015 Fayette Miscellaneous 10 Primary Responder Howard Co FPD 3/14/2015 Harrisburg Debris 2 Primary Responder Howard Co FPD 3/15/2015 Fayette Debris 5 Primary Responder Howard Co FPD 3/21/2015 Fayette Debris 1 Primary Responder Howard Co FPD 8/26/2015 Fayette Debris 1 Primary Responder Howard Co FPD 10/15/2015 Fayette Unknown 15 Primary Responder Howard Co FPD 10/20/2015 Fayette Unknown 2 Primary Responder Howard Co FPD 11/9/2015 New Franklin Unknown 1 Primary Responder Howard Co FPD 2/6/2016 Fayette Unknown 1 Primary Responder Howard Co FPD 2/20/2016 Fayette Not Reported 0.5 Primary Responder Howard Co FPD 2/21/2016 Fayette Unknown 0.5 Primary Responder Howard Co FPD 3/4/2016 Fayette Unknown 2 Primary Responder Howard Co FPD 3/6/2016 Fayette Debris 8 Primary Responder Howard Co FPD 3/6/2016 Fayette Debris 1 Primary Responder Howard Co FPD 3/7/2016 Fayette Miscellaneous 1 Primary Responder Howard Co FPD 1/10/2017 New Frinklin Not Reported 1 Mutual Aid Howard Co FPD 1/10/2017 Boonesboro Unknown 1 Mutual Aid Howard Co FPD 2/5/2017 Fayette Not Reported 1 Primary Responder Howard Co FPD

200

2/17/2017 Fayette Miscellaneous 100 Mutual Aid Howard Co FPD 2/17/2017 Fayette Campfire 3 Primary Responder Howard Co FPD Source: http://mdc7.mdc.mo.gov/applications/FireReporting/Report.aspx

There is a 100% chance that a wildfire will occur within Howard County in any given year based on historical data from 2012-2017.

Measures of Probability and Severity Probability: High – Howard County, Fayette, New Franklin Low - Armstrong, Glasgow, New Franklin R-I School District, Howard County R-II School District, Fayette R-III School District, Central Methodist University, Howard Co. Consolidated Public Water Supply District #1, Howard County Regional Water Commission

Severity: Moderate – the planning area, Howard County, Fayette, New Franklin Low - Armstrong, Fayette, Glasgow, New Franklin R-I School District, Howard County R-II School District, Fayette R-III School District, Central Methodist University, Howard Co. Consolidated Public Water Supply District #1, Howard County Regional Water Commission

The Missouri State Hazard Mitigation Plan (2013) points out that the probability of wildfires may increase during conditions of excessive heat, dryness, and drought. Based on both understanding of wildfire conditions and the data based on the previous five years,the probability is higher in spring and late fall.

Wildfire Vulnerability Overview Vulnerable Jurisdictions: Entire planning area Vulnerability Rating: High – Howard County (unincorp.), Fayette, New Franklin Low - Armstrong, Fayette, Glasgow, New Franklin R-I School District, Howard County R-II School District, Fayette R-III School District, Central Methodist University, Howard Co. Consolidated Public Water Supply District #1, Howard County Regional Water Commission

The Missouri State Hazard Mitigation Plan (2013) analyzed vulnerability to wildfire for all counties in the state using the two factors of “likelihood” and “annualized acres burned” for data from the years 2004-2012. The counties were put in vulnerability ranges based on these factors; Howard County had a high rating for the likelihood rating based on the number of wildfires, but

201 it had a high rating for the vulnerability of acres burned.. The overall vulnerability of Howard County is high. To put this evaluation in perspective, it must be noted that Howard County is compared with southern Missouri which is heavily forested and subject to what would be considered “wildfire” in the more common sense of the term. Wildfires in the planning area are often natural cover and brush fires which do not have the heavy fuel load of forested areas; they tend to be limited in their spatial extent thus minimizing their impact in comparison with other potential wildfires in Missouri.

Members of the Planning Committee assessed the Vulnerability Rating for Wildfire in Howard County (unincorporated), Fayette and New Franklin as high. An important aspect leading to this rating, which was not taken into consideration in the State Plan, is the all-volunteer makeup of the fire departments and districts in the planning area.

In 2009, there were 22 recorded wildfires in the planning area in a little over two months and in 2012 alone, there were 50 wildfires. The Planning Committee noted that there were some weeks when volunteer firefights were missing 2-3 days of their paid employment. This level of volunteer firefighting places an economic stress on the families of the firefighters. This was an important factor in the high vulnerability rating assessment.

Potential Impact on Existing Structures Data from the Missouri Department of Conservation would indicate that the potential impact of wildfire on existing structures in the planning area is small. In 5 years, there was one structure damaged in wildfires that burned an estimated 1,174 acres.

Currently, there is not a reliable or accurate way to estimate costs associated with a wildfire event because of the numerous variables involved. Location, time of day, land cover, presence or absence of structures, and other variables all influence the level of damage and ultimate cost in fighting fires.

Fire suppression methods will also vary depending on the presence or absence of structures in the area. Some wildfires are allowed to burnout with little to no assistance, resulting in minimal cost for suppression.

Potential Impact of Future Development In recent years, Howard County has experienced a decline in population. Should this trend reverse, there is potential for an increase in both the probability of and vulnerability to wildfire. Human activity (especially debris burning) is the largest cause of wildfire in Missouri. Human activity near wildland fuels can be expected to increase if the population grows; if this does occur, the potential for wildfire will also increase.

202

Existing Mitigation Activities Local  Emergency response systems, well trained fire departments, and numerous county roads improve response times to fire events, thus decreasing the chances of fire spread.

 Ordinances – Both the Armstrong Fire Protection District and the Howard Co. Fire Protection District have passed burn ordinances (see Appendix G.) Glasgow Fire Protection District does not currently have a burn ordinance; a mitigation action to “Encourage all fire districts in the planning area to pass burn ordinances” has been added to the 2011 update of the Hazard Mitigation Plan. State  A Firewise Communities program exists in Missouri to teach people how to minimize the threat of wildfire.

 The Missouri Department of Conservation holds public education meetings on how to safely conduct a controlled burn. Fire personnel in the planning area consider this program very important in helping to prevent wildfire.

 The Missouri Department of Conservation and the State Fire Marshal have published an informational booklet entitled “Living with Wildfire” which educates homeowners on assessing a property’s vulnerability to wildfire and making changes to decrease the risk. The publication is available online at: https://mdc.mo.gov/sites/default/files/resources/2010/05/5249_3081.pdf

203

3.2.10 Thunderstorm, Windstorm, and Hailstorm

Windstorm, tornado, and hailstorm are hazards with potential to cause great damage. They will each be profiled separately but grouped together in this section of the plan as these three hazards are closely associated with severe thunderstorm events in Missouri. There will be a general discussion of thunderstorms followed by the profiles of the three hazards (windstorm, tornado, and hailstorm.) Lightning is a hazard which FEMA does not require to be profiled independently for mitigation purposes; therefore, it is not profiled in this plan, but still exists as a potential hazard

Some Background on Thunderstorm A thunderstorm is a rainstorm with thunder and lightning present. Warm, humid climates, such as that in mid-Missouri, are favorable for the formation of thunderstorms. The average Missourian is aware of the potential hazards of the thunderstorm season; these include heavy rains and, potentially, strong winds, tornadoes, hail, and lightning strikes. The effects of heavy rains have been considered in the section covering flood (see Section 3.2.5).

Thunderstorms can range in complexity from single cell storms through multicell cluster storms, multicell line storms (squall lines), and on to supercell storms. A single cell thunderstorm typically lasts 20-30 minutes, but when numerous cells are generated, as in a multicell storm, the thunderstorm can last for hours. Supercell storms include rotation and are responsible for the generation of severe tornadoes. The National Weather Service considers a thunderstorm “severe” when it includes one or more of the following: winds gusting in excess of 57.5 mph, a tornado, or hail at least 0.75 inch in diameter.

Howard County is located in a part of the country with a relatively high number of thunderstorms. National Weather Service data indicates that there are on average 50-60 thunderstorm days per year in Missouri (see Figure 3.2.10A). Thunderstorms can occur during any season in Missouri but they are more frequent in the spring and summer. Many of these thunderstorms are severe.

204

Figure 3.2.10A Average Number of Thunderstorm Days Annually in U.S.

Source: http://www.srh.noaa.gov/jetstream/tstorms/tstorms_intro.htm

Existing Mitigation Strategies Local There are a variety of strategies in place in the planning area by which the public can be informed of severe weather conditions resulting from thunderstorms.

Warning Systems The following warning systems are used in the county:  Local television weather reports  Local radio weather reports  NOAA radios – all schools are equipped with these radios; Howard Electric Coop in Fayette has NOAA radios for sale and also gives away 4-5 to members at their annual Christmas dinner each year (door prizes)  911 call center and Public Emergency Broadcast Center  Tornado sirens  911 call center will page the Fire Department/District in any area which is threatened.  911 makes phone calls to nursing homes and residential care facilities to notify of threat.  Patrol cars in Fayette are equipped with public address systems; emergency personnel will drive around and announce that people should seek shelter. 205

Public Information The Howard County LEOP (Annex B - Communications and Warnings) lists as a mitigation action that “…tests and educational programs will be conducted regularly to insure the public understands the various warnings.”

The Howard County LEOP (Appendix 1 To Annex K - In-Place Shelter Guidance) sets down the following language to be distributed on public information brochures:

If a tornado WARNING is issued and time does not permit residents to travel to public shelters, the best protection during a tornado is to quickly go to the lowest level in the building. The following protective actions should be relayed to the public:

DURING A TORNADO, THE SAFEST PLACE TO BE IS IN THE BASEMENT UNDER SOMETHING STURDY.

IF THERE IS NO BASEMENT, SEEK SHELTER IN A SMALL INTERIOR ROOM IN THE MIDDLE OF THE BUILDING, SUCH AS A CLOSET OR BATHROOM.

STAY AWAY FROM OUTSIDE DOORS AND WINDOWS.

REMAIN IN SHELTER UNTIL THE ALL CLEAR IS GIVEN FROM AUTHORITIES.

Trained Weather Spotters Personnel in all fire departments/districts, the County Sheriff’s Department, Fayette Police Department and 911 Call Center and the EMAs have all trained as Weather Spotters. This provides for widespread tornado spotting when conditions are threatening. Codes and Ordinances Codes in New Franklin require tie-downs for homes in mobile home parks. (Approximately 99% of the mobile homes in the city are located in the mobile home parks.)

City ordinances in Glasgow require that mobile homes are secured to the ground. (There are two trailer parks in Glasgow located in mobile home zones.)

National There has been significant amounts of research and development put into developing impact resistant roofing which will better withstands both hail and high winds. In recent years, this roofing has become more affordable for the general homeowner (see Existing Mitigation Actions under Hailstorm)

206

Windstorm

Description of Hazard Severe and damaging winds in the planning area are usually, but not always, associated with thunderstorms. Thunderstorm winds can reach speeds up to 100 mph and produce damage paths for hundreds of miles. According to NOAA, property and crop damage from thunderstorm winds is more common, and can be more severe, than damage from tornadoes. Thunderstorm wind damage accounts for half of all the NOAA reports of severe weather events in the lower 48 states.

Thunderstorm winds are often called "straight-line" winds to distinguish them from tornadoes, which have a rotational element. The following are the distinctions made between different thunderstorm winds:

 Gust front - Gusty winds out ahead of a thunderstorm; characterized by a wind shift and temperature drop.  Downbursts – A strong downdraft with a width of greater than 2.5 miles which results in an outward burst of damaging winds near the ground; may possibly produce damage similar to that of a strong tornado.  Microbursts – A small concentrated downburst with a width less than 2.5 miles; generally short-lived, lasting only 5-10 minutes, with maximum wind speeds up to 168 mph. A derecho is a widespread, massive, and violent thunderstorm wind event producing straight- line winds in excess of 70 mph and moving quickly over large areas. These are not common events but a massive derecho, almost the size of the area of the state of Missouri, caused extensive damage in southern Missouri and Illinois in the spring of 2009.

Much of the damage caused by high winds occurs because of falling trees; people, buildings, and vehicles may be damaged by falling trunks and branches. Power lines may be blown or knocked down and people left without electricity. In some cases, roofs are directly blown off buildings and windows are shattered.

Geographic location The entire planning area is at risk from windstorms. Both urban and rural areas can sustain heavy losses from severe winds; the potential damage to houses and urban trees is obvious but crops and forests have potential to sustain massive and costly damage from windstorms.

Previous occurrences According to NOAA, there have been 28 separate reports of windstorm events in Howard County from 1/1/1997 to 6/20/2017 (see Figure 3.2.10B). According to this data, these windstorms resulted in $303,000 in reported property damage in the planning area. The damage estimate is limited to that which is reported; there is likely to be a significant amount of damage from these storms unreported. The largest damages reported were:

207

 August 2000 - $75,000 damage on several farms northeast of Glasgow. A machine barn was destroyed, along with several outbuildings. A combine, house and pickup truck were also damaged. The combine was damaged because part of the machine barn landed on it. Large trees were downed.

 July 2002 - $200,000 damage in downtown Fayette, including damage to City Hall and a church. Large power lines and trees were knocked down.

Figure 3.2.10B Windstorm Events in Howard County (01/01/1997 to 06/20/2017) Magnitude Property General Location Date Time Type Deaths Injuries (mph) Damange ARMSTRONG 6/22/1998 3:30 Tstm Wind 60 0 0 $0 GLASGOW 2/11/1999 11:20 Tstm Wind 70 0 0 $0 ARMSTRONG 6/25/2000 20:45 Tstm Wind 52 0 0 $0 FAYETTE 8/4/2000 7:35 Tstm Wind 52 0 0 $0 GLASGOW 8/23/2000 20:45 Tstm Wind 70 0 0 $75,000 BURTON 6/1/2001 18:39 Tstm Wind 61 0 0 $0 BURTON 6/1/2001 18:45 Tstm Wind 70 0 0 $10,000 NEW FRANKLIN 5/8/2002 19:30 Tstm Wind 61 0 0 $0 FAYETTE 7/9/2002 17:30 Tstm Wind 61 0 0 $200,000 FAYETTE 7/5/2004 6:43 Tstm Wind 52 0 0 $2,000 NEW FRANKLIN 8/13/2005 15:15 Tstm Wind 52 0 0 $1,000 NEW FRANKLIN 8/13/2005 15:30 Tstm Wind 52 0 0 $0 NEW FRANKLIN 3/12/2006 16:30 Tstm Wind 52 0 0 $5,000 ROANOKE 8/18/2006 17:15 Tstm Wind 52 0 0 $0 ARMSTRONG 8/18/2006 17:15 Tstm Wind 52 0 0 $0 GLASGOW 8/18/2006 17:25 Tstm Wind 57 0 0 $5,000 BURTON 8/18/2006 17:35 Tstm Wind 52 0 0 $0 FAYETTE 6/24/2008 18:13 Tstm Wind 52 0 0 $0 ARMSTRONG 4/3/2011 21:55 Tstm Wind 61 0 0 $4,000 FAYETTE 6/16/2012 15:57 Tstm Wind 52 0 0 $0 NEW FRANKLIN 5/15/2013 17:30 Tstm Wind 52 0 0 $500 NEW FRANKLIN 6/15/2013 16:30 Tstm Wind 52 0 0 $500 FAYETTE 7/7/2014 22:10 Tstm Wind 61 0 0 $0 FRANKLIN 4/8/2015 17:13 Tstm Wind 61 0 0 $0 STEINMETZ 7/7/2016 5:20 Tstm Wind 56 0 0 $0 ESTILL 8/24/2016 21:25 Tstm Wind 52 0 0 $0 BURTON 3/6/2017 21:55 Tstm Wind 52 0 0 $0 NEW FRANKLIN 3/6/2017 21:55 Tstm Wind 61 0 0 $0 Total $303,000

208

Source: https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/stormevents/

The Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee noted that the loss level from windstorms in the planning area has greatly exceeded the amount indicated in the NOAA data. In addition, at least one notable storm is missing in the data. In March 1991, straight line winds swept through the county downing power lines and causing other damage. Brush fires were ignited by the downed power lines which subsequently led to barns burning down.

Based on the historical occurrence of windstorm in Howard County, there is a 100% probability that windstorm will occur based on the number of events that occurred during the data observation period (1997-2017). The probability of occurrence based on at least one wind event happening in any given year is 75%. There were only five years out of twenty that windstorm did not occur.

Measures of Probability and Severity Probability: High Severity: Low

Windstorm Vulnerability Overview

Vulnerable Jurisdictions: Entire planning area

Vulnerability Rating:

The Missouri State Hazard Mitigation Plan (2013) combined historical loss data from the NOAA database and paid crop insurance claims from USDA’s Risk Management Agency (RMA) to calculate an annualized property loss and crop claims amount for each state in Missouri due to windstorm. The annualized property loss and crop claims calculated for Howard County was $19,723.01. The actual figure is definitely higher than this, according to members of the Planning Committee.

The Planning Committee rated the Vulnerability to Windstorm as Moderate for most jurisdictions in the planning area. The frequent windstorms are not usually of great severity but they do result in financial loss.

209

Howard Co. Consolidated PWSD #1 and the Howard Co. Regional Water Commission were assessed a Low Vulnerability rating due to the lower chance of damage to the steel and concrete block infrastructure.

Potential Impact on Existing Structures There is a wide range of possible impact from windstorms. Non-permanent and wood framed structures are very vulnerable to destruction. While high winds are the force behind damage, it is the windblown debris that causes the most damage.

Reported property damage in the NOAA database for windstorms between 1997 and 2017 was $303,000. This is approximately $19,723.01 in annualized property damage due to high winds. This is a very low level of damage when compared to the entire building stock of the planning area. However, it was the decided opinion of the Planning Committee that the damage data in the NOAA database is not a reliable reflection of true losses in the county. There were numerous storm events in the database showing $0 in damages which members of the Planning Committee remember causing serious damage. (This was true for many hazards besides Windstorm.) There was also at least one damaging windstorm that was not included in the NOAA database.

Windstorms can be expected to continue to cause damage to structures in the planning area; that much can be said. It is not possible to make any meaningful quantifiable assessment of the probable number of buildings affected or level/cost of damage due to this lack of reliable historical data and the unpredictable nature of the hazard.

Potential Impact of Future Development The entire planning area is vulnerable to windstorms. While Census figures indicate a slight population decline in Howard County between 2000 and 2010, should this trend reverse and more development and building take place, the structural assets vulnerable to windstorms would also increase. The type of construction effects vulnerability to high winds and tornadoes. It would be wise to consider mitigation strategies for tornadoes and high wind situations during the planning phase of any new development. Design and construction choices, inclusion of safe rooms in projects, adequate warning sirens and NOAA radios can all save lives.

210

Hailstorm Description of Hazard Hail is formed when updrafts in thunderstorms carry raindrops up to very high and cold areas where they freeze into ice. Hail, especially large sized hail, can cause severe damage and presents a threat to automobiles, airplanes, roofs, crops, livestock, and even humans.

Geographic Location The entire planning area is at risk from Hailstorm.

While hail can strike anywhere, population centers are more at risk for injury and/or property damage from hail.

Previous Occurrences NOAA lists 81 separate reports of hail (of at least 0.75 inch in diameter) in Howard County since 1958 (see Figure 3.2.10G). These reports were associated with 55 different storm systems. The largest reported hail measure 2.5 inches in diameter (reported in both 1993 and 2006) and there were numerous storms which spawned hail of 1.5 inches diameter or larger.

The NOAA data indicates $110,000 in reported property damage from these hail events. The 1993 hailstorm with 2.5 inch diameter hail was responsible for $50,000 in the New Franklin area. During this same storm, it was reported that smaller hail (up to 1 inch diameter) was covering the ground up to 3 inches deep in and east of New Franklin. In April 2006, 2.5 inch diameter hail caused $50,000 property damage in Fayette; this storm caused extensive hail damage across the mid-Missouri region.

While hailstorms of such severity do not occur every year, hail is still a costly hazard for the planning area.

The Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee noted that the loss level from hailstorms in the planning area has greatly exceeded the amount indicated in the NOAA data. The hailstorm of April 28, 2003 was specifically noted. This storm covered the town of Fayette in 2-3” of hail which piled to a height of 2-3 feet in some areas. Elderly citizens had to be dug out of their homes because of hail piled up against doors and a patrol car got stuck in hail in the street. The hail was the size of golf balls in some places.

Almost all of the houses in Fayette got new roofs because of the storm and there was extensive damage to vehicles. Many trees were killed and some corn in the fields laid flat. The time noted for the storm was also cited as incorrect; there was agreement among the committee members that the hailstorm occurred shortly after the noon hour.

211

Figure 3.2.10I Hailstorm Events in Howard County 4/23/1958 - 6/20/2017 Magnitude Property Crop General Location Date Time Deaths Injuries (diameter) Damage Damage County 04/23/58 20:05 1.00 in. 0 0 0 0 County 08/04/62 0:25 1.00 in. 0 0 0 0 County 04/29/63 12:14 1.75 in. 0 0 0 0 County 07/14/71 1:00 2.00 in. 0 0 0 0 County 10/31/77 23:18 1.50 in. 0 0 0 0 County 04/12/81 7:42 0.75 in. 0 0 0 0 County 06/08/82 22:25 0.75 in. 0 0 0 0 County 05/18/83 14:30 0.75 in. 0 0 0 0 County 05/18/83 14:51 0.75 in. 0 0 0 0 County 05/04/84 15:45 0.75 in. 0 0 0 0 County 07/14/86 14:40 0.75 in. 0 0 0 0 County 09/23/86 18:12 0.75 in. 0 0 0 0 County 05/25/90 20:00 1.75 in. 0 0 0 0 County 07/09/91 15:30 0.75 in. 0 0 0 0 County 07/02/92 14:00 0.75 in. 0 0 0 0 E of New Franklin 03/30/93 17:15 1.00 in. 0 0 5K 0 Howard County 3 mi W of 03/30/93 18:05 1.50 in. 0 0 5K 0 Harrisburg S and E of New Franklin 04/13/93 14:00 2.50 in. 0 0 50K 0 New Franklin 04/13/93 14;25 1.00 in. 0 0 0 0 New Franklin 04/13/93 14:30 0.75 in. 0 0 0 0 Armstrong 05/24/94 17:40 0.75 in. 0 0 0 0 New Franklin 04/10/95 14:40 0.88 in. 0 0 0 0 New Franklin 04/16/95 20:06 1.50 in. 0 0 0 0 Bunknowner Hill 06/07/95 10:20 1.75 in. 0 0 0 0 Fayette 05/14/96 13:00 0.75 in. 0 0 0 0 Fayette 06/02/96 19:22 1.75 in. 0 0 0 0 Boonesboro 06/12/96 16:11 0.75 in. 0 0 0 0 New Franklin 04/18/97 21:55 0.75 in. 0 0 0 0 Fayette 06/08/98 20:08 0.75 in. 0 0 0 0 New Franklin 06/10/98 4:05 0.75 in. 0 0 0 0 Glasgow 06/19/98 6:30 0.75 in. 0 0 0 0 Fayette 06/28/98 17:30 0.88 in. 0 0 0 0 Glasgow 04/20/99 21:10 0.88 in. 0 0 0 0 Burton 06/08/99 16:30 0.75 in. 0 0 0 0 New Franklin 03/26/00 18:15 0.75 in. 0 0 0 0 Fayette 05/08/00 18:15 0.88 in. 0 0 0 0 Fayette 05/26/00 20:42 0.75 in. 0 0 0 0 Glasgow 04/10/01 0:08 0.75 in. 0 0 0 0 Fayette 05/17/01 14:35 1.75 in. 0 0 0 0

212

Fayette 05/17/01 15:06 0.75 in. 0 0 0 0 Fayette 09/20/01 18:30 1.00 in. 0 0 0 0 Fayette 04/28/03 7:25* 0.88 in. 0 0 0* 0* Fayette 05/08/03 21:50 0.75 in. 0 0 0 0 Fayette 05/08/03 11:10 0.75 in. 0 0 0 0 Fayette 05/10/03 4:26 1.00 in. 0 0 0 0 Fayette 05/30/04 15:01 0.88 in. 0 0 0 0 Fayette 05/30/04 16:49 0.88 in. 0 0 0 0 Armstrong 06/14/04 14:40 1.00 in. 0 0 0 0 Fayette 06/14/04 14:40 1.00 in. 0 0 0 0 Fayette 06/14/04 15:40 0.88 in. 0 0 0 0 New Franklin 06/14/04 16:17 1.00 in. 0 0 0 0 Fayette 05/11/05 13:15 1.00 in. 0 0 0 0 Fayette 05/11/05 13:45 1.00 in. 0 0 0 0 Estill 05/12/05 20:56 0.88 in. 0 0 0 0 Armstrong 06/08/05 14:03 1.00 in. 0 0 0 0 Glasgow 06/08/05 14:40 0.88 in. 0 0 0 0 New Franklin 06/08/05 15:42 0.75 in. 0 0 0 0 New Franklin 06/08/05 15:50 1.25 in. 0 0 0 0 New Franklin 06/10/05 13:47 0.75 in. 0 0 0 0 Fayette 03/12/06 16:34 1.00 in. 0 0 0 0 Fayette 03/30/06 21:21 0.75 in. 0 0 0 0 Glasgow 04/18/06 19:07 1.00 in. 0 0 0 0 Glasgow 04/18/06 19:15 1.50 in. 0 0 0 0 Fayette 04/18/06 19:25 2.50 in. 0 0 50K 0 New Franklin 06/10/06 16:13 1.00 in. 0 0 0 0 New Franklin 06/10/06 16:30 0.88 in. 0 0 0 0 Glasgow 08/18/06 17:28 1.00 in. 0 0 0 0 Fayette 01/07/08 20:20 1.00 in. 0 0 0 0 Hilldale 06/24/08 17:30 1.00 in. 0 0 0 0 Fayette Fld Arpt 06/24/08 17:55 0.88 in. 0 0 0 0 Fayette Fld Arpt 06/24/08 18:00 1.00 in. 0 0 0 0 Hilldale 06/24/08 18:05 0.88 in. 0 0 0 0 Hilldale 06/24/08 18:10 1.00 in. 0 0 0 0 Hilldale 06/24/08 18:12 1.25 in. 0 0 0 0 Fayette 06/24/08 18:13 1.00 in. 0 0 0 0 Burton 06/24/08 18:15 1.00 in. 0 0 0 0 Hilldale 06/24/08 18:15 0.88 in. 0 0 0 0 Hilldale 06/24/08 18:20 0.88 in. 0 0 0 0 Fayette 05/07/09 21:15 1.00 in. 0 0 0 0 Fayette 06/10/09 20:05 1.00 in. 0 0 0 0 Fayette 08/03/09 8:55 0.88 in. 0 0 0 0 Hilldale 04/04/10 8:44 0.75 in. 0 0 0 0

213

Burton 04/30/10 14:33 0.75 in. 0 0 0 0 New Franklin 06/10/11 18:28 1.75 in. 0 0 0 0 New Franklin 06/10/11 18:28 1.75 in. 0 0 0 0 Hilldale 01/22/12 22:41 0.88 in. 0 0 0 0 Hilldale 09/07/12 14:45 1.5 in. 0 0 0 0 North Boonville 09/07/12 14:50 1 in. 0 0 0 0 Hilldale 04/17/13 17:00 1.25 in. 0 0 0 0 Fayette 04/17/13 18:15 0.88 in. 0 0 0 0 New Franklin 03/27/14 15:48 1 in. 0 0 0 0 New Franklin 04/03/14 19:00 1 in. 0 0 0 0 Burton 04/03/14 13:59 1.75 in. 0 0 0 0 Glasgow 04/03/14 15:58 1 in. 0 0 0 0 New Franklin 04/27/14 13:30 0.75 in. 0 0 0 0 Estill 05/10/14 19:15 1 in. 0 0 0 0 Estill 04/09/15 14:07 0.75 in. 0 0 0 0 New Franklin 03/06/17 21:55 0.88 in. 0 0 0 0 TOTALS: 0 0 110K 0 * Data disputed by members of the Planning Committee. Source: https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/stormevents/

Based on the number of hailstorm occurrences during the data collection period of 1958-2017 (59 years), there is a 100% chance of hailstorm. The probability that at least one hailstorm will occur per year based on the historical data of the years with at least one hailstorm occurrence is 59.3%. The data is skewed to the right with more events reported following 1990. Using information from only the previous 20 years (1997-2017), there is an 85% chance that at least one hailstorm will occur in any given year. We can assume the data was underreported prior to 1990 or there was a significant shift in weather patterns following 1990.

Measures of Probability and Severity Probability: High Severity: Moderate

Hailstorm Vulnerability Overview

Vulnerable Jurisdictions: Entire planning area

Vulnerability Rating: High

According to damage data available in the NOAA database, there was $110,000 in reported property damage due to Hailstorm between the end of March 1993 and mid-April 2006. The annualized property damage for this period would be $8,462, according to the database information. As previously mentioned, there is good and reliable local information that the 214 property damage due to Hailstorm in the planning area is grossly underreported in the NOAA database.

There is no crop damage listed in the NOAA database but information from the Risk Management Agency (RMA) of the USDA indicates $29,664 in paid crop insurance claims for the years 2009-2012; this is an annualized claim of $9,497.47 for that period (Missouri State Hazard Mitigation Plan (2013)).

The Planning Committee assessed the Vulnerability Rating for Hailstorm to be High due to the high probability of occurrence and the damages sustained by property and crops.

Potential Impact on Existing Structures While an annualized property damage of $9,497.47 can be calculated from data in the NOAA database, this number is much lower than an accurate representation of damage due to Hailstorm in the planning area.

As an example, the Hailstorm in April 2003 resulted in roof replacements for “most homes” in the city, according to the Planning Committee. The total housing units documented in Fayette in the 2011-2015 ACS was 1,243. If even 25% of these housing units received new roofs at an average of $3,000/roof, that would be $932,250 for new roofs in one city from one hailstorm. This is almost 100 times the annualized property damage calculated from the NOAA data.

A local insurance agent was contacted for the 2012 update in an attempt to get better data on hailstorm damage but it was not available in an easily accessible form.

Hailstorm will continue to cause damage to structures in the planning area. Due to the lack of reliable historical data and unpredictable nature of this hazard, it is not possible to make any meaningful quantifiable assessment of the probable number of buildings affected or level/cost of damage which can be expected in the future.

Potential Impact of Future Development The entire planning area is vulnerable to hailstorms. While Census figures indicate a slight population decline in Howard County between 2010 and 2015, should this trend reverse and more development and building take place, the structural assets vulnerable to hailstorms would also increase. It would be wise to consider impact resistant roofing during the planning phase of any new development or building project (see Existing Mitigation Activities).

Existing Mitigation Activities National The insurance industry is heavily invested in finding mitigation strategies for hail damage as it is one of the most costly hazards for the industry. The fifth largest payout made by State Farm Insurance ($245 million) was for a 1992 hailstorm in Texas. (The only higher payouts were for

215

Hurricane Andrew in 1992, a 1994 earthquake in Los Angeles, Hurricane Hugo in 1989 and wildfires in Oakland, California in 1991.) High insurance claims for hail damage, especially in the Midwestern states, are one reason for an increase in insurance premiums. The type of roofing material used in construction can greatly affect vulnerability to hail. In an effort to have a multifaceted approach to the problem of high damages and increasing premiums, the industry has supported research and testing standards in roofing materials. In 1996, a testing standard (UL2218) was developed to grade the impact resistance of roofing materials. There are four rated classes of resistant materials with Class IV shingles providing the most resistance against both hail and high winds. In the past, impact resistant roofing (mostly made of aluminum, copper, plastic and resin) was not affordable for most homeowners. Recent research has resulted in “modified asphalt” shingles which are much more affordable; some of these achieve the Class IV rating. Installing impact resistant roofing can have an added benefit on insurance rates. In Texas, all insurers subject to Texas rate regulations were required in 1998 to begin offering premium discounts for customers who have installed impact-resistant roofs. In Missouri, some insurers offer these discounts on a voluntary basis.

216

3.2.11 Tornado Description of Hazard

A tornado is a violently rotating column of air which is usually generated by a supercell thunderstorm. The potential destruction posed by a tornado touching ground is well known.

The destructive effects of a tornado depend on the strength of the winds, proximity to people and structures, the strength of structures, and how well a person is sheltered. Tornadoes occur most frequently in late afternoon and early evening, but can occur at any time. The seasonal, temporal, and spatial uncertainties surrounding thunderstorms and tornadoes make widespread and year round preparedness essential.

Tornadoes can move in any direction, but often move from southwest to northeast. According to NOAA's National Severe Storms Laboratory, “Movement can range from almost stationary to more than 60 mph. A typical tornado travels at around 10-20 miles per hour.”

It is currently impossible to measure ground-level wind speeds in strong tornadoes because the winds destroy the instruments needed for measurement. Doppler radar recorded a wind speed of 302 mph above ground level associated with a 1999 tornado in Oklahoma; this is the highest wind speed ever recorded near the earth’s surface.

Tornadoes tend to dissipate as fast as they form. Unlike a hurricane, which can last for multiple hours, tornadoes are often in one place for no more than a few minutes.

Technological advances such as Doppler radar, computer modeling, and Emergency Warning Systems, have increased the amount of time the general public has to respond to a tornado. Despite these advances, tornadoes can still strike an area with little warning. Often people have no more than a few minutes to get to safety. Being able to quickly get to a safe place is absolutely imperative in order to prevent loss of life.

Categorizing Tornadoes The Fujita Scale (F-Scale) was developed in 1971 by Dr. T. Theodore Fujita. The scale classified tornados into six categories (F0-F5) according to the damage sustained by structures and/or trees. Since wind speed at ground level cannot be directly measured in very high winds, the Fujita Scale estimated wind speeds from the ensuing damage.

The Fujita Scale had certain weaknesses: it could not be used if a tornado touched down in an area without structures or trees; it did not take into account differences in construction when assessing damage; it allowed for too much subjectivity in assessing damage; and it overestimated wind speeds in stronger tornadoes. To address some of these concerns, Dr. Fujita suggested modification guidelines for the Fujita Scale in his Memoirs of an Effort to Unlock the Mystery of Severe Storms. This aptly named memoir was published in 1992.

An Enhanced Fujita Scale (EF-Scale) was subsequently developed by meteorologists and civil engineers in the years 2000-2004 based on engineering studies of wind effects on 28 different

217 types of structures (buildings, towers, poles, trees). It uses the same ratings as the original Fujita Scale but the wind speeds have been adjusted to reflect current knowledge (see Figure 3.2.10C).

Figure 3.2.11A The Enhanced Fujita Scale EF- Wind Intensity Scale Speed* Type of Damage Done Phrase Number (mph) Gale Some damage to chimneys; breaks branches off trees; pushes over shallow- F0 65-85 tornado rooted trees; damages sign boards. The lower limit is the beginning of hurricane wind speed; peels surface off Moderate F1 86-110 roofs; mobile homes pushed off foundations or overturned; moving autos tornado pushed off the roads; attached garages may be destroyed. Considerable damage. Roofs torn off frame houses; mobile homes Significant F2 111-135 demolished; boxcars pushed over; large trees snapped or uprooted; light tornado object missiles generated. Severe Roof and some walls torn off well constructed houses; trains overturned; F3 136-165 tornado most trees in forest uprooted Devastating Well-constructed houses leveled; structures with weak foundations blown off F4 166-200 tornado some distance; cars thrown and large missiles generated.

Strong frame houses lifted off foundations and carried considerable distances Incredible F5 Over 200 to disintegrate; automobile sized missiles fly through the air in excess of 100 tornado meters; trees debarked; steel reinforced concrete structures badly damaged.

* 3 second gust

The Enhanced Fujita Scale became the standard for use in the United States beginning in February 2007. The ratings of tornadoes prior to 2007 were not changed in the NOAA database with the adoption of the EF-Scale. The EF-Scale was developed to work with the original F- Scale but give a more realistic estimate of wind speeds for all tornadoes, including these historical ones. It should be noted that there continue to be limitations inherent with the EF-Scale since the scale continues to be based on sustained damage. As noted on the NOAA website, “…damage rating is (at best) an exercise in educated guessing. Even experienced damage-survey meteorologists and wind engineers can and often do disagree among themselves on a tornado’s strength.”

Geographic Location The entire planning area is at risk from tornadoes.

While tornadoes can strike anywhere, there is a greater chance of loss of life and destruction of property in population centers. This is especially true of a tornado with a large path.

218

Previous Occurrences Howard County has experienced nine (9) reported tornadoes, associated with six different storm systems, since 1958, as officially recorded by NOAA (see Figure 3.2.10D).

These tornadoes were responsible for one reported injury and $1.025 Million in reported property damages. The reports include an F3 (“severe tornado”) in 2006 with a path 350 yards wide and 20 miles longs. The tornado caused $450,000 in property damage to farmsteads northwest of Fayette.

The Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee noted that the loss level from tornadoes in the planning area has greatly exceeded the amount indicated in the NOAA data. It was noted that the County Assessor had made estimates that the tornadoes of 3/12/2006 had done close to $20 Million damage in the county. In addition there were two injuries during this storm.

The March 2006 weather system which spawned damaging tornadoes traversed across the entire county. The tornadoes completely destroyed numerous houses and lifted off many roofs; they destroyed, grain bins, outbuildings, and killed chickens. Damage was extensive and widespread.

Figure 3.2.11B Tornado Events in Howard County 6/10/1958 – 6/20/2017 Magnitude Property Crop General Location Date Time (Fujita Deaths Injuries Damage Damage rating) County 6/10/1958 16:55 F0 0 0 0 0 County 9/27/1959 19:43 F2 0 0 25K 0 County 5/23/1966 14:45 F0 0 0 0 0 County 4/13/1981 20:40 F1 0 0 250K 0 County 5/18/1983 19:43 F1 0 1 250K 0 SW of Fayette 3/12/2006 16:33 F0 0 0* 0* 0 SW of Glasgow to 3/12/2006 20:46 F3 0 0* 450K* 0 ESE of Armstrong TOTALS: 0 1 1.025M* 0 * Data disputed by Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee - see accompanying text. Source: https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/stormevents/

The probability that a tornado will occur based on the number of recorded events over the 59 years of data collection is 11.86%. Assuming the March 12, 2006 tornadoes were the same system, there would still be a probability of 10.17% that a tornado would occur in any given year.

In the following maps, the tornado events in Howard County are shown with present day population density (Figure 3.2.10E) and present day structures (Figure 3.2.10F) in their path.

219

Figure 3.2.11C- Historical Tornados With Present Day Population Density

220

Figure 3.2.11D- Historical Tornados With Present Day Structures

221

Measures of Probability and Severity Probability: High Severity: High

Tornado Vulnerability Overview

Vulnerable Jurisdictions: Entire planning area

Vulnerability Rating: High

All jurisdictions in the planning area are vulnerable to tornadoes; a wide range of impact is possible. High winds affect all structure types differently; non-permanent and wood framed structures are very vulnerable to destruction.

In addition to a direct hit on a building by a tornado, damage to trees poses a serious threat. People, buildings, power lines, and vehicles are all at risk from falling branches, uprooted trees and windblown debris.

Potential Impact on Existing Structures

The historical record of tornadoes in the planning area over a 50+ period shows three (3) F0 tornadoes, two (2) F1 tornadoes, three (3) F2 tornadoes and one (1) F3 tornado. An assessment has been developed for the impact of a tornado of each of these magnitudes on the residential housing stock in the County and participating incorporated communities.

The following assumptions have been made in developing these estimates:

 The entire tornado path is within the given jurisdiction.  Only residential housing stock is within the path of the tornado and it is evenly distributed.  A damage factor of 25% is assumed. Information from FEMA indicates that damage in the path of an F2 tornado will range from minimal to approximately 50%. From this information, an average damage factor of 25% was assumed. This assumption was applied to all magnitudes of tornadoes in the analysis. The average length and width of the paths of different magnitude tornadoes have been established from historical data. These lengths and widths have been used to calculate tornado areas (see Figure 3.2.10E).

222

Figure 3.2.11E Average Tornado Size EF Length Width Area (square Width (feet) Class (miles) (miles) miles) EF0 0.9 93 0.02 0.02 EF1 2.9 210 0.04 0.12 EF2 6.6 413 0.08 0.53 EF3 14.0 865 0.16 2.24 Source: Benefit-Cost Analysis Tornado Safe Room Course, 06/09 Version 4.5

The estimates of housing structure damage for Howard County and its participating incorporated communities are shown in Figure 3.2.10H.

Figure 3.2.111F0F Tornado Vulnerability Analysis

Estimated Housing Damage Jurisdictional Data (25% damage factor assumed) Median Area Total Owner- Total Housing Jurisdiction (square Housing Occupied Value EF0 EF1 EF2 EF3 miles) Units* Housing (Estimate) Value*

Howard Co. 471.530 4,541 $97,900 $444,563,900 $4,714 $28,284 $124,923 $527,974

Armstrong 0.820 153 $35,400 $5,416,200 $33,026 $198,154 $875,179 $3,698,868

Fayette 2.253 1,243 $84,300 $104,784,900 $232,545 $1,395,272 $6,162,450 $26,045,071

Glasgow 1.419 497 $78,800 $39,163,600 $137,997 $827,983 $3,656,925 $9,790,900

New Franklin 1.338 619 $76,500 $47,353,500 $176,956 $1,061,738 $4,689,341 $11,838,375

Sources: *U.S. Census Bureau, 2011-2015 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates

There are some obvious limitations to this assessment. Some of these are:

 The analysis is based on numerous assumptions and estimates.  The analysis does not take into account the type of construction; this is a major factor in structure vulnerability.  Housing is not distributed evenly in jurisdictions.  Conversion of the length and width of a tornado path into area will cause an overestimation of damage in smaller jurisdictions.  Commercial and public buildings, which often have much higher values than residential properties, are not taken into account in the assessment.

223

Potential Impact of Future Development The entire planning area is vulnerable to tornadoes. While Census figures indicate a slight population decline in Howard County between 2010 and 2015, should this trend reverse and more development and building take place, the structural assets vulnerable to tornadoes would also increase. The type of construction effects vulnerability to high winds and tornadoes. It would be wise to consider mitigation strategies for tornadoes and high wind situations during the planning phase of any new development. Design and construction choices, inclusion of safe rooms in projects, adequate warning sirens and NOAA radios can all save lives. Schools within Howard County frequently revisit the idea for saferooms and plan to proceed if funding becomes available.

Existing Mitigation Actions Throughout Howard County are Red Cross Certified shelters where county residents can go during a tornado warning to seek shelter if they are unable to safely shelter in place. All of the towns within the county have installed warning sirens that are tested regularly. Areas without access to a siren are encouraged to use text alerts provided by local news outlets.

224

Section 4: Mitigation Strategy

4.1 Hazard Mitigation Goals

[The hazard mitigation strategy shall include a] description of Requirement mitigation goals to reduce or avoid long-term vulnerabilities to the §201.6(c)(3)(i): identified hazards.

Hazard mitigation goals were developed during the planning process for the original Howard County Hazard Mitigation Plan (2006). For the current update, the goals were reviewed by the planning committee. Four mitigation actions were deleted, some were modified, and five actions were added.

The five county hazard mitigation goals for the Howard County Hazard Mitigation Plan (2017) are:

 Goal 1: Mitigate effects of future natural hazards in the county.

 Goal 2: Develop policies that will limit impacts of natural hazards on Howard County.

 Goal 3: Protect the County’s most valuable assets and vulnerable populations through cost effective and feasible mitigation projects whenever financially possible.

 Goal 4: Increase the public awareness of natural hazards in the County in order to make the public a partner in hazard mitigation.

 Goal 5: Ensure that future development in the County is as “hazard proof” as possible, thereby contributing to the sustainability of the community.

225

4.2 Update of Mitigation Actions

[The mitigation strategy shall include a] section that identifies and analyzes a comprehensive range of specific mitigation actions and Requirement projects being considered to reduce the effects of each hazard, with §201.6(c)(3)(ii): particular emphasis on new and existing buildings and infrastructure.

The Project Steering Committee which developed the original Howard County Hazard Mitigation Plan (2006) developed a comprehensive range of mitigation actions to promote the agreed upon mitigation goals. Objectives were defined under each goal and mitigation actions were then developed to promote each objective. The following six categories of mitigation were considered in developing the mitigation actions:

 Prevention tools - regulatory methods such as planning and zoning, building regulations, open space planning, land development regulations, and storm water management.

 Property protection measures - acquisition of land, relocation of buildings, modifying at-risk structures, and flood proofing at-risk structures.

 Natural resource protection - erosion and sediment control or wetlands protection.

 Emergency services measures – warning systems, response capacity, critical facilities protection, and health and safety maintenance.

 Structural mitigation - reservoirs, levees, diversions, channel modifications and storm sewers.

 Public information - providing hazard maps and information, outreach programs, real estate disclosure, technical assistance and education.

The 2006 plan contained a comprehensive list of mitigation actions which served as a starting point for update discussions. Actions from the original plan and the 2012 update have been revisited, edited, or deleted.

226

A local jurisdiction must review and revise its plan to reflect Requirement changes in development, progress in local mitigation efforts, and §201.6(d)(3): changes in priorities, and resubmit it for approval within 5 years in order to continue to be eligible for mitigation project grand funding.

The Planning Committee for the update (2017) reviewed and discussed all the mitigation actions from the 2011-2012 update. This was accomplished by analyzing and discussing each hazard and the actions focused on its mitigation. An individual focus on each hazard allowed for a comprehensive view of the hazard and possibilities for its mitigation. This approach was useful in developing appropriate new actions, when deemed important.

A wide and diverse participation in the planning process for the update allowed for a thorough updating of the mitigation actions to make them appropriate for current conditions and capabilities in the Planning Area. Those who were not able to attend the planning meetings were contacted outside of the meetings for their input on various aspects of the plan update.

The existing mitigation actions for each hazard were put into four categories (completed, retained, modified, deleted); new actions for the update were added as necessary.

The existing mitigation actions were divided into four categories (completed, retained, modified, deleted).

Descriptions of the categories are as follows:  Completed – Actions have been completed.

 Retained – Actions have not been completed but are deemed important and appropriate for the updated plan OR actions are ongoing mitigation activities.

 Modified – Actions were in original plan but the focus or language has been changed to some degree.

 Deleted – Actions were deemed unrealistic or inappropriate for the jurisdictions involved.

The assessment of the actions in the original plan, by hazard, is shown in Figures 4.2.1A-H. New actions added for a hazard are shown after each assessment.

A summary of the mitigation action updates is as follows:

 Four actions were removed from the mitigation actions plan for various reasons.

227

 Most of the 2012 actions were kept for the 2017 update either because they have not yet been completed or because they are ongoing actions which should be addressed periodically with annual plan maintenance.  Some actions were modified to better fit actions of the community and the feasibility of planned actions.

228

Figure 4.2.1B Assessment of Mitigation Actions in 2012 Plan Update Number in 2012 Mitigation Action Assessment for Update Plan Continue to enforce flood damage prevention/floodplain management 1.1.1 Retained for update (ongoing). ordinances in compliance with NFIP requirements.

Complete Community Rating System This is retained for the update, although not 1.1.2 (CRS) application of the NFIP. completed due to funding limitations.

Ensure adequate maintenance of drainage 1.1.3 Retained for update (ongoing). systems.

1.1.4 Develop and maintain stormwater policies. Retained for update (ongoing).

Encourage cooperative agreements between water districts and connect 1.1.5 Retained for update (ongoing). disparate water supplies as much as possible.

Provide continuing education for This is done on an ongoing basis; retained for 1.1.6 firefighters on fighting wildfires. update.

Encourage appropriate County, municipal, special district and educational staff to 1.1.7 Completed; retained for update (ongoing). continually update their knowledge base regarding earthquake safety.

Continue to meet the Revised Statutes of Missouri concerning earthquake 1.1.8 Deleted. This is redundant to state statute. emergency system and earthquake safety in schools. Evaluate and maintain school emergency preparedness plans and incorporate into This is done on an ongoing basis; retained for 1.1.9 the County Local Emergency Operations update. Plan (LEOP).

Maintain file of Emergency Action Plans Completed; retained for update 1.1.10 (EAPs) for state regulated high hazard dams. (ongoing). Hold annual training on Local Emergency This is done on an ongoing basis; retained for 1.1.11 Operations Plan (LEOP) for County and update. City officials.

229

Establish formal agreements with Modified to read: "Encourage Red Cross appropriate shelter locations through out 1.2.1 certified shelter locations throughout the the County. Encourage shelters to have county." alternative power and heating sources.

Modified to read: "Coordinate with the Red Encourage shelters to have alternative Cross to ensure that shelters are encouraged 1.2.2 power and heating sources. to have alternative power and heating sources." Encourage local motels to provide their 1.2.3 customers with safety information for high Retained for update. wind/tornado events. Review and update flood damage This is done on an ongoing basis; retained for 2.1.1 prevention ordinance to ensure maximum update. protection from flood hazard events. Encourage all fire districts in the Planning 2.1.2 Retained for update (ongoing). Area to pass burn ordinances.

Adopt and enforce latest model building Partially completed; only some cities have 2.2.1 codes and national engineering standards. codes. Retained for update.

Adopt regulations that preserve riparian 2.2.2 Retained for update (ongoing). corridors in developments.

This is done on an ongoing basis; retained for 3.1.1 Protect critical infrastructure. update.

Evaluate access problems to critical This is done on an ongoing basis; retained for 3.1.2 infrastructure in the event of a flood. update.

Mitigate the effects of flooding on public This is done on an ongoing basis; retained for 3.1.3 infrastructure. update.

Provide backup power to all critical 3.1.4 infrastructure (police, fire, hospitals, local Retained for update (ongoing). government buildings).

Remove vegetation and combustible This is done on an ongoing basis; retained for 3.1.5 materials around critical infrastructure. update.

Ensure that manufactured homes are This is done on an ongoing basis; retained for 3.1.6 secured to ground to maximize their update. longevity Stabilize the riverbank along Water Street 3.1.7 Completed. Deleted for update. in the City of Glasgow.

230

3.1.8 Relocate buildings out of floodplain. Deleted. This is unnecessary.

Ensure reliable warning system and 3.2.1 dissemination of information regarding Retained for update (ongoing). high wind situations throughout county.

This is done on an ongoing basis; retained for 3.2.2 Promote the use of NOAA weather radios. update.

Ensure that school buses have two way 3.2.3 Retained for update (ongoing). radios on board. Coordinate with local law enforcement to 3.2.4 include scanner frequency in 2-way radios Retained for update (ongoing). at schools.

3.2.5 Build tornado safe rooms. Retained for update (ongoing).

Encourage new mobile home parks to have This is done on an ongoing basis; retained for 3.2.6 saferooms on the premises. update.

Encourage nursing and residential care This is done on an ongoing basis; retained for 3.2.7 facilities to have alternate power and update. heating sources. Have a plan for cooling centers in all 3.2.8 Partially completed; retained for update. communities.

Identify potential transportation for This is done on an ongoing basis; retained for 3.2.9 vulnerable populations. update.

Establish a community storm shelter with Deleted. Redundant to Actions 1.2.1 and 3.2.10 heat and backup power. 1.2.2.

Develop public education hazard 4.0.1 Retained for update (ongoing). awareness program. Maintain flood awareness signs at low 4.0.2 Retained for update (ongoing). water crossings and flash flooding areas. Encourage safe driving through public This is done on an ongoing basis; retained for 4.0.3 education campaigns, websites, update. community events, etc. Encourage the MO Dept. of Conservation This is done on an ongoing basis; retained for 4.0.4 (MDC) to continue their trainings on update. controlled burns. Encourage levee districts to restrict access 4.0.5 Completed; retained for update (ongoing). at access points to the levees.

231

Encourage developers to build earthquake This is done on an ongoing basis; retained for 5.0.1 resistant structures. update.

Retrofit structures to new earthquake This is done when possible and encouraged 5.0.2 safety standards when undergoing on an ongoing basis. renovations/improvements.

Deleted Actions:

Figure 4.2.1 K Deleted Actions From 2012 Update Action Number (2012) Action Reason for Removal 1.1.8 Continue to meet the Revised This is required by state statute Statutes of Missouri concerning and is redundant to established earthquake emergency system statutory requirements. and earthquake safety in schools. 3.1.7 Stabilize the riverbank along Completed. Water Street in the City of Glasgow. 3.1.8 Relocate buildings out of the This was not seen as an issue by floodplain. those in the planning committee. The only building possibly in the floodplain is a storage shed near the football field near Central Methodist University. 3.2.10 Establish a community storm This is redundant to Actions shelter with heat and backup 1.2.1 and 1.2.2. power.

232

4.3 Mitigation Goals, Objectives, and Actions A comprehensive list of the goals, objectives, and mitigation actions for the Howard County Hazard Mitigation Plan (2017) follows. The mitigation actions listed are for the entire Planning Area; participating jurisdictions differ in the specific actions undertaken in their jurisdictions. Actions which address reducing the effects of hazards on new and/or existing buildings and infrastructure are indicated as such in parentheses following the actions (i.e. New, Existing, Both). The comprehensive list of goals, objectives and actions is followed by an overview of the mitigation actions with the hazard(s) each action is addressing and the participating jurisdiction(s) to which it applies (Figure 4.3.1). More information on the implementation of the specific mitigation actions for each participating jurisdiction is included in Section 4.4.2 (Implementation and Administration in Participating Jurisdictions).

Goal 1: Mitigate effects of future natural hazards in the county. Objective 1.1 - Incorporate mitigation planning and procedures into the community. 1.1.1 Continue to enforce flood damage prevention/floodplain management ordinances in compliance with NFIP requirements. (Both)

1.1.2 Complete Community Rating System Application (NFIP).

1.1.3 Ensure adequate maintenance of drainage systems. (Both)

1.1.4 Develop and maintain storm water policies. (Both)

1.1.5 Encourage cooperative agreements between water districts and connect disparate water supplies as much as possible.

1.1.6 Provide continuing education for firefighters on fighting wildfires. (Both)

1.1.7 Encourage appropriate County, municipal, special district and educational staff to continually update their knowledge base regarding earthquake safety. (Both)

1.1.8 Evaluate and maintain school emergency preparedness plans and incorporate into the County Local Emergency Operations Plan (LEOP).

1.1.9 Maintain file of Emergency Action Plans (EAPs) for state regulated high hazard dams.

1.1.10 Hold annual training on Local Emergency Operations Plan (LEOP) for County and City officials.

Objective 1.2: Encourage private involvement in mitigation activities. 1.2.1 Encourage Red Cross certified shelter locations throughout the county.

233

1.2.2 Encourage shelters to have alternative power and heating sources.

1.2.3 Encourage local motels to provide their customers with safety information for high wind/tornado events.

Goal 2: Develop policies that will limit impacts of natural hazards on Howard County. Objective 2.1 - Pass appropriate ordinances for mitigation efforts. 2.1.1 Review and update flood damage prevention ordinance to ensure maximum protection from flood hazard events. (Both)

2.1.2 Encourage all fire districts in the Planning Area to pass burn ordinances. (Both)

Objective 2.2 - Adopt new codes and standards. 2.2.1 Adopt and enforce latest model building codes and national engineering standards. (Both)

2.2.2 Adopt regulations that preserve riparian corridors in developments.

Goal 3: Protect the County’s most valuable assets and vulnerable populations through cost effective and feasible mitigation projects whenever financially possible. Objective 3.1 - Protect buildings and valuable assets. 3.1.1 Protect critical infrastructure. (Both)

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

3.1.3 Mitigate the effects of flooding on public infrastructure. (Both)

3.1.4 Provide backup power to all critical infrastructure (police, fire, hospitals, local government buildings).

3.1.5 Remove vegetation and combustible materials around critical infrastructure. (Both)

3.1.6 Ensure that manufactured homes are secured to ground to maximize their longevity. (Both)

3.1.7 Seek funding opportunities for transfer switches to make existing back-up generators usable.

234

Objective 3.2 - Protect vulnerable populations. 3.2.1 Ensure reliable warning system and dissemination of information regarding high wind situations throughout county.

3.2.2 Promote the use of NOAA weather radios.

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

3.2.4 Coordinate with local law enforcement to include scanner frequency in 2-way radios at schools.

3.2.5 Build tornado safe rooms.

3.2.6 Encourage new mobile home parks to have safe rooms on the premises.

3.2.7 Encourage nursing and residential care facilities to have alternate power and heating sources.

3.2.8 Have plan for cooling centers in all communities.

3.2.9 Identify potential transportation for vulnerable populations.

3.2.10 Create a confidential voluntary list of individuals with critical medical devices for emergency services and disaster response/recovery.

Goal 4 - Increase the public awareness of natural hazards in the County in order to make the public a partner in hazard mitigation. 4.0.1 Develop public education hazard awareness program.

4.0.2 Maintain flood awareness signs at low water crossings and flash flooding areas.

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

4.0.4 Encourage the MO Dept. of Conservation (MDC) to continue their trainings on controlled burns. (Both)

4.0.5 Encourage levee districts to restrict public access at access points to the levees. (Both)

4.0.6 Promote the usage of text alerts for severe weather.

4.0.7 Educate public on how to safely shelter in place.

235

Goal 5 - Ensure that future development in the County is as “hazard proof” as possible by contributing to the sustainability of the community. 5.0.1 Encourage developers to build earthquake resistant structures. (New)

5.0.2 Retrofit structures to new earthquake safety standards when undergoing renovations/improvements. (Existing)

5.0.3 Establish ongoing communication with the Army Corps of Engineers and Howard County regarding flooding and levee issues.

New Actions in 2017 Hazard Mitigation Plan Update:

3.1.7 – Seek funding opportunities for transfer switches to make existing back-up generators usable.

3.2.10 – Create a confidential voluntary list of individuals with critical medical devices for emergency services and disaster response/recovery.

4.0.6 – Promote the usage of text alerts for severe weather.

4.0.7 – Educate public on how to safely shelter in place.

5.0.3 – Establish ongoing communication with the Army Corps of Engineers and Howard County regarding flooding and levee issues.

236

Figure 4.3.1 Mitigation Actions - Hazards Addressed and Applicable Jurisdictions Hazards Jurisdictions

Mitigation Action

Flood

County

Fayette

Wildfire

Action # Action Drought

Tornado

Glasgow

Hailstorm

Armstrong

Windstorm

Earthquake

DamFailure LS/Sinkhole

New Franklin New

LeveeFailure

ExtremeHeat

Fayette R-III S.D. FayetteR-III

Howard Co. R-ii S.D. R-ii Co. Howard

Sev. Winter Weather Winter Sev.

New Franklin R-I S. D. S. R-I Franklin New

H.C. Reg.WaterComm. H.C. Central Methodist Univ. CentralMethodist Continue to enforce flood damage 1.1.1 prevention/floodplain management ordinances in x x x x x x x compliance with NFIP requirements. Complete Community Rating System (CRS) 1.1.2 x x x x application of the NFIP.

1.1.3 Ensure adequate maintenance of drainage systems. x x x x x x 1.1.4 Develop and maintain stormwater policies. x x x Encourage cooperative agreements between water 1.1.5 districts and connect disparate water supplies as x x x x much as possible. Provide continuing education for firefighters on 1.1.6 x x x x x x x x x x x fighting wildfires. Encourage appropriate county, municipal, special 1.1.7 district and educational staff to continually update x x x x x x x x x their knowledge base regarding earthquake safety. Evaluate and maintain school emergency 1.1.8 preparedness plans and incorporate into the County x x x x x x x x x x x x Local Emergency Operations Plan (LEOP). Maintain file of Emergency Action Plans (EAPs) for 1.1.9 x x x state regulated high hazard dams.

237

Figure 4.3.1 (cont.) Mitigation Actions - Hazards Addressed and Applicable Jurisdictions Hazards Jurisdictions

Mitigation Action

Flood

County

Fayette

Wildfire

Action # Action Drought

Tornado

Glasgow

Hailstorm

Armstrong

Windstorm

Earthquake

DamFailure LS/Sinkhole

New Franklin New

LeveeFailure

ExtremeHeat

Fayette R-III S.D. FayetteR-III

Howard Co. R-ii S.D. R-ii Co. Howard

Sev. Winter Weather Winter Sev.

New Franklin R-I S. D. S. R-I Franklin New

H.C. Reg.WaterComm. H.C. Central Methodist Univ. CentralMethodist

Hold annual training on Local Emergency Operations 1.1.10 x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Plan (LEOP) for County and City officials.

Encourage Red Cross certified shelter locations 1.2.1 x x x x x x x x x x x througout the county. Encourage shelters to have alternative power and 1.2.2 x x x x x x x x x x x heating sources. Encourage local motels to provide their customers 1.2.3 x x x x x with safety information for high wind/tornado events.

Review and update flood damage prevention 2.1.1 ordinance to ensure maximum protection from flood x x x x x x x hazard events. Encourage all fire districts in the Planning Area to 2.1.2 x x x x x x x x x x x pass burn ordinances. Adopt and enforce latest model building codes and 2.2.1 x x x x x x x x national engineering standards. Adopt regulations that preserve riparian corridors in 2.2.2 x x developments. 3.1.1 Protect critical infrastructure. x x x x x x x x x x x x x

238

Figure 4.3.1 (cont.) Mitigation Actions - Hazards Addressed and Applicable Jurisdictions Hazards Jurisdictions

Mitigation Action

Flood

County

Fayette

Wildfire

Action # Action Drought

Tornado

Glasgow

Hailstorm

Armstrong

Windstorm

Earthquake

DamFailure LS/Sinkhole

New Franklin New

LeveeFailure

ExtremeHeat

Fayette R-III S.D. FayetteR-III

Howard Co. R-ii S.D. R-ii Co. Howard

Sev. Winter Weather Winter Sev.

New Franklin R-I S. D. S. R-I Franklin New

H.C. Reg.WaterComm. H.C. Central Methodist Univ. CentralMethodist Evaluate access problems to critical infrastructure in 3.1.2 x x x x the event of a flood. Mitigate the effects of flooding on public 3.1.3 x x x x x x x x infrastructure. Provide backup power to all critical infrastructure 3.1.4 x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x (police, fire, hospitals, local government buildings). Remove vegetation and combustible materials around 3.1.5 x x x x x x x x critical infrastructure. Ensure that manufactured homes are secured to 3.1.6 x x x x ground to maximize their longevity Seek funding opportunities for transfer swtiches to 3.1.7 x x x x make existing back-up generators usable. Ensure reliable warning system and dissemination of 3.2.1 information regarding high wind situations throughout x x x x x x x x x x county. 3.2.2 Promote the use of NOAA weather radios. x x x x x x x x x Ensure that school buses have two way radios on 3.2.3 x x x x x x x x x x x x x x board. Coordinate with local law enforcement to include 3.2.4 x x x x x x x x x x x x x x scanner frequency in 2-way radios at schools. 3.2.5 Build tornado safe rooms. x x x x x x x x

239

Figure 4.3.1 (cont.) Mitigation Actions - Hazards Addressed and Applicable Jurisdictions Hazards Jurisdictions

Mitigation Action

Flood

County

Fayette

Wildfire

Action # Action Drought

Tornado

Glasgow

Hailstorm

Armstrong

Windstorm

Earthquake

DamFailure LS/Sinkhole

New Franklin New

LeveeFailure

ExtremeHeat

Fayette R-III S.D. FayetteR-III

Howard Co. R-ii S.D. R-ii Co. Howard

Sev. Winter Weather Winter Sev.

New Franklin R-I S. D. S. R-I Franklin New

H.C. Reg.WaterComm. H.C. Central Methodist Univ. CentralMethodist Encourage new mobile home parks to have 3.2.6 x x x x x x x saferooms on the premises. Encourage nursing and residential care facilities to 3.2.7 x x x x x x x x x x x x have alternate power and heating sources. 3.2.8 Have plan for cooling centers in all communities. x x x Identify potential transportation for vulnerable 3.2.9 x x x x x x populations. Create a confidential voluntary list of individuals with 3.2.10 critical medical devices for emergency services and x x x x x x x x x x x x disaster response/recovery. Develop public education hazard awareness 4.0.1 x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x program. Maintain flood awareness signs at low water 4.0.2 x x crossings and flash flooding areas. Encourage safe driving through public education 4.0.3 x x x x x campaigns, websites, community events, etc. Encourage the MO Dept. of Conservation (MDC) to 4.0.4 x x x x x x x x x x x continue their trainings on controlled burns. Encourage levee districts to restrict access at access 4.0.5 x x x x points to the levees.

240

Figure 4.3.1 (cont.) Mitigation Actions - Hazards Addressed and Applicable Jurisdictions Hazards Jurisdictions 4.0.6 Promote the usage of text alerts for severe weather. x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 4.0.7 Educate public on how to safely shelter in place. x x x x x x x x x Encourage developers to build earthquake resistant 5.0.1 x x x structures. Retrofit structures to new earthquake safety 5.0.2 standards when undergoing x x x Establishrenovations/improvements. ongoing communication with the Army 5.0.3 Corps of Engineers and Howard County regarding x x x x flooding and levee issues.

241

[The mitigation strategy] must also address the jurisdiction's participation in the National Flood Requirement Insurance program (NFIP), and continued §201.6(c)(3)(ii): compliance with NFIP requirements, as appropriate.

Details of NFIP participation and current flood maps have been included in the Flood Profile in Section 3 (see Figure 3.2.5L). Howard County and all the incorporated communities belong to the NFIP, as shown in Figure 4.3.2.

Figure 4.3.2 Jurisdictions Participating in NFIP Howard County Armstrong Fayette Franklin* Glasgow New Franklin * Franklin is not a participating jurisdiction in the Howard County Hazard Mitigation Plan (2017). Sources: Community Status Book, city and county personnel

The following mitigation actions pertain to continued compliance with the NFIP for those participating jurisdictions which are members:

 Continue to enforce flood damage prevention/floodplain management ordinances in compliance with NFIP requirements.

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

242

4.4 Prioritization, Implementation, and Administration

[The mitigation strategy section shall include] an action plan describing how the actions identified in section (c)(3)(ii) will be Requirement prioritized, implemented, and administered by the local jurisdiction.

§201.6(c)(3)(iii): Prioritization shall include a special emphasis on the extent to which benefits are maximized according to a cost benefit review of the proposed projects and their associated costs.

For multi-jurisdictional plans, there must be identifiable action Requirement items specific to the jurisdiction requesting FEMA approval or §201.6(c)(3)(iv): credit of the plan.

[The plan shall include a] process by which local governments Requirement incorporate the requirements of the mitigation plan into other

§201.6(c)(4)(ii): planning mechanisms such as comprehensive or capital improvement plans, when appropriate.

4.4.1 Prioritization of Actions using STAPLEE and Benefit/Cost Reviews After the comprehensive list of mitigation actions for the entire Planning Area had been developed, members of the Planning Committee carried out a STAPLEE review and Benefit/Cost review on the actions. The following guidelines were used:

STAPLEE Review The questions below were used as starting points for evaluating each action according to the STAPLEE criteria. Scoring: 3 = Definitely YES 2 = Maybe YES 1 = Probably NO 0 = Definitely NO

 Social: Is the action socially acceptable to the community?  Technical: Will the proposed strategy work? Will the action independently solve the problem?  Administrative: Is there someone to coordinate and lead the effort?  Political: Is the action politically acceptable? Is there public support both to implement and to maintain the project?  Legal: Is there legal authority to implement the action?  Economic: Will the action benefit the area economically? Does the cost seem reasonable for the size of the problem and the likely benefits?  Environmental: Is the action consistent with local, state, and federal environmental laws and regulations? Will the project have a positive impact on the environment? Will historic structures be saved or protected?

243

Benefit/Cost Review Benefit Two (2) points were added for each of the following avoided damages (8 points maximum = highest benefit)  Injuries and/or casualties  Property damages  Loss-of-function/displacement impacts  Emergency management costs/community costs

Cost Points were subtracted according to the following cost scale (-5 points maximum = highest cost) (-1) = Minimal – little cost to the jurisdiction involved (-3) = Moderate – definite cost involved but could likely be worked into operating budget (-5) = Significant – cost above and beyond most operating budgets; would require extra appropriations to finance or to meet matching funds for a grant

Note: For the Benefit/Cost Review, the benefit and cost of actions which used the word “Encourage” were evaluated as if the action or strategy being encouraged was actually to be carried out.

Total Score The scores for the STAPLEE Review and Benefit/Cost Review were added to determine a Total Score for each action.

Priority Scale To achieve an understanding of how a Total Score might be translated into a Priority Rating, a sample matrix was filled out for the possible range of ratings an action might receive on both the STAPLEE and Benefit/Cost Review (see Appendix H). The possible ratings tested ranged between:

 A hypothetical action with “Half probably NO and half maybe YES” answers on STAPLEE (i.e. poor STAPLEE score) and Low Benefit/High Cost: Total Score = 7

 A hypothetical action with “All definitely YES” on STAPLEE and High Benefit/Little Cost: Total Score = 28

An inspection of the possible scores within this range led to the development of the following Priority Scale based on the Total Score in the STAPLEE-Benefit/Cost Review process:

20-28 points = High Priority 14-19 points = Medium Priority 13 points and below = Low Priority

244

It should be noted all of the actions attained either High or Medium priority rating; this is reflective of the fact that many actions which would have scored poorly on the STAPLEE review were deleted for the update during the initial discussion/review of the actions in the original plan (see Section 4.2). Also, many of the actions are ongoing and already in place but remain high priorities in the work plans of the jurisdictions.

The STAPLEE Review, Benefit/Cost Review, and Final Priority for each of the mitigation actions is shown in Figure 4.4.1.

Losses Avoided

I/C – Injuries and/or casualties PD – Property damage LF – Loss-of-function/displacement impacts EMCC – Emergency management costs/community costs

245

Figure 4.4.1 xx3=Def YES 1=Prob NO Prioritization of Mitigation Actions xx2=Maybe YES 0=Def NO

MITIGATION ACTIONS S T A P L E E

Cost

TOTAL

Benefit

Action # Action

B/C Total B/C

PRIORITY

STAPLEE Total STAPLEE

Losses Avoided LossesAvoided each) pts (2 Continue to enforce flood damage prevention/floodplain management ordinances PD,LF,E 1.1.1 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 20 6 -1 5 25 H in compliance with NFIP requirements. MCC PD,LF,E 1.1.2 Complete Community Rating System (CRS) application of the NFIP. 2 3 1 2 3 2 3 16 6 -3 3 19 M MCC I/C, 1.1.3 Ensure adequate maintenance of drainage systems. 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 20 PD,LF,E 8 -3 5 25 H MCC I/C, 1.1.4 Develop and maintain stormwater policies. 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 17 PD,LF,E 8 -3 5 22 H MCC I/C, Encourage cooperative agreements between water districts and connect disparate 1.1.5 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 21 PD,LF,E 8 -1 7 28 H water supplies as much as possible. MCC I/C, 1.1.6 Provide continuing education for firefighters on fighting wildfires. 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 21 PD,LF,E 8 -3 5 26 H MCC Encourage appropriate county, municipal, special district and educational staff to I/C, PD, 1.1.7 3 2 2 3 3 3 3 19 6 -1 5 24 H continually update their knowledge base regarding earthquake safety. EMCC Evaluate and maintain school emergency preparedness plans and incorporate I/C, 1.1.8 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 20 4 -1 3 23 H into the County Local Emergency Operations Plan (LEOP). EMCC Maintain file of Emergency Action Plans (EAPs) for state regulated high hazard I/C, PD, 1.1.9 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 21 6 -1 5 26 H dams. EMCC

246

Figure 4.4.1 (cont.) xx3=Def YES 1=Prob NO Prioritization of Mitigation Actions xx2=Maybe YES 0=Def NO

MITIGATION ACTIONS S T A P L E E

Cost

TOTAL

Benefit

Action # Action

B/C Total B/C

PRIORITY

STAPLEE Total STAPLEE

Losses Avoided LossesAvoided each) pts (2 I/C, 1.1.10 Hold annual training on Emergency Operations Plan for County and City officials. 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 21 PD,LF,E 8 -1 7 28 H MCC I/C, 1.1.10 Hold annual training on Emergency Operations Plan for County and City officials. 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 21 PD,LF,E 8 -1 7 28 H MCC Establish formal agreements with appropriate shelter locations throughout the I/C, 1.2.1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 21 4 -1 3 24 H County. EMCC I/C, 1.2.2 Encourage shelters to have alternative power and heating sources. 3 2 2 3 3 2 3 18 4 -5 -1 17 M EMCC Encourage local motels to provide their customers with safety information for I/C, 1.2.3 3 2 1 3 0 2 3 14 4 -1 3 17 M high wind/tornado events. EMCC Review and update flood damage prevention ordinance to ensure maximum PD,LF,E 2.1.1 2 3 3 2 3 3 3 19 6 -1 5 24 H protection from flood hazard events. MCC I/C, 2.1.4 Encourage all fire districts in Planning Area to pass burn ordinances. 2 3 3 2 3 3 3 19 PD,LF,E 8 -1 7 26 H MCC I/C, Adopt and enforce latest model building codes and national engineering 2.2.1 2 3 3 2 3 3 3 19 PD,LF,E 8 -3 5 24 H standards. MCC PD, 2.2.2 Adopt regulations that preserve riparian corridors in developments. 2 3 2 2 3 2 3 17 4 -3 1 18 M EMCC

247

Figure 4.4.1 (cont.) xx3=Def YES 1=Prob NO Prioritization of Mitigation Actions xx2=Maybe YES 0=Def NO

MITIGATION ACTIONS S T A P L E E

Cost

TOTAL

Benefit

Action # Action

B/C Total B/C

PRIORITY

STAPLEE Total STAPLEE

Losses Avoided LossesAvoided each) pts (2 I/C, 3.1.1 Protect critical infrastructure. 3 2 3 2 3 3 3 19 PD,LF,E 8 -5 3 22 H MCC I/C, 3.1.2 Evaluate access problems to critical infrastructure in the event of a flood. 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 20 PD,LF,E 8 -3 5 25 H MCC I/C, 3.1.3 Mitigate the effects of flooding on public infrastructure. 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 20 PD,LF,E 8 -5 3 23 H MCC I/C, Provide backup power to all critical infrastructure (police, fire, hospitals, local 3.1.4 3 2 3 2 3 1 2 16 PD,LF,E 8 -5 3 19 M government buildings). MCC I/C, 3.1.5 Remove vegetation and combustible materials around critical infrastructure. 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 21 PD,LF,E 8 -3 5 26 H MCC I/C, Ensure that manufactured homes are secured to ground to maximize their 3.1.6 2 3 3 2 3 3 3 19 PD,LF,E 8 -3 5 24 H longevity MCC Seek funding opportunities for transfer switches to make existing back-up I/C, LF, 3.1.7 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 20 6 -5 1 21 H generators usable. EMCC

248

Figure 4.4.1 (cont.) xx3=Def YES 1=Prob NO Prioritization of Mitigation Actions xx2=Maybe YES 0=Def NO

MITIGATION ACTIONS S T A P L E E

Cost

TOTAL

Benefit

Action # Action

B/C Total B/C

PRIORITY

STAPLEE Total STAPLEE

Losses Avoided LossesAvoided each) pts (2 Ensure reliable warning system and dissemination of information regarding I/C, 3.2.1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 21 4 -3 1 22 H severe weather events throughout the county. EMCC I/C, PD, 3.2.2 Promote the use of NOAA weather radios. 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 21 6 -1 5 26 H EMCC I/C, 3.2.3 Ensure that school buses have two way radios on board. 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 21 4 -1 3 24 H EMCC Coordinate with local law enforcement to include scanner frequency in 2-way I/C, PD, 3.2.4 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 20 6 -1 5 25 H radios at schools. EMCC I/C, 3.2.5 Build tornado safe rooms. 3 3 2 2 3 3 3 19 4 -5 -1 18 M EMCC I/C, 3.2.6 Encourage new mobile home parks to have saferooms on the premises. 2 3 3 1 3 3 3 18 4 -5 -1 17 M EMCC Encourage nursing and residential care facilities to have alternate power and I/C, 3.2.7 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 20 4 -5 -1 19 M heating sources. EMCC I/C, 3.2.8 Have plan for cooling centers in all communities. 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 21 4 -1 3 24 H EMCC I/C, 3.2.9 Identify potential transportation for vulnerable populations. 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 21 4 -1 3 24 H EMCC Create a confidential voluntary list of individuals with critical medical devices for I/C, 3.2.10 2 3 2 2 3 3 3 18 4 -3 1 19 M emergency services and disaster response/recovery. EMCC

249

Figure 4.4.1 (cont.) xx3=Def YES 1=Prob NO Prioritization of Mitigation Actions xx2=Maybe YES 0=Def NO

MITIGATION ACTIONS S T A P L E E

Cost

TOTAL

Benefit

Action # Action

B/C Total B/C

PRIORITY

STAPLEE Total STAPLEE

Losses Avoided LossesAvoided each) pts (2 I/C, 4.0.1 Develop public education hazard awareness program. 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 21 PD,LF,E 8 -1 7 28 H MCC I/C, PD, 4.0.2 Maintain flood awareness signs at low water crossings and flash flooding areas. 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 21 6 -3 3 24 H EMCC Encourage safe driving through public education campaigns, websites, I/C, PD, 4.0.3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 21 6 -1 5 26 H community events, etc. EMCC I/C, Encourage the MO Dept. of Conservation (MDC) to continue their trainings on 4.0.4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 21 PD,LF,E 8 -1 7 28 H controlled burns. MCC I/C, 4.0.5 Encourage levee districts to restrict access at public access points to the levees. 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 20 PD,LF,E 8 -1 7 27 H MCC I/C, LF, 4.0.6 Promote the usage of text alerts for severe weather. 3 2 1 3 3 3 3 18 6 -3 3 21 H EMCC I/C, 4.0.7 Educate public on how to safely shelter in place. 3 3 2 3 3 2 3 19 4 -3 1 20 H EMCC I/C, 5.0.1 Encourage developers to build earthquake resistant structures. 1 3 3 1 2 2 3 15 PD,LF,E 8 -5 3 18 M MCC I/C, Retrofit structures to new earthquake safety standards when undergoing 5.0.2 0 3 2 0 2 2 3 12 PD,LF,E 8 -5 3 15 M renovations/improvements. MCC Establish ongoing communication with the Army Corps of Engineers and Howard 5.0.3 3 1 2 3 3 2 3 17 PD, LF 4 -1 3 20 H County regarding flooding and levee issues.

250

4.4.2 Implementation and Administration in Participating Jurisdictions

Each participating jurisdiction was responsible for providing plans for implementation and administration of actions specific to its jurisdiction. This planning took place after the STAPLEE review, Benefit/Cost review and general prioritization of the actions by members of the Planning Committee.

Changes in the prioritization of actions could be made within each specific jurisdiction at this time, if warranted by the particulars of the local situation.

The mitigation actions for each participating jurisdiction are shown in the following pages. The implementation and administration of each action is indicated in the section for the jurisdiction which is the lead on the action.

A description of the method for integrating the actions in the hazard mitigation plan into other planning processes in the jurisdiction is included after the actions.

251

Howard County

The following are mitigation actions for which Howard County is the lead. It should be noted that Howard County Emergency Management Agency is the lead for many actions which mitigate for hazards in multiple jurisdictions. In the case of these actions, complete information about the action and its implementation is given in this section. The charts for the Howard County led actions also indicate for which jurisdictions Howard County is undertaking the action; in some cases the action is undertaken only for the County (unincorporated area) and in other cases the action is applicable to other jurisdictions. Actions led by the County which are applicable to other jurisdictions are repeated in list form under each participating jurisdiction to which they apply. The benefits (losses avoided) key for the charts is: I/C=Injuries or Casualties, PD=Property Damages, LF=Loss-of-function/displacement impacts, EMCC=Emergency management/community costs

Continue to enforce flood damage prevention/floodplain management Action 1.1.1 ordinances in compliance with NFIP requirements. Priority High Plan for Implementation & Review permit applications and only approve those in compliance with Administration ordinance. Lead County Clerk Projected Cost/Funding Minimal/internal funds Projected Completion Ongoing Action Update (2017) This is an ongoing action and completed on an ongoing basis. Criterion for Completion Only appropriate permits are issued. Hazards Addressed Flood, Levee Failure Applicable Jurisdictions County Benefits (Losses Avoided) PD, LF, EMCC

Action 1.1.3 Ensure adequate maintenance of drainage systems. Priority High Plan for Implementation & Clean ditches on a regular basis. Administration Lead Howard Co. Road & Bridge Department Projected Cost/Funding Minimal/operating budget Projected Completion Ongoing Action Update (2017) This is an ongoing action and completed on an ongoing basis. Criterion for Completion Ditches are kept free of obstructions. Hazards Addressed Flood Applicable Jurisdictions County Benefits (Losses Avoided) I/C, PD, LF, EMCC

252

Action 1.1.6 Provide continuing education for firefighters on fighting wildfires. Priority High Plan for Implementation & Contact fire districts, MDC, and MU Fire & Rescue Training Institute to Administration get trainings set up. Lead Howard Co. Emergency Management Agency Partners Fire districts, MDC, MU Fire & Rescue Training Institute Projected Cost/Funding Minimal/internal funds Projected Completion Ongoing Action Update (2017) This is an ongoing action and completed on an ongoing basis. Criterion for Completion Training sessions on fighting wildfire are offered. Hazards Addressed Wildfire Applicable Jurisdictions All participating jurisdictions Benefits (Losses Avoided) I/C, PD, LF, EMCC

Encourage appropriate county, municipal, special district and educational Action 1.1.7 staff to continually update their knowledge base regarding earthquake safety. Priority High Plan for Implementation & Continue to make staff aware of SEMA training opportunities. Administration Lead Howard County Emergency Management Agency Partners SEMA Projected Cost/Funding Minimal/operating budget Projected Completion Ongoing Action Update (2017) This is an ongoing action and completed on an ongoing basis. Criterion for Completion Trainings attended. Hazards Addressed Earthquake Applicable Jurisdictions County, City of Fayette Benefits (Losses Avoided) I/C, PD, EMCC

Evaluate and maintain school emergency preparedness plans and Action 1.1.9 incorporate into the County Local Emergency Operations Plan (LEOP). Priority High Plan for Implementation & Incorporate school emergency preparedness plans into LEOP after Administration receiving them from the school districts.

Lead School district personnel, Howard Co. Emergency Management Agency

Projected Cost/Funding Minimal/operating budget Projected Completion Fall 2011 Action Update (2017) This is an ongoing action and completed on an ongoing basis. Criterion for Completion Plans are incorporated in LEOP.

253

Earthquake, Extreme Heat, Flood, Levee Failure, Severe Winter Weather, Hazards Addressed Windstorm, Tornado, Hailstorm Applicable Jurisdictions County and School districts Benefits (Losses Avoided) I/C, EMCC

Maintain file of Emergency Action Plans (EAPs) for state regulated high Action 1.1.10 hazard dams. Priority High Emergency Action Plans (EAPS) are being written for state regulated Plan for Implementation & high hazard dams in conjunction with inundation studies being carried Administration out; maintain a file of these EAPs in the Emergency Management Agency once they are completed. Lead Howard Co. Emergency Management Agency Partners DNR, dam owners Projected Cost/Funding Minimal/operating budget Projected Completion Ongoing Action Update (2017) This is an ongoing action and completed on an ongoing basis. Criterion for Completion File is maintained. Hazards Addressed Dam Failure Applicable Jurisdictions County, Fayette Benefits (Losses Avoided) I/C, PD, EMCC

Hold annual training on Local Emergency Operations Plan (LEOP) for Action 1.1.11 County and City officials. Priority High Personnel is updated annually on changes to the LEOP during the annual Plan for Implementation & meeting of the Local Emergency Planning Committee (LEPC). City Administration officials, fire, police, and emergency responders are all invited to this meeting. Lead Howard Co. Emergency Management Agency Partners LEPC Projected Cost/Funding Minimal/internal funds Projected Completion Ongoing Action Update (2017) This is an ongoing action and completed on an ongoing basis. Criterion for Completion Annual update takes place. Dam Failure, Drought, Earthquake, Extreme Heat, Flood, Land Hazards Addressed Subsidence/Sinkhole, Levee Failure, Severe Winter Weather, Windstorm, Tornado, Hailstorm, Wildfire Applicable Jurisdictions County and incorporated communities Benefits (Losses Avoided) I/C, PD, LF, EMCC

Action 1.2.1 Encourage Red Cross certified shelter location throughout the county.

254

Priority High Plan for Implementation & Encourage potential shelter locations to become certified Red Cross Administration shelter locations. Lead Howard Co. Emergency Management Agency Partners Local social service agencies, churches, schools Projected Cost/Funding Minimal/operating budget Projected Completion Ongoing Action Update (2017) Modified for the update to reduce the duplication of Red Cross activities. Formal agreements are in place and shelters are available throughout the Criterion for Completion County. Earthquake, Flood, Levee Failure, Severe Winter Weather, Windstorm, Hazards Addressed Tornado Applicable Jurisdictions County and all incorporated communities Benefits (Losses Avoided) I/C, EMCC

Action 1.2.2 Encourage shelters to have alternative power and heating sources. Priority Medium Plan for Implementation & Look for funding opportunities for transfer switches so that more Administration locations throughout the County are available for generator hookup. Lead Howard Co. Emergency Management Agency Partners Local social service agencies, churches, schools Projected Cost/Funding Significant/grants Projected Completion Ongoing Action Update (2017) This is an ongoing action and completed on an ongoing basis. Criterion for Completion More shelters have alternative power and heating sources. Earthquake, Flood, Levee Failure, Severe Winter Weather, Windstorm, Hazards Addressed Tornado Applicable Jurisdictions County and all incorporated communities Benefits (Losses Avoided) I/C, EMCC

Encourage local motels to provide their customers with safety Action 1.2.3 information for high wind/tornado events. Priority Medium Contact Silver Bell Motel in Fayette and East Acres Motel in Glasgow to Plan for Implementation & discuss possibilities for informing customers of safety for high Administration wind/tornado events. Lead Howard Co. Emergency Management Agency Partners Local hotels/motels Projected Cost/Funding Minimal/operating budget Projected Completion 2012

255

This is is not actively done within the county, but during the update Action Update (2017) process, the planning committee addressed that this could be done as motels annual renew their business permits. Criterion for Completion Motels have been contacted and issue discussed. Hazards Addressed Windstorm, Tornado Applicable Jurisdictions County, Fayette, Glasgow Benefits (Losses Avoided) I/C, EMCC

Review and update flood damage prevention ordinance to ensure Action 2.1.1 maximum protection from flood hazard events. Priority High Plan for Implementation & Ordinance was updated in 2009 and will be updated as required. Administration Lead County Clerk Partners SEMA Projected Cost/Funding Minimal/internal funds Projected Completion Ongoing Action Update (2017) This is an ongoing action and completed on an ongoing basis. Criterion for Completion Ordinance is updated when needed/required. Hazards Addressed Flood, Levee Failure Applicable Jurisdictions County Benefits (Losses Avoided) PD,LF,EMCC

Action 2.1.2 Encourage all fire districts in the Planning Area to pass burn ordinances. Priority High Talk with Glasgow Fire Protection District re: burn ordinance. Plan for Implementation & (Armstrong Fire District and Howard Co. Fire District already have burn Administration ordinances.) Lead Howard Co. Emergency Management Agency Partners Glasgow Fire Protection District Projected Cost/Funding Minimal/operating budget Projected Completion 2013 This is partially completed and will be continued throughout the next five Action Update (2017) years. Criterion for Completion Burn ordinances ares in place in all fire districts in Howard County. Hazards Addressed Wildfire Applicable Jurisdictions All jurisdictions Benefits (Losses Avoided) I/C, PD, LF, EMCC

Action 3.1.1 Protect critical infrastructure. Priority High

256

Plan for Implementation & Monitor roads and bridges for safe travel and protect/repair as needed. Administration Lead Howard Co. Road and Bridge Department Projected Cost/Funding Minimal/operating budget Projected Completion Ongoing Action Update (2017) This is an ongoing action and completed on an ongoing basis. Actions are taken as needed to protect roads and bridges from the effects Criterion for Completion of natural hazards. Dam Failure, Earthquake, Flood, Levee Failure, Severe Winter Weather, Hazards Addressed Windstorm, Tornado, Wildfire Applicable Jurisdictions County Benefits (Losses Avoided) I/C, PD, LF, EMCC

Action 3.1.3 Mitigate the effects of flooding on public infrastructure. Priority High Plan for Implementation & Monitor public infrastructure and mitigate as needed. Administration Lead Howard Co. Road and Bridge Department, Howard Co. Commission Partners FEMA/SEMA Projected Cost/Funding Moderate-high/Grants, loans, internal funds Projected Completion Ongoing monitoring, mitigation as needed Action Update (2017) This is an ongoing action and completed on an ongoing basis. Successful mitigation of flooding effects on public infrastructure, if and Criterion for Completion when needed. Hazards Addressed Dam Failure, Flood, Levee Failure Applicable Jurisdictions County Benefits (Losses Avoided) I/C, PD, LF, EMCC

Provide backup power to all critical infrastructure (police, fire, hospitals, Action 3.1.4 local government buildings). Priority Medium Plan for Implementation & Look for funding opportunities for transfer switches and additional Administration generators. Lead Howard Co. Emergency Management Agency Partners Cities, Fire Districts, Howard Co. Commission Projected Cost/Funding Significant/grants Projected Completion Ongoing Most nursing homes have backup power, schools have backup power, and some governement buildings have backup power. The County has backup Action Update (2017) generators but do not have the proper switches to use the generators. This is addressed with a new mitigation action. Criterion for Completion Backup power is available for all critical infrastructure.

257

Dam Failure, Earthquake, Extreme Heat, Flood, Land Hazards Addressed Subsidence/Sinkhole, Levee Failure, Severe Winter Weather, Windstorm, Tornado, Hailstorm, Wildfire Applicable Jurisdictions County, all incorporated communities Benefits (Losses Avoided) I/C, PD, LF, EMCC

Seek funding opportunities for transfer switches to make existing back-up 3.1.7* generators usable. Priority High Plan for Implementation & Monitor grant and funding availabiliy Administration Howard County Commission, Howard County Emergency Services Lead Director Partners FEMA/SEMA Projected Cost/Funding Moderate-high/Grants, loans, internal funds Projected Completion Transfer switch funding is obtained and instalation of transfer switches Action Update (2017) New action. Criterion for Completion Transfer switches are installed. Hazards Addressed Severe Winter Weather, Windstorm, and Tornado Applicable Jurisdictions County Benefits (Losses Avoided) I/C, LF, EMCC

Action 3.2.2 Promote the use of NOAA weather radios. Priority High A public education campaign will be undertaken through the local media Plan for Implementation & to encourage the public to purchase NOAA radios since warning sirens Administration are designed only to be heard outdoors. Lead Howard County Emergency Management Agency Partners Local media Projected Cost/Funding Minimal/operating budget Projected Completion Ongoing Action Update (2017) This is done on an ongoing basis. Information regarding NOAA radios is published in the local media each Criterion for Completion spring before thunderstorm season. Hazards Addressed Severe Winter Weather, Windstorm, Tornado, Hailstorm Applicable Jurisdictions County and all incorporated communities. Benefits (Losses Avoided) I/C, PD, EMCC

Action 3.2.6 Encourage new mobile home parks to have safe rooms on the premises. Priority Medium Plan for Implementation & Talk to new developers of mobile home parks about the importance of Administration some type of protection for windstorm/tornado events.

258

Lead Howard Co. Emergency Management Agency Partners Mobile home park owners Projected Cost/Funding Significant/grants, private funds, membership fees Projected Completion Ongoing Action Update (2017) This is done on an ongoing basis.

All new mobile home park owners are made aware of the importance of Criterion for Completion some type of protection for their tenants for windstorm/tornado events.

Hazards Addressed Windstorm, Tornado Applicable Jurisdictions County and all incorporated communities Benefits (Losses Avoided) I/C, EMCC

Encourage nursing and residential care facilities to have alternate power Action 3.2.7 and heating sources. Priority Medium Plan for Implementation & Discuss the importance of backup power with those facilities which don't Administration currently have it. Lead Howard Co. Emergency Management Agency Partners Nursing and residential care facilities Projected Cost/Funding Significant/grants, private funds Projected Completion Ongoing Most of the nursing homes in Howard County have alternate power or a Action Update (2017) backup generator. Criterion for Completion All have backup power Earthquake, Extreme Heat, Flood, Levee Failure, Severe Winter Weather, Hazards Addressed Windstorm, Tornado, Hailstorm Applicable Jurisdictions County, Fayette, Glasgow, New Franklin Benefits (Losses Avoided) I/C, EMCC

Action 3.2.9 Identify potential transportation for vulnerable populations. Priority High Plan for Implementation & Contact school districts and OATS for buses. Administration Lead Howard Co. Emergency Management Agency Partners School districts, OATS Projected Cost/Funding Minimal to moderate/operating budget Projected Completion Ongoing This is done on an ongoing basis. Although formal agreements or plans Action Update (2017) are not in place, there are informal agreements and plans for transportation in the case of a natural disaster. Criterion for Completion Transportation is available.

259

Earthquake, Extreme Heat, Flood, Levee Failure, Severe Winter Weather, Hazards Addressed Windstorm, Tornado, Hailstorm Applicable Jurisdictions County Benefits (Losses Avoided) I/C, EMCC

Action 4.0.1 Develop public education hazard awareness program. Priority High Plan for Implementation & Ensure that local media receives information re: hazard awareness. Administration Lead Howard Co. Emergency Management Agency Partners SEMA, local media Projected Cost/Funding Minimal/operating budget Projected Completion Ongoing This is done, but it is not a priority. It remains in the 2017 update to Action Update (2017) continue. Educational information about hazards and emergency preparedness is Criterion for Completion regularly distributed through local media. Dam Failure, Drought, Earthquake, Extreme Heat, Flood, Land Hazards Addressed Subsidence/Sinkhole, Levee Failure, Severe Winter Weather, Windstorm, Tornado, Hailstorm, Wildfire Applicable Jurisdictions County and all incorporated communities Benefits (Losses Avoided) I/C, PD, LF, EMCC

Maintain flood awareness signs at low water crossings and flash flooding Action 4.0.2 areas. Priority High Plan for Implementation & Permanent signs are installed and will be maintained. Administration Lead Howard Co. Road and Bridge Department Projected Cost/Funding Minimal/operating budget Projected Completion Ongoing Action Update (2017) This is completed, but is retained in the update to be continued. Low water crossings and flash flooding areas are posted with warning Criterion for Completion signs. Hazards Addressed Flood Applicable Jurisdictions County Benefits (Losses Avoided) I/C, PD, EMCC

Encourage the MO Dept. of Conservation (MDC) to continue their Action 4.0.4 trainings on controlled burns. Priority High

260

Plan for Implementation & Provide feedback to the MDC re: the importance of this training program Administration in Howard County. Lead Howard Co. Emergency Management Agency Partners Projected Cost/Funding Minimal/operating budget Projected Completion Ongoing Action Update (2017) This is done on an ongoing basis. Criterion for Completion MDC is given regular feedback on importance of training program. Hazards Addressed Wildfire Applicable Jurisdictions All jurisdictions Benefits (Losses Avoided) I/C, PD, LF, EMCC

Encourage levee districts to restrict public access at access points to the Action 4.0.5 levees. Priority High Plan for Implementation & Emergency Management Directors will discuss with levee personnel. Administration Lead Howard Co. Emergency Management Agency, County Commissioners Partners Levee District personnel Projected Cost/Funding Minimal/internal funds Projected Completion 2012 Action Update (2017) This is completed, but is retained in the update to be continued. Criterion for Completion Public access to levees is restricted. Hazards Addressed Flood, Levee Failure County, Franklin, New Franklin, Howard Co. Consolidated Public Water Applicable Jurisdictions Supply District #1 Benefits (Losses Avoided) I/C, PD, LF, EMCC

Action 4.0.6* Promote the usage of text alerts for severe weather. Priority High Plan for Implementation & Cities and county will encourage citizens to use local news stations text Administration alerts with a focus on those outside of a siren reach Lead Howard Co. Emergency Management Agency, County Commissioners Partners Howard County Towns and Agencies, Schools Projected Cost/Funding Minimal/internal funds Projected Completion Ongoing Action Update (2017) New action Criterion for Completion Text alerts are publicized throughout county Hazards Addressed Severe Winter Weather, Windstorm, Tornado Applicable Jurisdictions All participating jurisdictions Benefits (Losses Avoided) I/C, LF, EMCC

261

4.0.7* Educate public on how to safely shelter in place. Priority High Plan for Implementation & Emergency Management Directors Administration Lead Howard Co. Emergency Management Agency, County Commissioners Partners Cities, towns, and other public agencies Projected Cost/Funding Minimal/internal funds Projected Completion Ongoing Action Update (2017) New action Criterion for Completion Education on sheltering in place is completed Hazards Addressed Severe Winter Weather, Windstorm, Tornado, and Hailstorm Applicable Jurisdictions County, Armstrong, Fayette, Glasgow, and New Franklin Benefits (Losses Avoided) I/C, EMCC

Establish ongoing communication with the Army Corps of Engineers and Action 5.0.3* Howard County regarding flooding and levee issues. Priority High Plan for Implementation & County commissioners will set up a meeting between stakeholders in the Administration county and the Army Corps of Engineers Lead Howard County Commission Partners Levee District personnel Projected Cost/Funding Minimal/internal funds Projected Completion 2017-2018 Action Update (2017) New action Communication between Army Corps of Engineers and levee personnel is Criterion for Completion established Hazards Addressed Flood, Levee Failure, Dam Failure Applicable Jurisdictions County Benefits (Losses Avoided) PD, LF

Integration of Hazard Mitigation Actions into Current Planning Processes

The mitigation actions in this plan will be integrated into the work plans of the appropriate departments responsible for leading the actions. The Emergency Management Co-Directors will discuss any fiscal costs associated with the mitigation actions with the County Commissioners during the annual budgeting process. Mitigation actions will be integrated into the LEOP, as appropriate, when next updated.

262

Armstrong Mitigation actions for Armstrong are shown in the following charts and subsequent list. The actions in the charts are those for which Armstrong itself will take the lead. Those listed at the end of the charts are mitigation actions which the County will lead on behalf of numerous jurisdictions, including Armstrong. The benefits (losses avoided) key for the charts below is: I/C=Injuries or Casualties PD=Property Damages LF=Loss-of-function/displacement impacts EMCC=Emergency management/community costs

Continue to enforce flood damage prevention/floodplain management Action 1.1.1 ordinances in compliance with NFIP requirements. Priority High Plan for Implementation & Monitor any potential construction in the floodplain to ensure it is in Administration compliance with floodplain regulations. Lead City Clerk Partners City Council Projected Cost/Funding Minimal/city budget Projected Completion Ongoing Action Update (2017) This is an ongoing action. Criterion for Completion Floodplain ordinance is enforced Hazards Addressed Flood, Levee Failure Benefits (Losses Avoided) PD,LF,EMCC

Action 1.1.3 Ensure adequate maintenance of drainage systems. Priority High Plan for Implementation & Clean out drainage ditches and reestablish along streets where Administration necessary. Lead City of Armstrong Partners Eight Mile Road District Projected Cost/Funding Moderate/city budget Projected Completion Ongoing Action Update (2017) This is an ongoing action. Criterion for Completion Drainage works well throughout Armstrong Hazards Addressed Flood Benefits (Losses Avoided) I/C, PD, LF, EMCC

263

Review and update flood damage prevention ordinance to ensure Action 2.1.1 maximum protection from flood hazard events. Priority High Plan for Implementation & Update ordinance as needed or required. Administration Lead City Clerk Partners City Council, SEMA Projected Cost/Funding Minimal/city budget Projected Completion Ongoing as needed Action Update (2017) This is an ongoing action. Criterion for Completion Floodplain ordinance is updated as needed or required. Hazards Addressed Flood, Levee Failure Benefits (Losses Avoided) PD,LF,EMCC

Provide backup power to all critical infrastructure (police, fire, hospitals, Action 3.1.4 local government buildings). Priority High Plan for Implementation & A portable generator is available from Howard Co. EMA, if needed (and Administration not already in use elsewhere.) Lead Armstrong Fire Protection District Partners Howard Co. Emergency Management Agency Projected Cost/Funding High/donations, grants, loans Projected Completion When funding is found for purchase. Action Update (2017) This is an ongoing action. Criterion for Completion There is reliable backup power at the Armstrong Fire Protection District. Dam Failure, Earthquake, Extreme Heat, Flood, Land Hazards Addressed Subsidence/Sinkhole, Levee Failure, Severe Winter Weather, Windstorm, Tornado, Hailstorm, Wildfire Benefits (Losses Avoided) I/C, PD, LF, EMCC

264

Create a confidential voluntary list of individuals with critical medical 3.2.10 devices for emergency services and disaster response/recovery. Priority Moderate Due to HIPPA laws, emergency management officials cannot get a list Plan for Implementation & of those with critical medical devices. Of particular concern is oxygen in Administration the case of a fire or when power goes out. Lead Emergency Management District Partners Howard Co. Emergency Management Agency Projected Cost/Funding Minimal Projected Completion Ongoing Action Update (2017) New action Criterion for Completion A confidential voluntary list is created Dam Failure, Earthquake, Flood, Levee Failure, Severe Winter Hazards Addressed Weather, Windstorm, Tornado, Hailstorm, Wildfire Benefits (Losses Avoided) I/C, PD, LF, EMCC

265

In addition to the above mitigation actions for which the City of Armstrong is the lead, Howard County will be the lead on the following actions for the City of Armstrong: 1.1.6 Provide continuing education for firefighters on fighting wildfires.

1.1.11 Hold annual training on Local Emergency Operations Plan (LEOP) for County and City officials.

1.2.1 Encourage Red Cross certified shelter locations throughout the county.

1.2.2 Encourage shelters to have alternative power and heating sources.

2.1.2 Encourage all fire districts in the Planning Area to pass burn ordinances.

3.1.4 Provide backup power to all critical infrastructure (police, fire, hospitals, local government buildings).

3.1.7 Seek funding opportunities for transfer switches to make existing back-up generators usable. 3.2.1 Ensure reliable warning system and dissemination of information regarding high wind situations throughout county.

3.2.2 Promote the use of NOAA weather radios

3.2.6 Encourage new mobile home parks to have safe rooms on the premises.

4.0.1 Develop public education hazard awareness program.

4.0.4 Encourage the MO Dept. of Conservation (MDC) to continue their trainings on controlled burns.

4.0.6 Promote the usage of text alerts for severe weather.

4.0.7 Educate public on how to safely shelter in place.

Details on the Implementation and Administration of these actions is found under Howard County in this section (Section 4.4.2).

Integration of Hazard Mitigation Actions into Current Planning Processes Planning in Armstrong is done by the City Council on a project basis. Any projects undertaken will take into consideration the hazard mitigation actions outlined in this plan.

266

Fayette

Mitigation actions for Fayette are shown in the following charts and subsequent list. The actions in the charts are those for which Fayette itself will take the lead. Those listed at the end of the charts are mitigation actions which the County will lead on behalf of numerous jurisdictions, including Fayette. The benefits (losses avoided) key for the charts below is: I/C=Injuries or Casualties PD=Property Damages LF=Loss-of-function/displacement impacts EMCC=Emergency management/community costs

Continue to enforce flood damage prevention/floodplain management Action 1.1.1 ordinances in compliance with NFIP requirements. Priority High Plan for Implementation & Check permit applications and ensure that they are in compliance with Administration regulations. Lead Building Inspector Projected Cost/Funding Minimal/operating budget Projected Completion Ongoing Action Update (2017) This is an ongoing action and done on an ongoing basis. Criterion for Completion Permits are always checked for compliance with floodplain ordinances. Hazards Addressed Flood, Levee Failure Benefits (Losses Avoided) PD,LF,EMCC

Action 1.1.2 Complete Community Rating System Application (CRS) of the NFIP. Priority Medium-Low Plan for Implementation & This was not completed since the last update, but is retained in the plan Administration in the case that funds permit. Lead Building Inspector Partners City Administrator Projected Cost/Funding Minimal/operating budget Projected Completion Dependent on funding This was not done due to funding issues, but is retained in case funding Action Update (2017) becomes available. CRS application is completed or decision has been made to not Criterion for Completion participate. Hazards Addressed Flood, Levee Failure Benefits (Losses Avoided) PD,LF,EMCC

267

Action 1.1.3 Ensure adequate maintenance of drainage systems. Priority High Plan for Implementation & Cleaning out culverts, replacing old culverts, and ditching are ongoing Administration efforts throughout the city. Lead Street Department Partners MoDOT, local contractor Projected Cost/Funding Moderate/city budget Projected Completion Ongoing Action Update (2017) This is an ongoing action and done on an ongoing basis. Criterion for Completion Water is not backing up on street, yards, or into sewer system Hazards Addressed Flood Benefits (Losses Avoided) I/C, PD, LF, EMCC

Action 1.1.4 Develop and maintain stormwater policies. Priority High An ordinance is in place that stormwater cannot run into the sewer Plan for Implementation & system; Building Inspector regulates stormwater according to building Administration codes. Lead Building Inspector Partners Street Superintendent Projected Cost/Funding Minimal/operating budget Projected Completion Ongoing Action Update (2017) This is an ongoing action and done on an ongoing basis. Criterion for Completion Stormwater is continually monitored and ordinance enforced. Hazards Addressed Flood Benefits (Losses Avoided) I/C, PD, LF, EMCC

268

Encourage appropriate County, municipal, special district and Action 1.1.7 educational staff to continually update their knowledge base regarding earthquake safety. Priority High Plan for Implementation & Appropriate city staff will attend trainings. Administration Lead City of Fayette Partners Howard County Emergency Management Agency, SEMA Projected Cost/Funding Minimal/internal Projected Completion Ongoing Action Update (2017) This is an ongoing action and done on an ongoing basis. Criterion for Completion Trainings attended. Hazards Addressed Earthquake Benefits (Losses Avoided) I/C, PD, EMCC

Review and update flood damage prevention ordinance to ensure Action 2.1.1 maximum protection from flood hazard events. Priority High Plan for Implementation & The flood ordinance was updated in 2009 and will be updated as Administration required. Lead Building Inspector Partners SEMA, City Council Projected Cost/Funding Minimal/operating budget Projected Completion Ongoing Action Update (2017) This is an ongoing action and done on an ongoing basis. Criterion for Completion Flood damage prevention ordinance is updated as required. Hazards Addressed Flood, Levee Failure Benefits (Losses Avoided) PD,LF,EMCC

Adopt and enforce latest model building codes and national engineering Action 2.2.1 standards. Priority High Plan for Implementation & The city has adopted the 2009 ICC codes; these will be updated on a Administration regular basis as warranted. Lead Building Inspector Partners City Council Projected Cost/Funding Minimal/operating budget Projected Completion Ongoing Action Update (2017) This is an ongoing action and done on an ongoing basis. Criterion for Completion Building codes are updated as needed.

269

Earthquake, Severe Winter Weather, Windstorm, Tornado, Hailstorm, Hazards Addressed Wildfire Benefits (Losses Avoided) I/C, PD, LF, EMCC

Action 2.2.2 Adopt regulations that preserve riparian corridors in developments. Priority Medium to High Plan for Implementation & City Building Inspector will research ordinances; City Attorney will Administration draft ordinance which will then be presented to City Council. Lead City Building Inspector, City Attorney, City Council Partners Street Department, Private property owners Projected Cost/Funding Minimal/operating budget Projected Completion Ongoing Action Update (2017) Unknown. Criterion for Completion Regulations are adopted. Hazards Addressed Flood Benefits (Losses Avoided) PD, EMCC

Action 3.1.1 Protect critical infrastructure. Priority High Plan for Implementation & Building Inspector will monitor for problems and report to City Administration Administrator who will report to the City Council for action. Lead Building Inspector Partners City Administrator, City Council Projected Cost/Funding Minimal to Significant/operating budget to grants, loans Projected Completion Ongoing Action Update (2017) This is an ongoing action and done on an ongoing basis. Criterion for Completion Critical infrastructure is monitored and protected. Dam Failure, Earthquake,Flood, Levee Failure, Severe Winter Weather, Hazards Addressed Windstorm, Tornado, Wildfire Benefits (Losses Avoided) I/C, PD, LF, EMCC

Action 3.1.3 Mitigate the effects of flooding on public infrastructure. Priority High Plan for Implementation & Building Inspector will monitor for flooding problems and report to City Administration Administrator who will report to the City Council for action. Lead Building Inspector Partners City Administrator, City Council Projected Cost/Funding Minimal to Significant/operating budget to grants, loans Projected Completion Ongoing Action Update (2017) This is an ongoing action and done on an ongoing basis. Criterion for Completion Public infrastructure is monitored and protected from flooding.

270

Hazards Addressed Dam Failure, Flood, Levee Failure Benefits (Losses Avoided) I/C, PD, LF, EMCC

Remove vegetation and combustible materials around critical Action 3.1.5 infrastructure. Priority High Building Inspector sends out letters re: needed cleanup; if action is not Plan for Implementation & taken by the contacted party, city or contracted crews will do the Administration cleanup and the party will be billed. Note: City agencies are not exempt from receiving these letters. Lead Building Inspector Partners Property owners, cleanup crews Projected Cost/Funding Minimal/operating budget Action Update (2017) This is an ongoing action and done on an ongoing basis. Projected Completion Ongoing Criterion for Completion Vegetation and combustibles are monitored and cleaned up. Hazards Addressed Earthquake, Severe Winter Weather, Windstorm, Tornado, Wildfire Benefits (Losses Avoided) I/C, PD, LF, EMCC

Ensure that manufactured homes are secured to ground to maximize Action 3.1.6 their longevity. Priority High Plan for Implementation & A city ordinance is in place which follows state requirements; the Administration ordinance is enforced by the Building Inspector. Lead Building Inspector Projected Cost/Funding Minimal/operating budget Projected Completion Ongoing Action Update (2017) This is an ongoing action and done on an ongoing basis. Criterion for Completion Manufactured homes are monitored for compliance with city ordinance. Hazards Addressed Earthquake, Windstorm, Tornado Benefits (Losses Avoided) I/C, PD, LF, EMCC

Action 3.2.5 Build tornado safe rooms.

Priority Medium Plan for Implementation & Include plans for a tornado saferoom in any new city building project. Administration Lead City Council, City Administrator Partners SEMA, FEMA Projected Cost/Funding Significant/grants, loans

271

Projected Completion Ongoing This is limited due to funding, but if funding is available, it will be Action Update (2017) encouraged. Criterion for Completion Tornado saferoom is built. Hazards Addressed Windstorm, Tornado Benefits (Losses Avoided) I/C, EMCC

Action 3.2.8 Have plan for cooling centers in all communities.

Priority High The Fayette Public Library and the Fayette Senior Center are used as Plan for Implementation & cooling centers. This is advertised in the newspaper and on radio Administration stations, as needed. Lead City Administrator Partners Fayette Public Library and Fayette Senior Center Projected Cost/Funding Minimal/operating budget Projected Completion Ongoing Action Update (2017) There are cooling centers in Fayette Criterion for Completion Cooling centers are available when needed. Hazards Addressed Extreme Heat Benefits (Losses Avoided) I/C, EMCC

Create a confidential voluntary list of individuals with critical medical 3.2.10* devices for emergency services and disaster response/recovery. Priority Moderate Due to HIPPA laws, emergency management officials cannot get a list Plan for Implementation & of those with critical medical devices. Of particular concern is oxygen in Administration the case of a fire or when power goes out. Lead Emergency Management District Partners Howard Co. Emergency Management Agency Projected Cost/Funding Minimal Projected Completion Ongoing Action Update (2017) New action Criterion for Completion A confidential voluntary list is created Dam Failure, Earthquake, Flood, Levee Failure, Severe Winter Hazards Addressed Weather, Windstorm, Tornado, Hailstorm, Wildfire Benefits (Losses Avoided) I/C, PD, LF, EMCC

272

In addition to the above mitigation actions for which the City of Fayette is the lead, Howard County will be the lead on the following actions for the City of Fayette: 1.1.6 Provide continuing education for firefighters on fighting wildfires.

1.1.10 Maintain file of Emergency Action Plans (EAPs) for state regulated high hazard dams.

1.1.11 Hold annual training on Local Emergency Operations Plan (LEOP) for County and City officials.

1.2.1 Encourage Red Cross certified shelter locations throughout the County.

1.2.2 Encourage shelters to have alternative power and heating sources.

1.2.3 Encourage local motels to provide their customers with safety information for high wind/tornado events.

2.1.2 Encourage all fire districts in the Planning Area to pass burn ordinances.

3.1.4 Provide backup power to all critical infrastructure (police, fire, hospitals, local government buildings).

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

3.2.2 Promote the use of NOAA weather radios.

3.2.6 Encourage new mobile home parks to have safe rooms on the premises.

3.2.7 Encourage nursing and residential care facilities to have alternate power and heating sources.

4.0.1 Develop public education hazard awareness program.

4.0.4 Encourage the MO Dept. of Conservation (MDC) to continue their trainings on controlled burns.

4.0.6 Promote the usage of text alerts for severe weather.

4.0.7 Educate public on how to safely shelter in place.

Details on the Implementation and Administration of these actions is found under Howard County in this section (Section 4.4.2).

273

Integration of Hazard Mitigation Actions into Current Planning Processes The City of Fayette has a Comprehensive Plan. The hazard mitigation actions will be considered when looking at the Comprehensive Plan or any other plans in the future. The City Administrator, Building Inspector, and Public Works meet on a weekly basis. The work plans in the departments will include the hazard mitigation actions designated in this plan.

274

Glasgow

Mitigation actions for Glasgow are shown in the following charts and subsequent list. The actions in the charts are those for which Glasgow itself will take the lead. Those listed at the end of the charts are mitigation actions which the County will lead on behalf of numerous jurisdictions, including Glasgow. The benefits (losses avoided) key for the charts below is: I/C=Injuries or Casualties PD=Property Damages LF=Loss-of-function/displacement impacts EMCC=Emergency management/community costs

Continue to enforce flood damage prevention/floodplain management Action 1.1.1 ordinances in compliance with NFIP requirements. Priority High The only occupied structures currently in the floodplain are city Plan for Implementation & properties: 2 wells, the lift station and the lagoon. The building Administration inspector issues new building permits. Permits will only be issued for projects in compliance with the floodplain ordinance. Lead Building Inspector Projected Cost/Funding Minimal/operating budget Projected Completion Ongoing Action Update (2017) This is an ongoing action and done on an ongoing basis. Criterion for Completion All building permits comply with floodplain ordinance. Hazards Addressed Flood, Levee Failure Benefits (Losses Avoided) PD,LF,EMCC

Action 1.1.3 Ensure adequate maintenance of drainage systems. Priority High Plan for Implementation & Check for problems and repair or replace. Administration Lead Public Works Dept. Projected Cost/Funding Minimal to significant/operating fund or loans, grants if significant Projected Completion Ongoing Action Update (2017) This is an ongoing action and done on an ongoing basis. Criterion for Completion Drainage systems are working well. Hazards Addressed Flood Benefits (Losses Avoided) I/C, PD, LF, EMCC

275

Action 1.1.4 Develop and maintain stormwater policies. Priority High Plan for Implementation & Ordinances are in place that stormwater cannot go into the sewer Administration system; update as needed. Lead Public Works Projected Cost/Funding Minimal/operating budget Projected Completion Ongoing Action Update (2017) This is an ongoing action and done on an ongoing basis. Criterion for Completion Stormwater policies are maintained and updated, if needed. Hazards Addressed Flood Benefits (Losses Avoided) I/C, PD, LF, EMCC

Encourage cooperative agreements between water districts and connect Action 1.1.5 disparate water supplies as much as possible. Priority High Plan for Implementation & Explore possibility of agreement(s) with the City of Slater (Saline Administration County), and/or Thomas Hills Water Supply District Lead Mayor, City Administrator Partners City of Slater and/or Howard County Regional Water Commission Projected Cost/Funding Significant/loans, grants Projected Completion By next update Action Update (2017) This was partially done, but it is retained in the plan. Criterion for Completion Agreements are in place to supply backup water when needed. Hazards Addressed Drought, Wildfire Benefits (Losses Avoided) I/C, PD, LF, EMCC

Encourage appropriate County, municipal, special district and Action 1.1.7 educational staff to continually update their knowledge base regarding earthquake safety. Priority High Plan for Implementation & Attend trainings offered by Howard County Emergency Management Administration Agency and SEMA. Lead City Administrator Partners County, SEMA, schools Projected Cost/Funding Minimal/internal Projected Completion Ongoing Action Update (2017) This is an ongoing action and done on an ongoing basis. Criterion for Completion Trainings attended. Hazards Addressed Earthquake Benefits (Losses Avoided) I/C, PD, EMCC

276

Review and update flood damage prevention ordinance to ensure Action 2.1.1 maximum protection from flood hazard events. Priority High Plan for Implementation & Ordinance will be reviewed and updated as needed or required. Administration Lead Building Inspector, City Council Partners SEMA Projected Cost/Funding Minimal/internal budget Projected Completion Ongoing Action Update (2017) This is an ongoing action and done on an ongoing basis. Criterion for Completion Floodplain ordinance is updated as needed. Hazards Addressed Flood, Levee Failure Benefits (Losses Avoided) PD,LF,EMCC

Adopt and enforce latest model building codes and national engineering Action 2.2.1 standards. Priority High Plan for Implementation & Update codes to the IBC (International Building Code) or equivalent. Administration Lead Building Inspector Partners City Council Projected Cost/Funding Minimal/operating budget Projected Completion Enforcement is ongoing Action Update (2017) This is an ongoing action and done on an ongoing basis. Criterion for Completion Building codes are updated and enforced. Earthquake, Severe Winter Weather, Windstorm, Tornado, Hailstorm, Hazards Addressed Wildfire Benefits (Losses Avoided) I/C, PD, LF, EMCC

Action 3.1.1 Protect critical infrastructure. Priority High Plan for Implementation & Monitor critical infrastructure for any potential problems and mitigate. Administration Lead Building Inspector Partners City Administrator, City Council Projected Cost/Funding Minimal to significant/operating budget or loans, grants if significant Projected Completion Ongoing Action Update (2017) This is an ongoing action and done on an ongoing basis. Criterion for Completion Critical infrastructure is continually protected.

277

Dam Failure, Earthquake, Flood, Levee Failure, Severe Winter Weather, Hazards Addressed Windstorm, Tornado, Wildfire Benefits (Losses Avoided) I/C, PD, LF, EMCC

Action 3.1.3 Mitigate the effects of flooding on public infrastructure. Priority High Plan for Implementation & Work on possible solutions to lagoon and lift station flooding; mitigate Administration any other flooding of public infrastructure, if need becomes apparent. Lead City Administrator Partners FEMA, SEMA, USDA Projected Cost/Funding Significant/grants, loans Projected Completion 2013 Action Update (2017) This is an ongoing action and done on an ongoing basis. Flooding of lagoon and lift stations is no longer a problem; no other Criterion for Completion public infrastructure is in danger of flooding. Hazards Addressed Dam Failure, Flood, Levee Failure Benefits (Losses Avoided) I/C, PD, LF, EMCC

Provide backup power to all critical infrastructure (police, fire, hospitals, Action 3.1.4 local government buildings). Priority Medium Plan for Implementation & Two military generators are available for power at the wells or Administration elsewhere. Lead City of Glasgow Projected Cost/Funding Minimal/operating budget Projected Completion Ongoing Action Update (2017) This is an ongoing action and done on an ongoing basis. Criterion for Completion Backup power is available when needed. Dam Failure, Earthquake, Extreme Heat, Flood, Land Hazards Addressed Subsidence/Sinkhole, Levee Failure, Severe Winter Weather, Windstorm, Tornado, Hailstorm, Wildfire Benefits (Losses Avoided) I/C, PD, LF, EMCC

Ensure reliable warning system and dissemination of information Action 3.2.1 regarding high wind situations throughout county. Priority High Plan for Implementation & Update all three warning sirens in the city. Administration Lead City Administrator

278

Partners USDA Projected Cost/Funding Significant/grants, loans Projected Completion 2022 Action Update (2017) This is retained in the update to continue completion. Criterion for Completion Sirens are updated. Hazards Addressed Windstorm, Tornado Benefits (Losses Avoided) I/C, EMCC

Action 3.2.8 Have plan for cooling centers in all communities.

Priority High Plan for Implementation & All city owned structures with air conditioning will be left open and Administration advertised as cooling centers for the public during extreme heat events. Lead City Administrator Projected Cost/Funding Minimal/internal funds Projected Completion Ongoing Action Update (2017) Cooling centers are available in the community. Criterion for Completion Cooling centers for public are available as needed. Hazards Addressed Extreme Heat Benefits (Losses Avoided) I/C, EMCC

Action 5.0.1 Encourage developers to build earthquake resistant structures. Priority Medium Plan for Implementation & This will be addressed during the update of the building codes. Administration Lead Building Inspector Partners City Council Projected Cost/Funding Minimal/internal funds Projected Completion 2012 Action Update (2017) Developers are encouraged to build earthquake resistant structures. Criterion for Completion Building codes address earthquake resistance. Hazards Addressed Earthquake Benefits (Losses Avoided) I/C, PD, LF, EMCC

279

Lead Emergency Management District Partners Howard Co. Emergency Management Agency Projected Cost/Funding Minimal Projected Completion Ongoing Action Update (2017) New action Criterion for Completion A confidential voluntary list is created Dam Failure, Earthquake, Flood, Levee Failure, Severe Winter Hazards Addressed Weather, Windstorm, Tornado, Hailstorm, Wildfire Benefits (Losses Avoided) I/C, PD, LF, EMCC

In addition to the above mitigation actions for which the City of Glasgow is the lead, Howard County will be the lead on the following actions for the City of Glasgow: 1.1.6 Provide continuing education for firefighters on fighting wildfires.

1.1.11 Hold annual training on Local Emergency Operations Plan (LEOP) for County and City officials.

1.2.1 Encourage Red Cross certified shelter locations throughout the County.

1.2.2 Encourage shelters to have alternative power and heating sources.

1.2.3 Encourage local motels to provide their customers with safety information for high wind/tornado events.

2.1.2 Encourage all fire districts in the Planning Area to pass burn ordinances.

3.1.4 Provide backup power to all critical infrastructure (police, fire, hospitals, local government buildings).

3.2.2 Promote the use of NOAA weather radios.

3.2.6 Encourage new mobile home parks to have safe rooms on the premises.

3.2.7 Encourage nursing and residential care facilities to have alternate power and heating sources.

4.0.1 Develop public education hazard awareness program.

4.0.4 Encourage the MO Dept. of Conservation (MDC) to continue their trainings on controlled burns.

4.0.6 Promote the usage of text alerts for severe weather.

280

4.0.7 Educate public on how to safely shelter in place.

Details on the Implementation and Administration of these actions is found under Howard County in this section (Section 4.4.2).

Integration of Hazard Mitigation Actions into Current Planning Processes The City of Glasgow has an Emergency Operations Plan, a normal maintenance plan, and a 5- year water plan. City officials work closely with the Mid-Missouri Regional Planning Commission on developing infrastructure projects. The actions in the Hazard Mitigation Plan which have not already been incorporated into these plans and planning discussions will be integrated at the appropriate time.

281

New Franklin

Mitigation actions for New Franklin are shown in the following charts and subsequent list. The actions in the charts are those for which New Franklin itself will take the lead. Those listed at the end of the charts are mitigation actions which the County will lead on behalf of numerous jurisdictions, including New Franklin. The benefits (losses avoided) key for the charts below is: I/C=Injuries or Casualties PD=Property Damages LF=Loss-of-function/displacement impacts EMCC=Emergency management/community costs

Continue to enforce flood damage prevention/floodplain management Action 1.1.1 ordinances in compliance with NFIP requirements. Priority High Plan for Implementation & Permits are, and will be, only issued for projects in compliance with the Administration floodplain ordinances. Lead City Administrator Partners Building Inspector Projected Cost/Funding Minimal/internal funds Projected Completion Ongoing Action Update (2017) This is an ongoing action and done on an ongoing basis. Permits are issued appropriately and all floodplain ordinances are Criterion for Completion enforced. Hazards Addressed Flood, Levee Failure Benefits (Losses Avoided) PD,LF,EMCC

Action 1.1.2 Complete Community Rating System Application (CRS) of the NFIP. Priority Medium Plan for Implementation & Evaluate value of completing CRS for the city and begin application if Administration justified. Lead City Administrator Partners Mid-Missouri Regional Planning Commission Projected Cost/Funding Minimal to moderate/operating budget Projected Completion 2014 Action Update (2017) This is retained for the update and will be done if funds are available. A decision re: CRS has been made and appropriate action taken, if Criterion for Completion warranted. Hazards Addressed Flood, Levee Failure Benefits (Losses Avoided) PD,LF,EMCC

282

Action 1.1.3 Ensure adequate maintenance of drainage systems. Priority Medium to High Plan for Implementation & Use sewer jet to blow out culverts on a regular basis. Administration Lead Public Works Department Projected Cost/Funding Minimal/operating budget Projected Completion Ongoing Action Update (2017) This is an ongoing action and done on an ongoing basis. This work is being done proactively on a regular basis and not only in Criterion for Completion response to problems. Hazards Addressed Flood Benefits (Losses Avoided) I/C, PD, LF, EMCC

Review and update flood damage prevention ordinance to ensure Action 2.1.1 maximum protection from flood hazard events. Priority High Plan for Implementation & This will be updated as needed when notified of required changes by Administration SEMA. Lead City Administrator Partners Board of Aldermen, SEMA Projected Cost/Funding Minimal/internal funds Projected Completion Ongoing Action Update (2017) This is an ongoing action and done on an ongoing basis as needed. Criterion for Completion Flood damage prevention ordinance is updated as needed/required. Hazards Addressed Flood, Levee Failure Benefits (Losses Avoided) PD,LF,EMCC

Action 3.1.1 Protect critical infrastructure. Priority High Plan for Implementation & Monitor for any problems around critical infrastructure and mitigate as Administration needed. Lead Building inspector Partners City Administrator, Board of Aldermen, SEMA, FEMA Projected Cost/Funding Minimal to significant/Operating budget to grants, loans Projected Completion Ongoing Action Update (2017) This is an ongoing action and done on an ongoing basis. Criterion for Completion Critical infrastructure is monitored and protected. Dam Failure, Earthquake, Flood, Levee Failure, Severe Winter Weather, Hazards Addressed Windstorm, Tornado, Wildfire Benefits (Losses Avoided) I/C, PD, LF, EMCC

283

Action 3.1.3 Mitigate the effects of flooding on public infrastructure. Priority High Plan for Implementation & Evaluate any problems and look for solutions. Administration Lead Building inspector Partners City Administrator, Board of Aldermen, SEMA, FEMA Projected Cost/Funding Minimal to significant/Operating budget to grants, loans Projected Completion Ongoing Action Update (2017) This is an ongoing action and done on an ongoing basis. Criterion for Completion Public infrastructure is protected from flooding. Hazards Addressed Dam Failure, Flood, Levee Failure Benefits (Losses Avoided) I/C, PD, LF, EMCC

Provide backup power to all critical infrastructure (police, fire, hospitals, Action 3.1.4 local government buildings). Priority Medium Generators are available upon request from the MO Rural Water Plan for Implementation & Association, Howard Co. Emergency Management Agency, and the Administration Howard Co. Fire Protection District. Lead Chief of Police MO Rural Water Association, Howard Co. Emergency Management Partners Agency, and the Howard Co. Fire Protection District Projected Cost/Funding Minimal/operating budget Projected Completion Ongoing Action Update (2017) This is an ongoing action and done on an ongoing basis. Criterion for Completion Backup power is provided as needed. Dam Failure, Earthquake, Extreme Heat, Flood, Land Hazards Addressed Subsidence/Sinkhole, Levee Failure, Severe Winter Weather, Windstorm, Tornado, Hailstorm, Wildfire Benefits (Losses Avoided) I/C, PD, LF, EMCC

Action 3.2.5 Build tornado safe rooms. Priority Medium Plan for Implementation & Include a safe room in plans if ever building a new City Hall or Police Administration Department building. Lead City Administrator Partners SEMA/FEMA Projected Cost/Funding Significant/grants, loans Projected Completion Ongoing This is retained for the update so it can be completed if a new building is Action Update (2017) constructed.

284

Criterion for Completion Safe room is included in new city building. Hazards Addressed Windstorm, Tornado Benefits (Losses Avoided) I/C, EMCC

Action 5.0.1 Encourage developers to build earthquake resistant structures. Priority Medium Plan for Implementation & Encourage this if any new subdivision development is planned. Administration Lead Building Inspector Partners Mayor, Board of Aldermen Projected Cost/Funding Significant/cost would be rolled into cost of development Projected Completion Ongoing Action Update (2017) This is an ongoing action and done on an ongoing basis. Criterion for Completion New subdivision developments have earthquake resistant structures. Hazards Addressed Earthquake Benefits (Losses Avoided) I/C, PD, LF, EMCC

Retrofit structures to new earthquake safety standards when undergoing Action 5.0.2 renovations/improvements. Priority Medium Plan for Implementation & Include this if doing any major renovations of city buildings. Administration Lead Building Inspector Partners Mayor, Board of Aldermen Projected Cost/Funding Significant/grants, loans Projected Completion Ongoing Action Update (2017) This is an ongoing action and done on an ongoing basis. Any major renovation of city buildings includes retrofitting to current Criterion for Completion earthquake resistant standards. Hazards Addressed Earthquake Benefits (Losses Avoided) I/C, PD, LF, EMCC

285

Projected Completion Ongoing Action Update (2017) New action Criterion for Completion A confidential voluntary list is created Dam Failure, Earthquake, Flood, Levee Failure, Severe Winter Hazards Addressed Weather, Windstorm, Tornado, Hailstorm, Wildfire Benefits (Losses Avoided) I/C, PD, LF, EMCC

Howard County will be the lead on the following actions for numerous jurisdictions, including the City of New Franklin. Details on the Implementation and Administration of these actions is found under Howard County in this section (Section 4.4.2).

1.1.6 Provide continuing education for firefighters on fighting wildfires. 1.1.11 Hold annual training on Local Emergency Operations Plan (LEOP) for County and City officials.

1.2.1 Encourage Red Cross certified shelter locations throughout the County.

1.2.2 Encourage shelters to have alternative power and heating sources.

2.1.2 Encourage all fire districts in the Planning Area to pass burn ordinances.

3.1.4 Provide backup power to all critical infrastructure (police, fire, hospitals, local government buildings).

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

3.2.2 Promote the use of NOAA weather radios.

3.2.6 Encourage new mobile home parks to have safe rooms on the premises.

3.2.7 Encourage nursing and residential care facilities to have alternate power and heating sources.

4.0.1 Develop public education hazard awareness program.

4.0.4 Encourage the MO Dept. of Conservation (MDC) to continue their trainings on controlled burns.

4.0.5 Encourage levee districts to restrict access at public access points to the levees.

4.0.6 Promote the usage of text alerts for severe weather.

4.0.7 Educate public on how to safely shelter in place.

286

Integration of Hazard Mitigation Actions into Current Planning Processes The current planning process in the City of New Franklin is a meeting of the Board of Aldermen in the spring of each year where plans and improvement for the upcoming fiscal year are discussed. The City Administrator will review the hazard mitigation plan annually at this time to ensure that mitigation actions are included in the operating and maintenance budget.

New Franklin R-I School District

Mitigation actions for the New Franklin R-I School District are shown in the following charts and subsequent list. The actions in the charts are those for which the School District itself will take the lead. Those listed at the end of the charts are mitigation actions which the County will lead on behalf of numerous jurisdictions, including the New Franklin R-I School District. The benefits (losses avoided) key for the charts below is: I/C=Injuries or Casualties PD=Property Damages LF=Loss-of-function/displacement impacts EMCC=Emergency management/community costs

Encourage appropriate County, municipal, special district and Action 1.1.7 educational staff to continually update their knowledge base regarding earthquake safety. Priority High Plan for Implementation & This is already in place and is a yearly practice. Administration Lead School personnel Projected Cost/Funding Minimal/school budget Projected Completion Ongoing Action Update (2017) This is an ongoing action and done on an ongoing basis. Criterion for Completion Yearly check Hazards Addressed Earthquake Benefits (Losses Avoided) I/C, PD, EMCC

287

Evaluate and maintain school emergency preparedness plans and Action 1.1.9 incorporate into the County Local Emergency Operations Plan (LEOP). Priority High Emergency preparedness plans are evaluated on a regular basis and will Plan for Implementation & be send to the Emergency Action Agency for incorporation into the Administration LEOP. Lead School administration, city officials, law enforcement Partners County Emergency Management Directors Projected Cost/Funding Minimal/internal funds Projected Completion Ongoing Action Update (2017) This is an ongoing action and done on an ongoing basis. Criterion for Completion Plan is evaluated and incorporated into LEOP. Earthquake, Extreme Heat, Flood, Levee Failure, Severe Winter Hazards Addressed Weather, Windstorm, Tornado, Hailstorm Benefits (Losses Avoided) I/C, PD, LF, EMCC

Ensure reliable warning system and dissemination of information regarding Action 3.2.1 high wind situations throughout county. Priority High Plan for Implementation & NOAA radios are in place in all schools. Administration Lead School personnel Partners County Emergency Management, local law enforcement Projected Cost/Funding Minimal/internal funds Projected Completion Ongoing Action Update (2017) This is completed but retained for the update. Criterion for Completion NOAA radios are in place and maintained. Hazards Addressed Windstorm, Tornado Benefits (Losses Avoided) I/C, EMCC

Action 3.2.3 Ensure school buses have two-way radios on board. Priority High Plan for Implementation & Already in place with continued maintenance Administration Lead School district personnel Projected Cost/Funding Minimal/Program Funds Projected Completion Ongoing Action Update (2017) This is an ongoing action and done on an ongoing basis. Criterion for Completion Radios on board Hazards Addressed All hazards with the exception of Drought Benefits (Losses Avoided) I/C, EMCC

288

Coordinate with local law enforcement to include scanner frequency in Action 3.2.4 2-way radios at schools. Priority High Plan for Implementation & School district personnel will contact local law enforcement to program Administration the frequencies needed. Lead School district personnel Partners Local law enforcement, EMDs Projected Cost/Funding Minimal/internal funds Projected Completion 2012 There was little interest in this from the Planning Committee but it is Action Update (2017) retained for the update as it can be a valuable mitigation activity. Law enforcement scanner frequencies are programmed into 2-way Criterion for Completion radios at schools Earthquake, Flood, Levee Failure, Severe Winter Weather, Windstorm, Hazards Addressed Tornado, Hailstorm Benefits (Losses Avoided) I/C, PD, LF, EMCC

Action 3.2.5 Build tornado safe rooms. Priority Medium Plan for Implementation & Maintain awareness for any funding opportunities which would help Administration provide the 25% local match required in FEMA grants Lead School administration Partners FEMA, SEMA, other grant programs, local patrons Projected Cost/Funding Significant/grants and some source of funding for local match Projected Completion Ongoing This is retained for the update, as schools are interested in a safe room Action Update (2017) but funding is difficult to obtain. Criterion for Completion Tornado Safe Room is built. Hazards Addressed Windstorm, Tornado Benefits (Losses Avoided) I/C, EMCC

Encourage safe driving through public education campaigns, websites, Action 4.0.3 community events, etc. Priority High Plan for Implementation & Posters in school, seat belt checks, and curriculum in health class related Administration to drinking and drug use. Lead Staff and administration Partners Local and state law enforcement Projected Cost/Funding Minimal/internal funds Projected Completion Ongoing

289

Action Update (2017) This is an ongoing action and done on an ongoing basis. Criterion for Completion Above actions are carried out on an ongoing basis. Hazards Addressed Flood, Severe Winter Weather Benefits (Losses Avoided) I/C, PD, EMCC

Howard County will be the lead on the following actions for numerous jurisdictions, including the New Franklin R-I School District. Details on the Implementation and Administration of these actions is found under Howard County in this section (Section 4.4.2). 1.1.6 Provide continuing education for firefighters on fighting wildfires.

2.1.2 Encourage all fire districts in the Planning Area to pass burn ordinances.

4.0.1 Develop public education hazard awareness program.

4.0.4 Encourage the MO Dept. of Conservation (MDC) to continue their trainings on controlled burns.

4.0.6 Promote the usage of text alerts for severe weather.

Integration of Actions into Current Planning Processes New Franklin R-I School District has a Facilities Plan, an Emergency/Crisis Response Plan, and a Missouri School Improvement Plan (MSIP). The MSIP is a requirement for all public schools in the state; it focuses on the particular area(s) of need in the school. The MSIP planning committee meets at least once a year, sometimes more, to identify problems, instigate possible solutions, and assess the outcomes of past planning. Safety and facilities are always included in the plan. The school district will consider the information and mitigation actions in the Howard County Hazard Mitigation Plan before finalizing these plans.

290

Howard County R-II School District

Mitigation actions for the Howard County R-II School District are shown in the following charts and subsequent list. The actions in the charts are those for which the School District itself will take the lead. Those listed at the end of the charts are mitigation actions which the County will lead on behalf of numerous jurisdictions, including the Howard County R-II School District. The benefits (losses avoided) key for the charts below is: I/C=Injuries or Casualties PD=Property Damages LF=Loss-of-function/displacement impacts EMCC=Emergency management/community costs

Encourage appropriate County, municipal, special district and Action 1.1.7 educational staff to continually update their knowledge base regarding earthquake safety. Priority High Plan for Implementation & This is in place in the school district. Administration Lead School district personnel Partners Local law enforcemnt Projected Cost/Funding Minimal/budget Projected Completion Ongoing Action Update (2017) This is an ongoing action and done on an ongoing basis. Criterion for Completion Annual drill/education are carried out. Hazards Addressed Earthquake Benefits (Losses Avoided) I/C, PD, EMCC

Continue to meet the Revised Statutes of Missouri concerning Action 1.1.8 earthquake emergency system and earthquake safety in schools. Priority High Plan for Implementation & In place - annual drill and week of education information. Administration Lead School personnel Partners Local law enforcement Projected Cost/Funding Minimal/budget Projected Completion Ongoing

291

Action Update (2017) This is an ongoing action and done on an ongoing basis. Criterion for Completion Drill/education information take place each year. Hazards Addressed Earthquake Benefits (Losses Avoided) I/C, EMCC

Evaluate and maintain school emergency preparedness plans and Action 1.1.9 incorporate into the County Emergency Operations Plan (EOP). Priority High Plan for Implementation & In place Administration Lead School staff/local law enforcement Partners Law enforcement - local and county Projected Cost/Funding Minimal/local budget Projected Completion Ongoing Action Update (2017) This is an ongoing action and done on an ongoing basis. Review plan on an ongoing basis; updated plan is incorporated into Criterion for Completion LEOP. Earthquake, Extreme Heat, Flood, Levee Failure, Severe Winter Hazards Addressed Weather, Windstorm, Tornado, Hailstorm Benefits (Losses Avoided) I/C, PD, LF, EMCC

Ensure reliable warning system and dissemination of information regarding Action 3.2.1 high wind situations throughout county. Priority High Plan for Implementation & NOAA radios are in place in all schools. Administration Lead School personnel Partners County Emergency Management, local law enforcement Projected Cost/Funding Minimal/internal funds Projected Completion Ongoing Action Update (2017) This is completed but retained for the plan update. Criterion for Completion NOAA radios are in place and maintained. Hazards Addressed Windstorm, Tornado Benefits (Losses Avoided) I/C, EMCC

Action 3.2.3 Ensure school buses have two-way radios on board.

292

Priority High Plan for Implementation & Already in place with continued maintenance Administration Lead School district personnel Projected Cost/Funding Minimal/Program Funds Projected Completion Ongoing Action Update (2017) This is completed but retained for the plan update. Criterion for Completion Radios on board Hazards Addressed All hazards with the exception of Drought Benefits (Losses Avoided) I/C, EMCC

293

This is retained for the update, as schools are interested in a safe room Action Update (2017) but match funding is difficult to obtain. Criterion for Completion Tornado Safe Room is built. Hazards Addressed Windstorm, Tornado Benefits (Losses Avoided) I/C, EMCC

Encourage safe driving through public education campaigns, websites, Action 4.0.4 community events, etc. Priority High Plan for Implementation & In place Administration Lead School staff and local law enforcment Partners Local police/Highway Patrol Projected Cost/Funding Minimal/local budget Projected Completion Ongoing Action Update (2017) This is an ongoing action and done on an ongoing basis. Criterion for Completion Posters, assemblies, seat belt checks Hazards Addressed Flood, Severe Winter Weather Benefits (Losses Avoided) I/C, PD, EMCC

Howard County will be the lead on the following actions for numerous jurisdictions, including the Howard County R-II School District. Details on the Implementation and Administration of these actions is found under Howard County in this section (Section 4.4.2). 1.1.6 Provide continuing education for firefighters on fighting wildfires.

2.1.2 Encourage all fire districts in the Planning Area to pass burn ordinances.

4.0.1 Develop public education hazard awareness program.

4.0.4 Encourage the MO Dept. of Conservation (MDC) to continue their trainings on controlled burns.

4.0.6 Promote the usage of text alerts for severe weather.

Integration of Hazard Mitigation Actions into Current Planning Processes Howard County R-II School District has a Crisis Management Plan and a Comprehensive School Improvement Plan. The mitigation actions from this plan will be integrated into both of these existing plans.

294

Fayette R-III School District

Mitigation actions for the Fayette R-III School District are shown in the following charts and subsequent list. The actions in the charts are those for which the School District itself will take the lead. Those listed at the end of the charts are mitigation actions which the County will lead on behalf of numerous jurisdictions, including the Fayette R-III School District. The benefits (losses avoided) key for the charts below is: I/C=Injuries or Casualties PD=Property Damages LF=Loss-of-function/displacement impacts EMCC=Emergency management/community costs

Encourage appropriate County, municipal, special district and Action 1.1.7 educational staff to continually update their knowledge base regarding earthquake safety. Priority High Plan for Implementation & This is covered in the District Crisis Intervention Plan. Administration Lead District Administration Partners Local law enforcement Projected Cost/Funding Minimal/Local funds Projected Completion In place now - ongoing Action Update (2017) This is an ongoing action and done on an ongoing basis. Criterion for Completion In place now Hazards Addressed Earthquake Benefits (Losses Avoided) I/C, PD, EMCC

295

Projected Completion Ongoing Action Update (2017) This is an ongoing action and done on an ongoing basis. Review plan on an ongoing basis; updated plan is incorporated into Criterion for Completion LEOP. Earthquake, Extreme Heat, Flood, Levee Failure, Severe Winter Hazards Addressed Weather, Windstorm, Tornado, Hailstorm Benefits (Losses Avoided) I/C, PD, LF, EMCC

Ensure reliable warning system and dissemination of information regarding Action 3.2.1 high wind situations throughout county. Priority High Plan for Implementation & In house weather radios are in place. Administration Lead District administration/local law enforcement Partners Local law enforcement Projected Cost/Funding Minimal/local funds Projected Completion This is in place. The school has weather radios, are in close proximity to sirens, and are Action Update (2017) contacted by emergency management services. Criterion for Completion This is in place. Hazards Addressed Windstorm, Tornado Benefits (Losses Avoided) I/C, EMCC

Action 3.2.3 Ensure school buses have two-way radios on board. Priority High Plan for Implementation & Already in place with continued maintenance Administration Lead School district personnel Projected Cost/Funding Minimal/Program Funds Projected Completion Ongoing Action Update (2017) This is complete but retained for the update. Criterion for Completion Radios on board Hazards Addressed All hazards with the exception of Drought Benefits (Losses Avoided) I/C, EMCC

296

Coordinate with local law enforcement to include scanner frequency in Action 3.2.4 2-way radios at schools. Priority High Plan for Implementation & This is in place. Administration Lead School district personnel Partners Local law enforcement Projected Cost/Funding Minimal/internal funds Projected Completion In place Action Update (2017) This is complete but retained for the update. Law enforcement scanner frequencies are programmed into 2-way Criterion for Completion radios at schools Earthquake, Flood, Levee Failure, Severe Winter Weather, Windstorm, Hazards Addressed Tornado, Hailstorm Benefits (Losses Avoided) I/C, PD, LF, EMCC

Action 3.2.5 Build tornado safe rooms. Priority Medium Plan for Implementation & Maintain awareness for any funding opportunities which would help Administration provide the 25% local match required in FEMA grants Lead School administration Partners FEMA, SEMA, other grant programs, local patrons Projected Cost/Funding Signif/grants and some source of funding for local match Projected Completion Ongoing Fayette applied for safe-room funding roughly a year and a half ago but Action Update (2017) has not received a response to their application. Criterion for Completion Tornado Safe Room is built. Hazards Addressed Windstorm, Tornado Benefits (Losses Avoided) I/C, EMCC

Encourage safe driving through public education campaigns, websites, Action 4.0.4 community events, etc. Priority High Plan for Implementation & Posters in high school, safety instruction in classes, seatbelt checks Administration Lead District Administration/counselors/teachers

297

Partners County Health Dept., local law enforcement Projected Cost/Funding Minimal/local funds Projected Completion This is in place and ongoing. Action Update (2017) This is an ongoing action and done on an ongoing basis. Criterion for Completion Activities take place on a regular basis. Hazards Addressed Flood, Severe Winter Weather Benefits (Losses Avoided) I/C, PD, EMCC

Howard County will be the lead on the following actions for numerous jurisdictions, including the Fayette R-III School District. Details on the Implementation and Administration of these actions is found under Howard County in this section (Section 4.4.2). 1.1.6 Provide continuing education for firefighters on fighting wildfires.

2.1.2 Encourage all fire districts in the Planning Area to pass burn ordinances.

4.0.1 Develop public education hazard awareness program.

4.0.4 Encourage the MO Dept. of Conservation (MDC) to continue their trainings on controlled burns.

4.0.6 Promote the usage of text alerts for severe weather.

Integration of Actions into Current Planning Processes Fayette R-III School District has a Crisis Management Plan. The mitigation actions will be integrated into that plan and into any long-range planning for projects requiring significant funding.

298

Central Methodist University

Mitigation actions for Central Methodist University are shown in the following charts and subsequent list. The actions in the charts are those for which the University itself will take the lead. Those listed at the end of the charts are mitigation actions which the County will lead on behalf of numerous jurisdictions, including Central Methodist University. The benefits (losses avoided) key for the charts below is: I/C=Injuries or Casualties PD=Property Damages LF=Loss-of-function/displacement impacts EMCC=Emergency management/community costs

Encourage appropriate County, municipal, special district and Action 1.1.7 educational staff to continually update their knowledge base regarding earthquake safety. Priority High Plan for Implementation & Ensure that faculty and staff are aware of earthquake procedures; Administration conduct at least one informational session during the academic year. Lead Crisis Committee Partners Fayette Police and Fire Departments Projected Cost/Funding Minimal/operating budget Projected Completion Ongoing Action Update (2017) This is an ongoing action and done on an ongoing basis. Faculty and staff are aware of procedure and informational session is Criterion for Completion conducted annually Hazards Addressed Earthquake Benefits (Losses Avoided) I/C, PD, EMCC

Provide backup power to all critical infrastructure (police, fire, hospitals, Action 3.1.4 local government buildings). Priority Medium Plan for Implementation & The Crisis Committee is currently carrying out investigative studies Administration regarding onsite power generation. Lead Crisis Committee Projected Cost/Funding Significant/grants Projected Completion 2012-2016 Action Update (2017) This is an ongoing action and done on an ongoing basis. Criterion for Completion Power generation is available on campus. Hazards Addressed Earthquake, Severe Winter Weather, Windstorm, Tornado Benefits (Losses Avoided) I/C, PD, LF, EMCC

299

Ensure reliable warning system and dissemination of information Action 3.2.1 regarding high wind situations throughout county. Priority High A voluntary text messaging and computer banner alert system is Plan for Implementation & available on campus for faculty, staff and students. The Fayette warning Administration siren can also be heard out-of-doors on campus and in some parts of buildings. Lead Crisis Committee Projected Cost/Funding Minimal/operating budget Projected Completion Ongoing Action Update (2017) This is an ongoing action and done on an ongoing basis. Text messaging and computer banner alert system is kept in place; Criterion for Completion faculty, staff and students are encouraged to sign up. Hazards Addressed Windstorm, Tornado Benefits (Losses Avoided) I/C, EMCC

Action 3.2.5 Build tornado safe rooms. Priority Medium Plan for Implementation & This possibility will be considered during the update of the Facilities Administration Master Plan. Lead Steering Committee Partners SEMA/FEMA Projected Cost/Funding Significant/grants Projected Completion Dependent on Master Plan decisions and availability of funding A safe room is still under consideration and will continued to be Action Update (2017) discussed. Criterion for Completion Tornado safe room is built. Hazards Addressed Windstorm, Tornado Benefits (Losses Avoided) I/C, EMCC

Action 4.0.1 Develop public education hazard awareness program. Priority High Hazard awareness is discussed in staff meetings; residence hall directors Plan for Implementation & cover this subject with students; campuswide emails outlining Administration emergency procedures are sent out a beginning of school year; text messaging/computer banner alert system is in place. Lead Crisis Committee Partners Student Development Projected Cost/Funding Minimal/operating budget Projected Completion Ongoing

300

Action Update (2017) This is done on an ongoing basis. Criterion for Completion Hazard awareness measures continue to be carried out each school year. Hazards Addressed Earthquake, Severe Winter Weather, Windstorm, Tornado Benefits (Losses Avoided) I/C, PD, LF, EMCC

In addition to the above mitigation actions for which Central Methodist University is the lead, Howard County will be the lead on the following actions for CMU. Details on the Implementation and Administration of these actions is found under Howard County in this section (Section 4.4.2).

1.1.6 Provide continuing education for firefighters on fighting wildfires.

2.1.2 Encourage all fire districts in the Planning Area to pass burn ordinances.

4.0.4 Encourage the MO Dept. of Conservation (MDC) to continue their trainings on controlled burns.

In addition to its own hazard awareness program (Action 4.0.1) which focuses on hazards to which CMU is most vulnerable, the university will be covered as a jurisdiction by the hazard awareness program of Howard County: 4.0.1 Develop public education hazard awareness program.

The County’s hazard awareness program deals with other hazards for which CMU has a very low vulnerability, such as Drought, Land Subsidence/Sinkhole, and Wildfire.

Integration of Actions into Current Planning Processes The Steering Committee for the Facilities Master Plan is in charge of the majority of planning on campus. In addition, the Crisis Committee does specific planning and evaluation with regard to emergency management issues. All Crisis Committee recommendations go to the University executive team for a decision. The mitigation actions in this plan will be integrated into this process through the appropriate committee.

301

Howard Co. Consolidated Public Water Supply District #1

Mitigation actions for Howard Co. Consolidated Public Water Supply District #1 are shown in the following charts and subsequent list. The actions in the charts are those for which the PWSD itself will take the lead. Those listed at the end of the charts are mitigation actions which the County will lead on behalf of numerous jurisdictions, including Howard Co. Consolidated Public Water Supply District #1. The benefits (losses avoided) key for the charts below is: I/C=Injuries or Casualties PD=Property Damages LF=Loss-of-function/displacement impacts EMCC=Emergency management/community costs

Encourage cooperative agreements between water districts and connect Action 1.1.5 disparate water supplies as much as possible. Priority High CPWSD#1 is currently connected with the water supplies of the cities of Plan for Implementation & Fayette and New Franklin. The three water providers have joined together to Administration form the Howard Co. Regional Water Commission which is projected to be operational around the year 2016. Lead CPWSD#1, City of Fayette, City of New Franklin Projected Cost/Funding Minimal (already in place)/operating budget Projected Completion Ongoing Criterion for Completion Cooperative agreements and connections are in place. Hazards Addressed Drought, Wildfire Benefits (Losses Avoided) I/C, PD, LF, EMCC

Action 3.1.8 Relocate buildings out of floodplain. InPriority addition to the above mitigationHigh actions for which Howard Co. Consolidated Public Water Supply District #1 is the lead,Secure Howard funds County for buyout/demolition will be the lead of wateron the treatment following actions for the Plan for Implementation & CPWSD#1: plant/offices/boardroom and warehouse located in floodplain; contruct new Administration building(s) for offices, boardroom and warehouse out of floodplain. 1.1.6Lead Provide continuing educationBoard of for Directors firefighters on fighting wildfires. Partners SEMA/FEMA 1.1.11Projected Hold Cost/Funding annual training onSignificant/grants, Local Emergency loans Operations Plan (LEOP) for County and City offiProjectedcials. Completion Dependent on availability of funding Current treatment plant is demolished; offices, boardroom, warehouse are Criterion for Completion 3.1.4 Provide backup power torelocated. all critical infrastructure (police, fire, hospitals, local government buildings).Hazards Addressed Dam Failure, Flood, Levee Failure Benefits (Losses Avoided) I/C, PD, LF, EMCC 3.2.1 Ensure reliable warning system and dissemination of information regarding high wind situations throughout county.

4.0.1 Develop public education hazard awareness program.

302

4.0.4 Encourage the MO Dept. of Conservation (MDC) to continue their trainings on controlled burns.

Integration of Actions into Current Planning Processes The district follows the “PWS Model Emergency Operations Plan” issued by the MoDNR and also has its own Emergency Operations Plan. Long range planning for CPWSD#1 is carried out by the 5-member Board of Directors which meets monthly and prepares the annual budget. The Board of Directors will integrate the actions in this hazard mitigation plan into their planning discussions.

303

Howard Co. Regional Water Commission

Mitigation actions for the Howard Co. Regional Water Commission are shown in the following charts and subsequent list. The actions in the charts are those for which the Commission itself will take the lead. Those listed at the end of the charts are mitigation actions which the County will lead on behalf of numerous jurisdictions, including the Howard Co. Regional Water Commission. The benefits (losses avoided) key for the charts below is: I/C=Injuries or Casualties PD=Property Damages LF=Loss-of-function/displacement impacts EMCC=Emergency management/community costs

Encourage cooperative agreements between water districts and connect Action 1.1.5 disparate water supplies as much as possible. Priority High Plan for Implementation & This is constantly in discussion with other water supply districts. Administration Lead Board President Partners Neighboring water districts Projected Cost/Funding Minimal/operations budget Projected Completion Ongoing Action Update (2017) This is done on an ongoing basis. Criterion for Completion Signed agreements and legal counsel approval Hazards Addressed Drought, Wildfire Benefits (Losses Avoided) I/C, PD, LF, EMCC

Action 3.1.1 Protect critical infrastructure. Priority High Plan for Implementation & Monitor for any problems around critical infrastructure and mitigate as Administration needed. Lead Operations Manager Partners Board of Directors, SEMA, FEMA Projected Cost/Funding Minimal to significant/operations budget to grants, loans Projected Completion Ongoing Action Update (2017) This is done on an ongoing basis. Criterion for Completion Critical infrastructure is monitored and protected. Dam Failure, Earthquake,Flood, Levee Failure, Severe Winter Weather, Hazards Addressed Windstorm, Tornado, Wildfire Benefits (Losses Avoided) I/C, PD, LF, EMCC

304

Evaluate access problems to critical infrastructure in the event of a Action 3.1.2 flood. Priority High Plan for Implementation & Develop alternative access to infrastructure. Maintain access roads. Administration Lead Operations Manager Partners Board of Directors, MECO Engineering Projected Cost/Funding Minimal/operations budget Projected Completion Ongoing This is done on an ongoing basis, but flooding is unlikely to be an issue Action Update (2017) for the Water Commission due to its location. Criterion for Completion Alternative access is available and monitored and protected. Hazards Addressed Dam Failure, Flood, Levee Failure, Severe Winter Weather Benefits (Losses Avoided) I/C, PD, LF, EMCC

Action 3.1.3 Mitigate the effects of flooding on public infrastructure. Priority High Plan for Implementation & Evaluate any problems and look for solutions. Administration Lead Operations Manager Partners Board of Directors, SEMA, FEMA Projected Cost/Funding Minimal to significant/operations budget to grants, loans Projected Completion Ongoing Action Update (2017) This is done on an ongoing basis. Criterion for Completion Public infrastructure is protected from flooding. Hazards Addressed Dam Failure, Flood, Levee Failure Benefits (Losses Avoided) I/C, PD, LF, EMCC

Remove vegetation and combustible materials around critical Action 3.1.5 infrastructure. Priority High Plan for Implementation & This is done routinely as part of general maintenance. Administration Lead Operations Manager Projected Cost/Funding Minimal/operations budget Projected Completion Ongoing Action Update (2017) This is done on an ongoing basis. Criterion for Completion Area of critical infrastructure is free of combustible materials. Hazards Addressed Earthquake, Severe Winter Weather, Windstorm, Tornado, Wildfire Benefits (Losses Avoided) I/C, PD, LF, EMCC

305

Action 5.0.1 Encourage developers to build earthquake resistant structures. Priority Medium Plan for Implementation & The latest earthquake safety standards were used in building design and Administration construction. Lead Board of Directors Partners MECO Engineering Minimal to significant (undetermined at this time)/ operations budget to Projected Cost/Funding grants/loans Projected Completion 2017 Action Update (2017) This is done on an ongoing basis. Criterion for Completion Buildings are constructed to earthquake safety standards. Hazards Addressed Earthquake Benefits (Losses Avoided) I/C, PD, LF, EMCC

In addition to the above mitigation actions for which Howard Co. Regional Water Commission is the lead, Howard County will be the lead on the following actions for the Regional Water Commission:

1.1.6 Provide continuing education for firefighters on fighting wildfires.

1.1.11 Hold annual training on Local Emergency Operations Plan (LEOP) for County and City officials.

3.1.4 Provide backup power to all critical infrastructure (police, fire, hospitals, local government buildings).

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

4.0.1 Develop public education hazard awareness program.

4.0.4 Encourage the MO Dept. of Conservation (MDC) to continue their trainings on controlled burns.

Integration of Actions into Current Planning Processes The Board of Directors meets monthly and has close contact and communication with the engineer on the project, legal counsel, USDA, MoDNR and the Mid-MO Regional Planning Commission. The Board of Directors will reference the hazard mitigation actions in this plan continually during the planning, development and operational stages of the water supply system.

306

4.5 Funding Sources There are numerous ways which local mitigation projects can be funded.

Local Funds These funds come predominantly from property and sales tax revenues; they are generally allocated directly to school, public works, and other essential government functions. While there may be little room for mitigation funding within this revenue stream, mitigation activities frequently will be a part of essential government functions. For example, money that is allocated for a new school can fund stronger than normal roofs to help the school in the event of a tornado.

Non-Governmental Funds Another potential source of revenue for local mitigation efforts are contributions of non- governmental organizations such as churches, charities, community relief funds, the Red Cross, hospitals, businesses, and nonprofit organizations. A variety of these local organizations can be tapped to help carry out local hazard mitigation initiatives.

Federal Funds The bulk of federal funding for mitigation is available through the FEMA Mitigation Grants Programs; another possible funding source is Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) after a Presidential Disaster Declaration.

FEMA Mitigation Grant Programs - Jurisdictions which have adopted a FEMA approved Hazard Mitigation Plan are eligible for hazard mitigation funding through FEMA grant programs. The following five FEMA grant programs currently provide hazard mitigation funding:  Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP)  Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PDM)  Flood Mitigation Assistance (FMA)  Repetitive Flood Claims (RFC)  Severe Repetitive Loss (SRL)

Funding Cycle HMGP is a mitigation program funded after a Presidential Disaster Declaration. PDM, FMA, RFC, SRL are programs funded through a yearly appropriation from Congress. The approximate grant cycle for these programs is:  June/July – FEMA publishes the “Unified Guidance” for these grant programs

 Notices of Interest (NOIs) for possible mitigation projects are due at SEMA as soon as possible

 Mid-October – Grant applications are due at SEMA

 December – SEMA sends applications to FEMA

307

Mitigation activities which are eligible for funding vary between the programs (see Figure 4.5.1). All potential projects must match the stated goals and objectives of the Howard County Hazard Mitigation Plan and the State of Missouri Hazard Mitigation Plan.

Figure 4.5.1 Eligible Activities for FEMA Mitigation Grant Programs Activity HMGP PDM FMA RFC SRL 1. Mitigation Projects X X X X X Property Acquisition and Structure Demolition or Relocation X X X X X Structure Elevation X X X X X Mitigation Reconstruction X Dry Floodproofing of Historic Residential Structures X X X X X Dry Floodproofing of Non-residential Structures X X X X Minor Localized Flood Reduction Projects X X X X X Structural Retrofitting of Existing Buildings X X Non-structural Retrofitting of Existing Buildings and Facilities X X Safe Room Construction X X Infrastructure Retrofit X X Soil Stabilization X X Wildfire Mitigation X X Post-disaster Code Enforcement X 5% Initiative Projects X 2. Hazard Mitigation Planning X X X 3. Management Costs X X X X X Source: www.fema.gov/library/viewRecord.do?id=3648

Application and Cost Share Requirements: The application process for the FEMA Mitigation Grant Programs includes a Benefit Cost Analysis (BCA). A potential project must have a Benefit Cost Ratio of at least 1.0 to be considered for funding; a ratio of 1.0 indicates at least $1 benefit for each $1 spent on the project.

A BCA is the first step in assessing if a project has the potential to be funded. The BCA for a potential project is run on FEMA’s BCA Software; planners at the Mid-MO RPC are trained on this software.

Application for most of the mitigation grant programs must be made through eGrants, FEMA’s web-based, electronic grants management system. HMGP has a paper application.

Cost share requirements and the application format for these five programs are shown in Figure 4.5.2. Contributions of cash, in-kind services or materials, or any combination thereof, may be accepted as part of the non-Federal cost share. For FMA, not more than one half of the non- Federal contribution may be provided from in-kind contributions.

308

Figure 4.5.2 FEMA Mitigation Grant Programs Cost Share Grant Federal/Local Program Match Notes Application HMGP 75/25 Paper PDM 75/25 e-grants Qualification Requirements for "small impoverished": • A community of 3,000 or fewer individuals identified by the State as a rural community that is not a remote area within the corporate boundaries of a larger city • An average per capita annual income not exceeding 80 PDM percent of the national per capita income, based on best (Small available data. (For current information: 90/10 e-grants Impoverished http://www.bea.gov) Community) • A local unemployment rate exceeding by 1 percentage point or more the most recently reported, average yearly national unemployment rate. (For current information: http://www.bls.gov/eag/eag.us.htm) • Meet other criteria required by the State/Tribe/Territory in which the community is located FMA 75/25 e-grants FMA In Missouri, this cost share is less than the usual 75/25 (Severe 90/10 because the State has an approved “Enhanced” State e-grants Repetitive Loss Mitigation Plan. Property) RFC is only available to applicants who cannot meet the RFC 100/0 e-grants cost share requirement of FMA. In Missouri, this cost share is less than the usual 75/25 SRL 90/10 because the State has an approved “Enhanced” State e-grants Mitigation Plan.

Details of each program are discussed below.

Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) The Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) was created in November 1988 through Section 404 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act. The HMGP assists states and local communities in implementing long-term mitigation measures following a Presidential disaster declaration. After a major disaster, communities may be able to identify additional areas where mitigation can help prevent losses in the future.

HMGP funding is allocated using a “sliding scale” formula based on the percentage of the funds spent on Public and Individual Assistance programs for each Presidential Disaster Declaration. Due to the Enhanced Missouri State Hazard Mitigation Plan, the State of Missouri receives 20% of the federal total of a Disaster Declaration as additional mitigation funds through the HMGP.

309

In Missouri, the mitigation funds are initially awarded to projects in the counties of the Disaster Declaration; applications are opened up statewide if funds remain.

The HMGP can be used to fund projects to protect either public or private property; the proposed projects must fit within the state and local government's overall mitigation strategy for the disaster area, and comply with program guidelines.

Eligibility for funding under the HMGP is limited to state and local governments, certain private nonprofit organizations or institutions that serve a public function, Indian tribes and authorized tribal organizations. Applicants work through their state which is responsible for setting priorities for funding and administering the program.

More information on this program is available at: fema.gov/government/grant/hmgp/

Pre-Disaster Mitigation Program (PDM) With the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000, Congress approved the creation of a national program to provide a funding mechanism that is not dependent on a Presidential Disaster Declaration.

The Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PDM) Program provides funding for cost-effective hazard mitigation activities that complement a comprehensive mitigation program, and reduce injuries, loss of life, and damage and destruction of property. The PDM grant funds are provided to the state which then provides sub-grants to local governments for eligible mitigation activities.

More information on this program is available at: fema.gov/government/grant/pdm/

Flood Mitigation Assistance Program (FMA) FMA was created as part of the National Flood Insurance Reform Act of 1994 (42 U.S.C. 4101) with the goal of reducing or eliminating claims under the NFIP. Applicants must be participants in good standing in NFIP and properties to be mitigated must have flood insurance.

States administer the FMA program and are responsible for selecting projects for funding from the applicants submitted by all communities within the state. The state forwards selected applications to FEMA for an eligibility determination. Although individuals cannot apply directly for FMA funds, their local government may submit an application on their behalf.

FMA funding for the state depends on the number of repetitive losses in the state. The frequency of flooding in Missouri in recent years, coupled with the losses incurred, has caused Missouri’s funding to rise. This is a good program for smaller projects like low water crossings, according to Sheila Huddleston, Missouri State Hazard Mitigation Officer.

For FMA, not more than one half of the non-Federal may be provided from in-kind contributions.

More information on this program is available at: fema.gov/government/grant/fma/

310

Repetitive Flood Claims Grant Program (RFC) The Repetitive Flood Claims (RFC) grant program was authorized in 1968 to assist States and communities in reducing flood damages to insured properties that have had one or more claims to the NFIP.

In order to apply for funding through this 100% Federal share program, a community must show that it can’t meet FMA requirements due to lack of cost share match or capacity to manage the activities. This doesn’t necessarily mean it needs to be a low-income community. A St. Louis area community was awarded a RFC grant on the basis that it couldn’t meet FMA requirements because it was in the middle of the budget cycle.

More information on this program is available at: fema.gov/government/grant/rfc/

Severe Repetitive Loss Grant Program (SRL) The Severe Repetitive Loss (SRL) grant program was authorized in 2004 to provide funding to reduce or eliminate the long-term risk of flood damage to severe repetitive loss (SRL) properties insured under the NFIP.

A SRL property is defined as a residential property that is covered under an NFIP flood insurance policy and:

(a) Has at least four NFIP claim payments (including building and contents) over $5,000 each, and the cumulative amount of such claims payments exceeds $20,000; or

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

For both (a) and (b) above, at least two of the referenced claims must have occurred within any ten-year period, and must be greater than 10 days apart. There are very specific requirements for this grant program; requirements need to be studied carefully before making application.

For buyouts under SRL, a property must be on FEMA’s validated SRL list to be eligible. Property owner consultations are required before submitting an application.

More information on this program is available at: fema.gov/government/grant/srl/

Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program The objective of the CDBG program is to assist communities in rehabilitating substandard dwelling structures and to expand economic opportunities, primarily for low-to-moderate-income families. After a Presidential Disaster Declaration CDBG funds may be used for long-term needs such as acquisition, reconstruction, and redevelopment of disaster-affected areas. There is no low-to-moderate income requirement after a Presidential Disaster Declaration.

311

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

312

Section 5: Plan Maintenance Process

[The plan maintenance process shall include a] section describing Requirement the method and schedule of monitoring, evaluating, and updating §201.6(c)(4)(i): the mitigation plan within a five-year cycle.

5.1 Plan Monitoring and Evaluation

The Howard County Hazard Mitigation Plan will be monitored and evaluated on an annual basis, beginning in the year following approval and adoption. This means there will be four monitoring/evaluation periods. The last monitoring and evaluation period will lead into the 5- year update process.

The monitoring and evaluation with be facilitated through the Mid-MO Regional Planning Commission. It will consist of the following:

1. Surveys will be sent to all participating jurisdictions for information including: progress on the mitigation strategy outlined in the plan and any significant changes in the jurisdiction which should be noted. A sample survey is shown in Figure 5.1.1.

2. Survey information will be collated by planners at the Mid-MO RPC.

3. Meeting(s) of the Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee will be convened by the Mid- MO RPC to discuss survey feedback, any changes in hazard risks in the county, and any other pertinent information.

4. An annual report will be written and included as an addendum to the current plan.

313

Figure 5.1.1 Participating Jurisdiction Survey Annual Review of Howard Co. Hazard Mitigation Plan

Jurisdiction Name

Name of Representative Completing Survey

Position

Phone Email

Please review the attached documents indicating the 5-year mitigation strategy and future development plans for your jurisdiction which are outlined in the Howard Co. Hazard Mitigation Plan.

Please describe progress made on any of the actions in the past year. (It will be assumed that actions which were already in place and are ongoing are still taking place; please indicate if, for some reason, this is not accurate.)

Are there any new development plans in your jurisdiction which may relate to hazard mitigation?

Are there any other changes in your jurisdiction which should be noted in the annual addendum to the Howard Co. Hazard Mitigation Plan? If so, please describe.

314

5.2 Plan Updating

FEMA requires that a local hazard mitigation plan, such as the Howard County Hazard Mitigation Plan, be updated and reapproved by FEMA every five years. This five year period, until the next expiration date, is measured from FEMA’s acceptance of the first adoption resolutions submitted for an approved plan.

Assuming approval and adoption of the current plan later in 2017, the Howard County Hazard Mitigation Plan will need to be updated and reapproved by FEMA in 2022. A proposed timeline for the update is shown in Figure 5.2.1.

Figure 5.2.1 Proposed Timeline for 5-year Update of Hazard Mitigation Plan KEY: PED = Plan Expiration Date Activity Timeline to Begin Responsible Party Yearly during Preliminary update of data Mid-MO RPC maintenance/review of plan Prepare cost estimates for update of plan PED - 14 months Mid-MO RPC and submit to SEMA Receive Memorandum of Agreement from PED - 12 months SEMA SEMA for update Review data for any additional updates PED - 12 months Mid-MO RPC Contact participating jurisdictions re: representation on Planning Committee for PED - 12 months Mid-MO RPC update of plan Meetings to conduct preliminary review PED - 11 months Planning Committee and update of plan Survey to participating jurisdictions re: capabilities, vulnerable assets, future PED - 11 months Mid-MO RPC development Public Meeting #1 for comment and input Mid-MO RPC/Planning PED - 9 months on draft update Committee Draft of update due at SEMA PED - 8 months Mid-MO RPC Participating jurisdictions hold meetings PED - 8 months Participating Jurisdictions to discuss plan and mitigation actions Public Meeting #2 for comment and input Mid-MO RPC/Planning PED - 6 months on final update Committee Final plan due at SEMA for review before PED - 5 months Mid-MO RPC submission to FEMA Plan reviewed by SEMA PED - 4 months SEMA Required changes/additions made to plan PED - 4 months Mid-MO RPC Plan submitted to FEMA PED - 3 months SEMA Participating jurisdictions adopt approved PED - 2 months Participating Jurisdictions plan

315

The ongoing yearly maintenance and evaluation of the plan, as described previously, will be of great value when undertaking the five year update. Continuity of personnel on the Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee throughout the five year process would be highly beneficial in taking mitigation planning to the next level. The following data gaps in the current plan should be examined during the annual update process:

Dam Failure Inundation mapping of the two state regulated high hazards dams in the county should be available in 2018; depending on the progress and funding of the inundation mapping project, there is a chance that the one state regulated significant hazard dam would also be mapped. Emergency Action Plans (EAPs) may have been written for some, or all, of the regulated dams in the county by the time of the next update. The Mid-Missouri Regional Planning Commission attempted to obtain these maps for the 2017 update, but they were unsuccessful. The following sites may be helpful in obtaining current information on the progress of this work: DNR’s Dam Safety Program (dnr.mo.gov/env/wrc/damsft/damsfthp.htm) and DamSafetyAction.org.

5.3 Public Participation in Plan Maintenance

[The plan maintenance process shall include a] discussion on how Requirement the community will continue public participation in the plan §201.6(c)(4)(iii): maintenance process.

The Howard County Hazard Mitigation plan will remain posted on the website of the Mid- Missouri Regional Planning Commission (http://mmrpc.org/reports-library/hazard-mitigation- reports/) for public review and comment. Either the plan itself or links to the plan will also be posted on as many websites of participating jurisdictions as possible.

The Howard County Emergency Management Directors will facilitate presenting the entire plan to interested groups within the county including:

 Health Department Personnel  City Fire and Rural Fire Protection Districts  City Elected Officials/Administrators  Educational Personnel  Local Emergency Planning Committees  Local Police/Sheriff Department Personnel  Howard County Commissioners/Directors

In addition, all Planning Committee meetings for the review and maintenance of the plan will be open to the public, announced on the Mid-MO RPC website and posted as required by Missouri’s Sunshine Law.

316

Appendix A

Adoption Resolutions

Howard County

Armstrong

Fayette

New Franklin R-1 School District

Fayette R-III School District

Howard County Regional Water Commission

Appendix B

Meeting Announcements and Agendas

General Planning Meeting #1

General Planning Meeting #2

General Planning Meeting #3

General Planning Meeting #4

Appendix D

Jurisdictional Value Statements

City of Armstrong

City of Fayette – Buildings and Contents

Insured City of Fayette Replacement Value Prem. Bldg. Building Description Building Contents # # 1 1 City Hall 530,486 17,000 2 1 Fuel Storage Tanks 4,785 53,700 2 2 Electric Plant 173,114 5,386,500 2 3 Water Treatment Plant 1,323,495 387,516 2 4 New Water Treatment Plant 207,738 - 2 5 Garage and Storage Building 136,678 39,100 3 1 Swimming Pool 296,513 - City Lagoon - Lab and Testing 4 1 Station 193,479 36,700 4 2 City Lagoon - Generator 58,000 - 4 3 City Lagoon - Headworks Building 674,200 - 4 4 City Lagoon - UV Building 145,000 - 4 5 City Lagoon - Blower Building 162,000 - City Lagoon - Cover for WWT 4 6 Lagoon 525,000 - 5 1 Water Tower - Lucky Street 1,136,900 - 6 1 City Library 457,840 - 7 1 Water Tower - Givens Road 456,525 - 8 1 Cabinet Shop 146,300 - 9 1 Vaccine Laboratory 97,986 - 10 1 Garage - S. Church 426,964 - 11 1 Spec Building 576,585 - 12 1 Fayette City Park - Shelter House 45,841 - 12 2 Fayette City Park - Shelter House 17,029 - 12 3 Fayette City Park - Restroom 15,315 - 13 1 Liberty Park - Shelter House 22,919 - 13 2 Liberty Park - Shelter House 5,783 - 13 3 Liberty Park - Restroom 17,457 - 14 1 D.C. Rogers Lake - Shelter House 6,319 - 14 2 D.C. Rogers Lake - Shelter House 5,998 - 14 3 D.C. Rogers Lake - Shelter House 5,783 - 14 4 D.C. Rogers Lake - Restroom 8,354 - 14 5 D.C. Rogers Lake - Restroom 8,354 - 15 1 Ricketts Lake - Shelter House 5,569 - 16 1 Courthouse Substation 6,690 - 17 1 CMU Substation 4,514 - 18 1 Hospital Substation 6,690 - 18 2 Hospital Substation 6,690 - 19 1 Taylor Mart Substation 5,048 -

Insured City of Fayette Replacement Value

Prem. Bldg. Building Description Building Contents # # 20 1 Bank Substation 7,263 - 21 1 McDonald's Substation 6,690 - 22 1 Fayette Medical Clinic Substation 4,514 - 23 1 Fastland Taco Bell Substation 4,514 - 24 1 Fayette High School Substation 9,554 - 25 1 Linn Memorial Methodist Substation 4,514 - 26 1 CMU Woodward Hall Substation 6,690 - 26 2 CMU McMurry Hall Substation 9,554 - 26 3 CMU McMurry Hall Substation 7,263 - 26 4 CMU College Kitchen Substation 9,104 - 27 1 Ashbury Heights Substation 5,108 - 28 1 C & R Market Substation 7,691 - 29 1 CMU Student Union Substation 7,100 - 30 1 Howard County Jail Substation 3,090 - 31 1 Industrial Building Substation 13,182 - 32 1 Division of FS/Head Start Substation 3,086 - 33 1 Power Plant & Water Plant 7,263 - 35 1 Carbon Building 27,389 - 36 1 Potassium Pump House Building 3,000 - 37 1 Single Family Dwelling 30,000 - 38 1 CMU Football Field Substation 8,000 - 39 1 CMU Softball Field Substation 8,000 - Total 8,116,510 5,920,516 Source: City of Fayette Insurance Statement

City of Glasgow – Buildings and Business Personal Property

City of New Franklin – Property

City of New Franklin – Vehicles and Road Equipment

Central Methodist University – Vehicle and Property Statements

Appendix E

Fire District Burning Ordinances

Armstrong Fire Protection District

Howard County Fire Protection District