View
0
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
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
1
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.
2
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.
3
Prerequisites
Multi-Jurisdictional Plan Adoption
Requirement
§201.6(c)(5):
For multi-jurisdictional plans, each jurisdiction requesting approval
of the plan must document that it has been formally adopted.
Adoption resolutions for the participating jurisdictions are included in Appendix A.
4
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.
5
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.
6
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.
7
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
Requirement
§201.6(a)(3):
Multi-jurisdictional plans…may be accepted, as appropriate, as
long as each jurisdiction has participated in the process….Statewide
plans will not be accepted as multi-jurisdictional plans.
The Howard County Hazard Mitigation Plan is a multi-jurisdictional plan. Planners from the
Mid-MO RPC (Plan Author) developed the following criteria for a jurisdiction to qualify as a
participating jurisdiction:
1. Participation in the planning process through planning meetings
2. Completion of survey re: jurisdiction
3. Development of plan for administration and implementation of mitigation actions specific
to jurisdiction
4. Review of plan draft
5. Formal adoption of plan after approval by FEMA
8
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.
9
Figure 1.4.1
Jurisdiction
Participating
Jurisdiction
(2006)
Participating
Jurisdiction
(2012)
Group
Meetings
Individual
Meetings/
Contacts
Planning
Meeting(s)
Survey
Completed
Review of
Draft
Mitigation
Actions
Formal
Adoption
Participating
Jurisdiction
(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
School Districtx x x x x x x x x
Howard Co. R-II
School Districtx x x x x x x x
Fayette R-III School
Districtx x x x x x x x x
Central Methodist
Universityx x x x x x x
Howard Co.
CPWSD#1x x x x x x x x x
Howard Co. Regional
Water Commissionx x x x x x x x x
Armstrong Fire
Protection Distritx
Howard Co. Fire
Protection Districtx
Glasgow Spcial Road
District
Bonne Femme Levee
District #1x x x
Howard Co. Levee
District #2x x x
Howard Co. Drainage
District #3x x x x x
Howard Co. Levee
District #4x x x x x
Howard Co. Levee
District #6x x x x x
Howard Co. Drainage
District #7x x x
Update Process (2017) Participating Jurisdiction Criteria Met
Multi-jurisdictional Plan Participants
10
1.5 The Update Process
Requirement
§201.6(c)(1):
[The plan shall document] the planning process used to develop the
plan, including how it was prepared, who was involved in the
process, and how the public was involved.
A Hazard Mitigation Plan must be updated and adopted by the participating jurisdictions every
five years to be considered current. The update process for the current plan commenced in 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.
11
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 Planning #1
General Overview: mitigation, hazard mitigation plans, update
process, benefits of participation, requirements for participating
jurisdictions
5/23/2017
General Planning #2
Measures of Probability and Severity; decision made to update all
sections of plan; hazard profiling and mitigation actions for Levee
Failure, Flooding, and Dam Failure
6/12/2017
General Planning #3 Hazard profiling and mitigation actions for Tornado, Windstorm,
Hailstorm, and Severe Winter Weather 6/26/2017
General Planning #4 Hazard profiling and mitigation actions for Drought, Extreme Heat,
Wildfire, and Land Subsidence/Sinkholes 7/10/2017
*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.
12
Planning Participation
There was a wide-ranging participation in the update of the Howard County Hazard Mitigation
Plan, both with the Planning Area as a whole and within the individual jurisdictions. The
primary planning representatives from each of the jurisdictions participating in the process are
shown in Figure 1.5.2. In addition, there were other staff members or departments members who
attended a meeting or assisted in the planning process in some way.
.
Figure 1.5.2
Jurisdiction Name Position
Bill John Emergency Management Director
Bryan Kunze Emergency Management Director
Sam Stroupe Howard County Commission
Richard Conrow Howard County Commission
Howard McMillan Howard County Commission
Dana Campbell Deputy County Clerk
Sam Stroupe Howard County Commission
Gary Dillon Roads and Bridges Department
Harley Owen Mayor
Bob Cramer City Council
Robin Triplett City Administrator
Bill John Fayette Emergency Management
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
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
Bonne Femme Levee District #1
Primary Planning Representatives
Howard County
City of Armstrong
City of Fayette
13
Public Meetings for Comment and Input
Requirement
§201.6(b):
In order to develop a more comprehensive approach to reducing the
effects of natural disasters, the planning process shall include:
(1) An opportunity for the public to comment on the plan during
the drafting stage and prior to plan approval;
Requirement
§201.6(b):
In order to develop a more comprehensive approach to reducing the
effects of natural disasters, the planning process shall include:
(2) An opportunity for neighboring communities, local and
regional agencies involved in hazard mitigation activities, and
agencies that have the authority to regulate development, as well as
businesses, academia and other private and non-profit interests to
be involved in the planning process;
While all planning meetings were posted as public meetings in accordance with Missouri’s
Sunshine Law, 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.
14
Summary of Changes to Structure of Plan
The decision was made early in the planning process (General Planning Meeting #2) to update
each section of the plan. The original plan was written early in FEMA’s decision making cycle
regarding interpretation of requirements for Hazard Mitigation Plans. An overview of changes
and updates made to the original plan structure is shown in Figure 1.5.3.
Figure 1.5.3
General Review and Update of Plan by Section
Description Pages
(Original Plan)
Revised
Executive Summary 7 Yes
Howard County Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee
All information on the planning process is included in Section 1 of the update. 8 Yes
Project Managers
All information on the planning process is included in Section 1 of the update. 8 Yes
Section 1: Introduction
Moved some material from Section 1 to more appropriate sections in the plan.
Added some material and reorganized according to the following subsections:
Purpose, Background, History of the Howard County Hazard Mitigation Plan,
Participating Jurisdictions, and The Update Process. Material on Plan Monitoring
was moved to a new Section in updated plan (Section 5: Plan Maintenance Process).
9-16 Yes
Section 2: Community Profile Updated all charts and graphs to reflect more
recent data. NFIP information moved to Section 3 under Flood. Section was
reorganized and renamed "Planning Area Profile and Capabilities" for updated plan.
17-36 Yes
Section 3: Risk Assessment
Updated all charts and graphs; edited text to reflect new information; changed rating
system of each hazard to "Measure of Probability and Severity" using a rating system
modeled on the one in the Missouri State Hazard Mitigation Plan 2010; reorganized
hazard profiles and made specific changes to each hazard profile to make the plan a
more relevant and useful document; reformatted vulnerability assessments to meet
current interpretation of FEMA guidelines; removed hazard profile worksheets.
37-122 Yes
Section 4: Capability Assessment
Section removed entirely: this information is now in Section 2. 123-134 Yes
Section 5: Mitigation Goals and Strategies
Updated the mitigation actions to reflect decisions made by those involved in the
planning process. This is now Section 4 in the update and is entitled "Mitigation
Strategy".
135-168 Yes
Section 6: Plan Maps
Removed all maps; numerous new maps created. 169-180 Yes
Section 7: FEMA Repetitive Losses Table
Removed this section; this is now discussed in Section 3 under Flood. 181 Yes
Endnotes
Removed this section; cited sources in the body of the text or in charts. 183-184 Yes
Appendix A: Jurisdiction Resolutions Replaced resolutions with current resolutions for updated plan.
na Yes
15
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
Requirement
§201.6(b):
In order to develop a more comprehensive approach to reducing the
effects of natural disasters, the planning process shall include:
(3) Review and incorporation, if appropriate, of existing plans,
studies, reports, and technical information.
Many existing plans, studies, and reports were consulted in the development of this plan. These
include:
The Missouri State Hazard Mitigation Plan (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.)
16
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).
17
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
18
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.
19
Figure 2.1.1
20
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.
21
Current Land Use
Current land use in Howard County is shown in Figure 2.1.2.
Figure 2.1.2
22
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
23
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.
24
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Yr
High
24-hr
Low
Source: http://www.worldclimate.com/cgi-bin/grid.pl?gr=N39W092
Fig. 2.2.1
Average Temperature in Howard County °F, 1961-1990
25
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.
26
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
27
Figure 2.4.3
28
Estimates of the per capita costs of this flood for the six counties in the Mid-Missouri Region are
shown in Figure 2.4.4. This chart reflects both the heavy losses in Howard County and the fact
that it has the lowest population of the six counties.
The devastating flood of 1993 was followed by serious flooding once again in 1995. There has
been only one year since this time when an official report of flooding in Howard County has not
been submitted to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
Thunderstorms can be expected annually. In most years there are reports of associated Hail
someplace in the county and often reports of high winds (Windstorms).
Less frequently, thunderstorms will 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/
$0 $100 $200 $300 $400 $500 $600 $700
Boone
Callaway
Cole
Cooper
Howard
Moniteau
Per Capita Costs of 1993 Flood in Central Missouri
Public Facilties Commercial Residential
Figure 2.4.4
Source: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
29
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
30
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
31
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).
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.
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
Percent
Age Demographics - Howard County
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2011-2015 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates
32
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
33
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.
34
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.
35
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.
36
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
9.0
10.0 P
erce
nta
ge
Unemployment Rates
Howard County
Mid-MO Region
State of Missouri
US
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics - http://www.bls.gov/lau/
Figure 2.7.2
37
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.
38
Figure 2.8.1
39
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).
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
Missouri
Saline
Randolph
Moniteau
Cooper
Cole
Chariton
Callaway
Boone
Howard
Percentage
Worked Outside Place of Residence
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2011-2015 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Missouri
Moniteau
Cooper
Cole
Callaway
Boone
Howard
Minutes
Commute Time in Counties of Mid-MO Region
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2011-2015 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates
Figure 2.8.3
Figure 2.8.2
40
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
41
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.
42
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
Ho
ward
Co
un
ty
Arm
str
on
g
Fayett
e
Fra
nklin
*
Gla
sg
ow
New
Fra
nk
lin
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).
43
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
44
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.
45
The EOC is staffed on a 24-hour basis. It is equipped with a back-up generator which can
operate the equipment in case of a power interruption; the generator is tested weekly.
The Howard County Public Works and Fayette Public Works Departments provide their own
dispatching. However, the EOC can provide radio communications if needed.
In addition to official alerts from MULES, NAWAS, and the NWS, trained weather spotters are
available through the Howard County Sheriff’s Department, the Fire Protection
Districts/Departments, Boonville (Cooper County) Police Department, and Boonville (Cooper
County) Fire Department.
Local Amateur Radio operators can provide additional communications, if needed.
EAS:
The nationwide Emergency Alert System (EAS), jointly coordinated by the Federal
Communications Commission (FCC), FEMA, and the NWS, provides a link between the
government agencies monitoring potential hazards/emergencies and local broadcasters who can
inform the public in a timely manner. The Planning Area is located in the Moberly EAS
Operational Area.
Figure 2.9.3
Source: Howard County EOP, Appendix 1 to Annex B
Missouri Highway
Patrol Troop F
Jefferson City
Howard County Warning Flow Chart
News Media
Law Enforcement
Sheriff's Office
City Police
Ambulance Service Public WorksOutdoor
Sirens
Howard County E-
911 Dispatch
Center
46
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
47
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
48
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.
49
Figure 2.9.8
50
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
51
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.
52
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.
53
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.
54
Figure 2.10.2
55
Figure 2.10.3
56
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
District # of Towers/
Tanks in Planning Area
Source of Water Customers or
Meters
City of Armstrong* 0 Mark Twain Lake ~125 customers
City of Fayette - Howard Co.
Regional Water Commission ~1100 customers
City of Glasgow 1 2 wells 512 customers
City of New Franklin 1 Howard Co.
Regional Water Commission 425 meters
Howard Co. Cons. PWSD #1 5 Howard Co.
Regional Water Commission 800 meters
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
57
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
Water service Howard County Regional Water Commission,
Thomas Hill, City of Glasgow
Electric service Howard Electric Cooperative, City of Fayette,
KCP&L, Ameren Missouri
Ambulance service Howard County Ambulance Service
Sewer service Varies throughout county
Fire service Varies throughout county
Website 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
58
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.
59
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
60
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
$29,830,946 Agricultural $13,976,950
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
61
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.
62
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
63
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.
64
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
Electric service Missouri Public Energy Pool and City of
Fayette (old power plant used for backup)
Ambulance service Howard County Ambulance
Sewer service City
Fire service Fayette Fire Department
Website 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
Stormwater regulations Yes - Extent of stormwater regulations in
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.
65
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
3,572,818 Agricultural $47,120
Commercial $3,365,449
Total $13,648,979 $3,572,818 Source: Howard County Assessor's Office
City Owned Property
Property Insured Replacement
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
66
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.
67
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
68
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
$2,402,597 Agricultural $23,440
Commercial $2,134,580
Total $6,484,210 $2,402,597
Source: Howard County Assessor's Office
City Owned Property
Property* Replacement Cost
Buildings $3,828,838
Business Personal Property $578,825
Vehicles (8) - Estimate $200,000
Total $4,607,663
(See Appendix D for a detailed listing of Glasgow Buildings and Business Personal Property Values)
Source: City of Glasgow Insurance Statement, City of Glasgow official
Public Land
Figure 2.10.19
Public Land in Glasgow Area Name Responsible Agency Acres
Stump Island Park Access MO Dept. of Conservation 2.9 Source: MO Dept. of Conservation - http://mdc.mo.gov
69
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.
70
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
71
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
$1,438,843 Agricultural $35,640
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
72
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.
73
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
$6,843,154 Agricultural $3,200,790
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.
74
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
$7,287,432 Agricultural $3,122,310
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.
75
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
$13,612,127 Agricultural $6,040,300
Commercial $5,368,240 Total $37,965,120 $13,612,127
Source: Howard County Assessor's Office
District Owned Property
Buildings and Other Structures Insured Value
(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
76
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/
77
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.
78
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
Property Insured 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
79
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.
80
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.
81
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.
82
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
83
Section 3: Risk Assessment
3.1 Introduction and Methodology Risk assessment is a process of estimating the potential for injury, death, property damage, or
economic loss which may result from a hazard. A risk assessment is only as valuable as the
thoroughness and accuracy of the information on which it is based. The Risk Assessment for the
planning area is comprised of the following:
Identification of Hazards
Profiling of Hazards
Assessment of Vulnerability
Inventory of Assets
Identification of Hazards
Requirement
§201.6(c)(2)(i):
[The risk assessment shall include a] description of the type…of all
natural hazards than can affect the jurisdiction.
The following natural hazards have been identified as posing potential risk in the planning area:
Dam Failure
Drought
Earthquake
Extreme Heat
Flood (includes riverine flooding, flash flooding, and storm water flooding)
Levee Failure
Land Subsidence/Sinkhole
Severe Winter Weather (Snow, Ice, and Extreme Cold)
Wildfire
Windstorm
Tornado
Hailstorm
The Missouri State Hazard Mitigation Plan (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
84
been included in this plan as they do not pose a threat due to Howard County’s topography and
geology. Coastal erosion, coastal storms, hurricanes, and tsunamis do not pose a threat to the
county due to its inland location. Profiling of Hazards
Requirement
§201.6(c)(2)(i):
[The risk assessment shall include a] description of the…location
and extent of all natural hazards that can affect the jurisdiction.
The plan shall include information on previous occurrences of
hazard events and on the probability of future hazard events.
Each of the natural hazards identified as posing a risk to the planning area has been studied and
analyzed in order to provide the information required in the plan. The extent of each natural
hazard has been described through a Measure of Severity (a measure of the strength or
magnitude of a hazard event).
The information has been organized in the following way for each hazard profile in Section 3.2:
Description of Hazard
Geographic location
Previous occurrences
Measures of Probability and Severity
The definitions of the Measures of Probability and Severity included in each profile 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.
85
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
given year Potential injuries/death/damage
Low Less than 1% Few or minor
damage/injuries likely
Moderate Between 1% and 10% Injuries, property damage,
and environmental damage
expected
High Greater than 10% Deaths/major injuries and/or
major damage will likely
occur.
Assessment of Vulnerability
Requirement
§201.6(c)(2)(ii):
[The risk assessment shall include a] description of the
jurisdiction's vulnerability to the hazards described in paragraph
(c)(2)(i) of this section. This description shall include an overall
summary of each hazard and its impact on the community.
Requirement
§201.6(c)(2)(iii):
For multi-jurisdictional plans, the risk assessment must assess each
jurisdiction's risks where they vary from the risks facing the entire
planning area.
A community’s vulnerability to a hazard is linked to the probability that a hazard event will
occur (Measure of Probability) and to the extent of that event (Measure of Severity). For each
identified hazard, a Vulnerability Rating was determined for each participating jurisdiction and
for the planning area as a whole. This was done by considering the geographic location,
historical record, and Measures of Probability and Severity for each hazard in relation to the
particulars of each jurisdiction.
In many cases, the potential severity of the hazard event contributes the greatest weight to the
Vulnerability Rating. In some cases, however, a low severity event with high frequency can
cause economic strain which translates into a higher vulnerability.
A Vulnerability Overview follows each hazard profile in Section 3.2. The overview includes
the Vulnerability Ratings for the hazard and the rationale behind the ratings. Also included are
brief descriptions of any mitigation strategies currently in place for the hazard under discussion. A summary of the Vulnerability Ratings for the planning area and each of the participating
jurisdictions, by hazard, is shown in Figure 3.1.2.
86
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
Pla
nn
ing
Are
a
Ho
ward
Co
.
(un
inco
rpo
rate
d)
Arm
str
on
g
Fayett
e
Gla
sg
ow
New
Fra
nk
lin
Ne
w F
ran
kli
n R
-I
Sc
ho
ol
Dis
tric
t
Ho
wa
rd C
o.
R-I
I
Sc
ho
ol
Dis
tric
t
Fa
ye
tte R
-III
Sc
ho
ol
Dis
tric
t
Ce
ntr
al
Me
tho
dis
t
Un
ive
rsit
y
Ho
wa
rd C
o.
Re
g.
Wa
ter
Co
mm
iss
ion
Dam Failure H H na H na na na na na na na
Drought M M L L L L L L L L na
Earthquake M M M M M M M M M M M
Extreme Heat M M M M M M M M M M M
Flood H H M H H H M M H M L
Land Subsidence/Sinkhole L L L L L L L L L L L
Levee Failure H H na na na H na na na na H
Severe Winter Weather M M M M M M M M M M L
Wildfire H H L H L H L L L L L
Windstorm M M M M M M M M M M L
Tornado H H H H H H H H H H H
Hailstorm H H H H H H H H H H L
Key: L = Low Vulnerability, M = Moderate Vulnerability, H = High Vulnerability, na = Not applicable
87
Inventory of Assets
Requirement
§201.6(c)(2)(ii)
(A):
The plan should describe vulnerability in terms of the types and
numbers of existing and future buildings, infrastructure, and
critical facilities located in the identified hazard area….
Requirement
§201.6(c)(2)(ii)
(B):
[The plan should describe vulnerability in terms of an] estimate of
the potential dollar losses to vulnerable structures identified in
paragraph (c)(2)(11)(A) of this section and a description of the
methodology used to prepare the estimate…
Requirement
§201.6(c)(2)(ii)
(C):
[The plan should describe vulnerability in terms of] providing a
general description of land uses and development trends within the
community so that mitigation options can be considered in future
land use decisions.
An overall inventory of the assets in the planning area is included in Section 2.10.
An assessment of structures, equipment, and populations in the planning area which are
vulnerable to a specific hazard is included after each hazard profile in Section 3.2. As prescribed
by FEMA guidelines, critical structures, building counts, and assessed values are included. All
people, structures, and equipment are vulnerable to one or more hazards in the planning area.
This assessment can be used to identify potential areas where mitigation activities are needed.
The impact of future development is only generally addressed with some hazards because of
their unpredictable nature.
88
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
89
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.
90
Figure 3.2.1A
Dam Hazard Classification Systems
Federal Classification
Federal Criterion State of Missouri
Classification
Downstream Environment
Inspection Requirement
(State Regulated
Dams)
High Hazard Probable loss of human
life
Class 1
10 or more
permanent
dwellings; or any
public building
Every 2 years
Class 2
1-9 permanent
dwellings; or 1 or
more campgrounds
with permanent
water, sewer and
electrical services;
or one or more
industrial buildings
Every 3 years
Significant Hazard
No probable loss of
human life but potential
economic loss,
environmental damage,
disruption of lifeline
facilities or other impact
of concern Class 3 Everything else Every 5 years
Low Hazard
No probable loss of
human life; low economic
and/or environmental
loss; loss principally
limited to owner's
property
Sources: Federal Guidelines for Dam Safety, Hazard Potential Classification System for Dams, April 2004, http://www.fema.gov/library/viewRecord.do?id=1830; http://www.sos.mo.gov/adrules/csr/current/10csr/10c22-2.pdf; Glenn Lloyd, Civil Engineer/Dam Safety Inspector, MO DNR, Water Resources Center, Dam Safety Program
Classification is a dynamic system. Development can change the downstream situation and thus
the hazard potential of a dam. The inspection cycle for state regulated dams allows for a
regulated dam’s classification to be updated when appropriate; a regulated dam would have its
classification appraised at least once every 5 years.
However, by their very definition, unregulated dams are not routinely inspected by the state.
There is no system in place to routinely evaluate the classification of these unregulated dams.
One must, therefore, use caution in assuming the classifications of unregulated dams is currently
accurate. It is very probable that, for most of the unregulated dams, the classification does not
take into account almost 30 years of development and change in Howard County.
91
In addition, the DNR database of dams in Missouri reflects only the known dams; a dam less
than 35 feet in height which was built since the inventory was taken some 30 years ago may not
appear in the database.
There are 72 dams listed for Howard County in the DNR database (see Figure 3.2.1B). Only 6
of these are regulated. It should be noted that 6 of the 8 dams classified as High Hazard
(probable loss of human life were failure to occur) are under 35 feet in height and thus not
regulated by the State.
Four of these unregulated high hazard dams are State Class #1, indicating the following
downstream environment at the time of the survey:
10 or more permanent buildings; or any public building
Two of these unregulated high hazard dams are State Class #2, indicating the following
downstream environment at the time of the survey:
1-9 permanent dwellings; or 1 or more campgrounds with permanent water, sewer and
electrical services; or one of more industrial buildings
Downstream environments may have been altered since the survey in the late 1970’s/early
1980’s raising the possibility that there are even more high hazard and significant hazard dams in
the County than shown in the database.
Figure 3.2.1B
Hazard Categories of Howard County Dams
Federal Hazard Category
Dams Percentage of
Total Dams State
Regulated Unregulated
High 8 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.)
92
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
93
Figure 3.2.1D
REGULATED Howard County Dams
ID # Name Year Built
Ht (feet)
Reservoir Area
(Acres)
Drainage Area
(Acres)
State Class
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
94
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
95
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.
96
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.
97
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
98
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.
99
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
100
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
101
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
102
Figure 3.2.1 I
103
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.
104
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.
105
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
Hydrological drought and land use Defined as meteorological drought in one area that has
hydrological impacts in another area
Socioeconomic drought Defined as drought impacting supply and demand of
some economic commodity
Source: “Missouri Drought Plan,” Missouri Department of Natural Resources – Geological Survey and Resource Assessment, Water Resources Report No. 69, 2002
The most common type of drought in Mid-Missouri is the agricultural drought which happens on
average every 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
106
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.
107
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).
108
Figure 3.2.2B1
U.S. Drought Monitor - Drought Severity Classification
Category Description
Ranges
Possible Impacts Palmer
Drought
Index
CPC Soil
Moisture Model
(Percentiles)
USGS Weekly
Streamflow
(Percentiles)
Standardized
Precipitation
Index (SPI)
Objective Short and
Long-term Drought
Indicator Blends
(Percentiles)
D0 Abnormally
Dry
Going into drought: short-term
dryness slowing planting, growth of
crops or pastures. Coming out of
drought: some lingering water
deficits; pastures or crops not fully
recovered
-1.0 to -1.9 21-30 21-30 -0.5 to -0.7 21-30
D1 Moderate
Drought
Some damage to crops, pastures;
streams, reservoirs, or wells low,
some water shortages developing or
imminent; voluntary water-use
restrictions requested
-2.0 to -2.9 11-20 11-20 -0.8 to -1.2 11-20
D2 Severe
Drought
Crop or pasture losses likely; water
shortages common; water
restrictions imposed -3.0 to -3.9 6-10 6-10 -1.3 to -1.5 6-10
D3 Extreme
Drought
Major crop/pasture losses;
widespread water shortages or
restrictions -4.0 to -4.9 3-5 3-5 -1.6 to -1.9 3-5
D4 Exceptional
Drought
Exceptional and widespread
crop/pasture losses; shortages of
water in reservoirs, streams, and
wells creating water emergencies
-5.0 or less 0-2 0-2 -2.0 or less 0-2
Source: http://droughtmonitorunl.edu
109
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.”
110
Figure 3.2.2 C
111
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
112
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
Start Date End Date Deaths Injuries Property Damage
Crop 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:
113
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.
114
Figure 3.2.2D
Crops and Drought Insurance - Howard County (1998-2012)
Total Insurance Claims Paid for
Drought Damage
Annualized Claims for Drought Damage
Crop Exposure (2007 Census of Agriculture)
Annual Crop Claims Ratio
$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.
115
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
116
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.
117
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.
118
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
Magnitude at NMSZ*
Probability of Occurrence (2002-2052)
Intensity in Planning Area
(MMI**)
MMI** Descriptor
Expected Damage
6.7 25-40% VI "Strong"
Felt by all; many frightened and run outdoors,
walk unsteadily. Windows, dishes, glassware
broken; books fall off shelves; some heavy
furniture moved or overturned; a few
instances of fallen plaster. Damage slight.
7.6 7-10% VII "Very
Strong"
Difficult to stand; furniture broken; damage
negligible in building of good design and
construction; slight to moderate in well-built
ordinary structures; considerable damage in
poorly built or badly designed structures;
some chimneys broken. Noticed by people
driving motor cars.
* New Madrid Seismic Zone; ** Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale
4 https://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs-131-02/
119
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.
120
Source: http://sema.dps.mo.gov/docs/EQ_Map.pdf
Figure 3.2.3B Highest Projected Modified Mercalli Intensities by County
121
Figure 3.2.3C
Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale
I. Instrumental Not felt by many people unless in favorable conditions.
II. Feeble Felt only by a few people at best, especially on the upper floors of buildings.
Delicately suspended objects may swing.
III. Slight
Felt quite noticeably by people indoors, especially on the upper floors of
buildings. Many do not recognize it as an earthquake. Standing motor cars
may rock slightly. Vibration similar to the passing of a truck. Duration
estimated.
IV. Moderate
Felt indoors by many people, outdoors by few people during the day. At
night, some awakened. Dishes, windows, doors disturbed; walls make
cracking sound. Sensation like heavy truck striking building. Standing motor
cars rock noticeably. Dishes and windows rattle alarmingly.
V. Rather Strong Felt outside by most, may not be felt by some outside in non-favorable
conditions. Dishes and windows may break and large bells will ring.
Vibrations like large train passing close to house.
VI. Strong Felt by all; many frightened and run outdoors, walk unsteadily. Windows,
dishes, glassware broken; books fall off shelves; some heavy furniture moved
or overturned; a few instances of fallen plaster. Damage slight.
VII. Very Strong
Difficult to stand; furniture broken; damage negligible in building of good
design and construction; slight to moderate in well-built ordinary structures;
considerable damage in poorly built or badly designed structures; some
chimneys broken. Noticed by people driving motor cars.
VIII. Destructive
Damage slight in specially designed structures; considerable in ordinary
substantial buildings with partial collapse. Damage great in poorly built
structures. Fall of chimneys, factory stacks, columns, monuments, walls.
Heavy furniture moved.
IX. Ruinous General panic; damage considerable in specially designed structures, well
designed frame structures thrown out of plumb. Damage great in substantial
buildings, with partial collapse. Buildings shifted off foundations.
X. Disastrous Some well built wooden structures destroyed; most masonry and frame
structures destroyed with foundation. Rails bent.
XI. Very Disastrous Few, if any masonry structures remain standing. Bridges destroyed. Rails
bent greatly.
XII. Catastrophic Total damage - Almost everything is destroyed. Lines of sight and level
distorted. Objects thrown into the air. The ground moves in waves or ripples.
Large amounts of rock may move position.
Source: http://sema.dps.mo.gov/docs/EQ_Map.pdf
122
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
123
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”.
124
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.
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.
Figure 3.2.3E
HAZUS-MH Earthquake Loss Estimation
2% Probability of Exceedance in 50 Years Scenario for Howard County
Structural Damage
Non-Structural Damage
Contents Damage and
Inventory Loss
Loss Ratio*
Income Loss Total
Economic Loss**
Loss Ratio Rank***
$3,,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)
125
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.
126
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.
127
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.
128
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.
129
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
130
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.
90 - 105º F Sunstroke, heat cramps, and heat exhaustion possible with prolonged
exposure or physical activity.
105 - 130º F Sunstroke, heat cramps, and heat exhaustion likely, and heat stroke possible
with prolonged exposure or physical activity.
130º F and higher Heat stroke or sunstroke likely with continued exposure.
Source: National Weather Service. 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.
131
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)
Date Heat Index
Duration (days)
Deaths* Injuries* Property Damage*
Crop 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)
132
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
133
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
134
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
135
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
136
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.
137
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.
138
Figure 3.2.5A
139
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
140
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.
141
Figure 3.2.5C
Flood Events in Howard County (4/11/1994-6/20/2017)
Location Date Type Deaths* Injuries* Property Damage*
Crop Damage*
79 counties and City of St. Louis 4/11-4/19/1994 River 0 0 5.0M 5.0M
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
Fayette) 1/22-1/23/1999 Flood 0 0 0 0
5 counties (Moniteau Creek at
Fayette, Lamine River at Otterville) 2/7-2/8/1999 Flood 0 0 0 0
6 counties (Moniteau Creek at
Fayette, Lamine River at Otterville) 3/8-3/12/1999 Flood 0 0 0 0
16 counties (Mo River at Glasgow,
Moniteau Creek at Fayette, Lamine
River at Otterville) 4/14-4/22/1999 Flood 0 0 0 0
12 counties (Mo River at Glasgow,
Moniteau Creek at Fayette) 4/22-4/30/1999 Flood 0 0 0 2.5M
142
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,
Lamine River near Otterville) 5/4-5/10/1999 Flood 0 0 0 0
9 counties (Mo River at Glasgow) 5/16-5/30/1999 Flood 0 0 0 0
2 counties (Mo River at Glasgow) 5/23-5/25/1999 Flood 0 0 0 0
NE County (Hungry Mother Creek
north of Bunker Hill) 6/8/1999
Urban/Small
Stream Fld 0 0 0 0
12 counties (Mo River at Glasgow,
Lamine River at Otterville) 6/27-6/30/1999 Flood 1 0 0 750K
8 counties (Mo River at Glasgow,
Moniteau Creek at Fayette) 7/1-7/14/1999 Flood 0 0 0 0
3 counties (Moniteau Creek at
Fayette, Lamine River at Otterville) 1/29-1/30/2001 Flood 0 0 0 0
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
Fayette) 4/10-4/17/2001 Flood 0 0 0 0
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
Fayette) 4/21-4/22/2002 Flood 0 0 0 0
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
Fayette) 6/12-6/14/2002 Flood 0 0 0 0
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
Fayette) 5/10-5/12/2003 Flood 0 0 0 0
2 counties (Moniteau Creek near
Fayette) 6/12-6/13/2003 Flood 0 0 0 0
County NE of Fayette 6/12-6/13/2003 Flash 0 0 0 0
3 counties (Moniteau Creek near
Fayette) 9/1-9/2/2003 Flood 0 0 0 0
4 counties (Moniteau Creek near
Fayette) 12/10-2/12/2003 Flood 0 0 0 0
2 counties (Moniteau Creek near
Fayette) 3/4-3/5/2004 Flood 0 0 0 0
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
Fayette) 5/19-5/23/2004 Flood 0 0 0 0
143
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
Fayette) 11/1/2004 Flood 0 0 0 0
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
of Fayette 1/4-1/5/2005 Flash 0 0 0 0
Moniteau Creek near Fayette 1/4-1/5/2005 Flood 0 0 0 0
Route H and Highway 124 E/SE of
Fayette 1/12-1/13/2005 Flash 0 0 0 0
Moniteau Creek near Fayette 2/13-2/14/2005 Flood 0 0 0 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
Creek) to SE of Petersburg (Rte Z) 3/17/2008 Flood 0 0 0 0
Moniteau Creek near Fayette 3/17-3/18/2008 Flood 0 0 0 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
Fayette 4/24-4/25/2010 Flash 0 0 0 0
37 Counties - Federal Disaster
Declaration #1934 6/12-7/31/2010 River na na na na
11 Counties - Federal Disaster
Declaration #4012 6/1-8/1/2011 River na na na na
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/
144
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.
145
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
Jurisdiction # of Structures
(Estimate*)
Number of NFIP Policies***
(as of 3/31/17)
Amount Insured*** (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
146
Figure 3.2.5E
147
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.
148
Figure 3.2.5F
149
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.
150
Figure 3.2.5G
151
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).
152
Figure 3.2.5H
153
Figure 3.2.5I
154
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.
155
Figure 3.2.5J
156
Figure 3.2.6K
157
Figure 3.2.8L
158
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.
159
National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) Repetitive Loss Properties
Requirement
§201.6(c)(2)(ii):
[The risk assessment] must also address National Flood Insurance
Program (NFIP)insured structures that have been repetitively
damaged by floods.
The NFIP defines a Repetitive Loss Property as “any insurable building for which two or more
claims of more than $1,000 were paid by the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) within
any rolling ten-year period, since 1978. At least two of the claims must be more than 10-days
apart.”
Repetitive loss property claims paid in the planning area during the last three decades are shown
in Figure 3.2.5J.
Figure 3.2.5J
Howard County Repetitive Loss Properties 1978-2009
# of Properties # of Losses Total Paid Average 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
160
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.
161
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
Community Number of
Policies Amount Insured
($) Total
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
Flood Advisory Flooding of small streams, streets, and low lying areas, such as
railroad underpasses and some urban drains is occurring
Source: Missouri State Hazard Mitigation Plan (2013)
162
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).
163
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).
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.
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
164
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
165
Figure 3.2.6C
166
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.
167
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.
168
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.
169
Figure 3.2.7A
170
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.
171
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.
172
Howard County Levee District #6
Figure 3.2.7B
173
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.
174
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
175
Figure 3.2.7E
176
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
177
The landowners in Howard County Drainage District #7 inspect the levee on a regular basis. In
addition to these inspections, an engineer is paid to inspect it each year.
Figure 3.2.7H
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
178
Figure 3.2.7I
179
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.
180
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.
181
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
182
Bonne Femme Levee District #1
Figure 3.2.7M
Figure 3.2.7N
183
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.
184
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.
185
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
186
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:
187
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)
Date Storm Type Deaths* Injuries* Estimated
Cost* (Million $)
Presidential Disaster or Emergency Declaration
#
# of Counties
Assistance in Howard
County (IA or PA)
1/14/1994 Extreme Cold 0 15 5.0 51 plus City
of St. Louis
2/22/1994 Glaze/ice Storm 0 15 0 9 plus City of
St. Louis
4/5/1994 Winter Storm 0 0 0.5 31 plus City
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
188
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-
2/1/2011 Winter Storm 0 0 12.8** 1961 62 PA (A-G)
2/13/2012 Snow/winter
weather 0 0 0
2/21-
2/22/2013 Winter Storm 0 0 0
2/25-
2/27/2013 Winter Storm 0 0 0
3/23-
3/24/2013 Winter Storm 0 0 0
12/21-
12/22/2013 Winter Storm 0 0 0
1/6/2014 Cold/Wind chill 0 0 0
2/4-
2/5/2014 Winter Storm 0 0 0
3/1-
3/2/2014 Winter Storm 0 0 0
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
189
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.
190
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 ($32,650,000 in total property loss). This property loss
Howard
Figure 3.2.8B
Total
Incidents
Housing
Units/
sq. mile
Total Building
Exposure ($)
Total Property
Loss ($)
2007 Crop
Exposure ($)
Total Crop
Insurance
Paid ($)
Social
Vulnerability
Index (1-5)
Overall
Vulnerability
Rating
Data 22 9.9 $1,010,144,000 $32,650,000 $34,407,000 $23,013
Vulnerability
Rating1 1 2 5 3 1
Source: Missouri State Hazard Mitigation Plan (2013)
Medium
Impact Assessment - Severe Winter Weather
4
* The 2012 USDA data was not available when the 2013 MO State Hazard Mitigation Plan was published.
191
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.
192
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/
193
Figure 3.2.8C
National Weather Service Winter Warnings
Winter Weather Advisory
Winter weather conditions are expected to cause significant
inconveniences and may be hazardous. If caution is
exercised, these situations should not become life-
threatening. The greatest hazard is often to motorists.
Winter Storm Watch Severe winter conditions, such as heavy snow and/or ice, are
possible within the next day or two.
Winter Storm Warning Severe winter conditions have begun or are about to begin
in your area.
Blizzard Warning Snow and strong winds will combine to produce a blinding
snow (near zero visibility), deep drifts, and life-threatening
wind chill. Seek refuge immediately.
Frost/Freeze Warning
Below freezing temperatures are expected and may cause
significant damage to plants, crops, or fruit trees. In areas
unaccustomed to freezing temperatures, people who have
homes without heat need to take added precautions.
194
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.
In Howard County, the majority of the fires and the greatest acreage loss occur during the spring
fire season (February 15 - May 10). Spring is the time of the year when rural residents burn
garden spots and brush piles. Many landowners also believe it is necessary to burn the woods in
the spring to grow more grass, kill ticks, and get rid of brush. These factors, combined with low
humidity and high winds, result in higher fire danger at this time of year. The spring fire season
abates with the growth of the new season’s grasses and other green vegetation.
A lot of acreage in Howard County is in the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) of the USDA.
The periodic burning of this land for management purposes was cited by fire personnel as
probably the number one cause of wildfires in the planning area. In at least one instance, natural
cover fires were started from power lines downed during a windstorm (March 1991).
Debris 62% Misc. 17%
Arson 7%
Equipment 8%
Smoking 2%
Campfire 3%
Children 0.4%
Railroad 0.3%
Lightning 0.4%
Causes of Wildfire in Missouri 2016 Figure 3.2.9A
Source: http://mdc7.mdc.mo.gov/applications/FireReporting/Report.aspx
195
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).
196
Figure 3.2.9B
197
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
198
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)
Date City Cause Acres Burnt
Response Type Station
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
199
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
200
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
201
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
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
202
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.
203
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
204
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.
205
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.
206
Public Information
The Howard County LEOP (Annex B - Communications and Warnings) lists as a mitigation
action that “…tests and educational programs will be conducted regularly to insure the public
understands the various warnings.”
The Howard County LEOP (Appendix 1 To Annex K - In-Place Shelter Guidance) sets down the
following language to be distributed on public information brochures:
Trained Weather Spotters
Personnel in all fire departments/districts, the County Sheriff’s Department, Fayette Police
Department and 911 Call Center and the EMAs have all trained as Weather Spotters. This
provides for widespread tornado spotting when conditions are threatening.
Codes and Ordinances
Codes in New Franklin require tie-downs for homes in mobile home parks. (Approximately 99%
of the mobile homes in the city are located in the mobile home parks.)
City ordinances in Glasgow require that mobile homes are secured to the ground. (There are two
trailer parks in Glasgow located in mobile home zones.)
National
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)
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.
207
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:
208
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)
General Location Date Time Type Magnitude
(mph) Deaths Injuries
Property
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
209
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:
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 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.
210
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.
211
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.
212
Figure 3.2.10I
Hailstorm Events in Howard County 4/23/1958 - 6/20/2017
General Location Date Time Magnitude (diameter)
Deaths Injuries Property Damage
Crop 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
Harrisburg 03/30/93 18:05 1.50 in. 0 0 5K 0
S and E of New Franklin 04/13/93 14:00 2.50 in. 0 0 50K 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
213
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
214
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
215
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
216
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.
217
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
218
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-Scale
Number
Intensity Phrase
Wind Speed* (mph)
Type of Damage Done
F0 Gale
tornado 65-85
Some damage to chimneys; breaks branches off trees; pushes over shallow-
rooted trees; damages sign boards.
F1 Moderate
tornado 86-110
The lower limit is the beginning of hurricane wind speed; peels surface off
roofs; mobile homes pushed off foundations or overturned; moving autos
pushed off the roads; attached garages may be destroyed.
F2 Significant
tornado 111-135
Considerable damage. Roofs torn off frame houses; mobile homes
demolished; boxcars pushed over; large trees snapped or uprooted; light
object missiles generated.
F3 Severe
tornado 136-165
Roof and some walls torn off well constructed houses; trains overturned;
most trees in forest uprooted
F4 Devastating
tornado 166-200
Well-constructed houses leveled; structures with weak foundations blown off
some distance; cars thrown and large missiles generated.
F5 Incredible
tornado Over 200
Strong frame houses lifted off foundations and carried considerable distances
to disintegrate; automobile sized missiles fly through the air in excess of 100
meters; trees debarked; steel reinforced concrete structures badly damaged.
* 3 second gust
The Enhanced Fujita Scale became the standard for use in the United States beginning in
February 2007. The ratings of tornadoes prior to 2007 were not changed in the NOAA database
with the adoption of the EF-Scale. The EF-Scale was developed to work with the original F-
Scale but give a more realistic estimate of wind speeds for all tornadoes, including these
historical ones.
It should be noted that there continue to be limitations inherent with the EF-Scale since the scale
continues to be based on sustained damage. As noted on the NOAA website, “…damage rating
is (at best) an exercise in educated guessing. Even experienced damage-survey meteorologists
and wind engineers can and often do disagree among themselves on a tornado’s strength.”
Geographic Location
The entire planning area is at risk from tornadoes.
While tornadoes can strike anywhere, there is a greater chance of loss of life and destruction of
property in population centers. This is especially true of a tornado with a large path.
219
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
General Location Date Time Magnitude
(Fujita rating)
Deaths Injuries Property Damage
Crop Damage
County 6/10/1958 16:55 F0 0 0 0 0
County 9/27/1959 19:43 F2 0 0 25K 0
County 5/23/1966 14:45 F0 0 0 0 0
County 4/13/1981 20:40 F1 0 0 250K 0
County 5/18/1983 19:43 F1 0 1 250K 0
SW of Fayette 3/12/2006 16:33 F0 0 0* 0* 0
SW of Glasgow to
ESE of Armstrong 3/12/2006 20:46 F3 0 0* 450K* 0
TOTALS: 0 1 1.025M* 0
* Data disputed by Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee - see accompanying text. Source: 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.
220
Figure 3.2.11C- Historical Tornados With Present Day Population Density
221
Figure 3.2.11D- Historical Tornados With Present Day Structures
222
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).
223
Figure 3.2.11E
Average Tornado Size
EF Class
Length (miles)
Width (feet) Width (miles)
Area (square miles)
EF0 0.9 93 0.02 0.02
EF1 2.9 210 0.04 0.12
EF2 6.6 413 0.08 0.53 EF3 14.0 865 0.16 2.24
Source: Benefit-Cost Analysis Tornado Safe Room Course, 06/09 Version 4.5
The estimates of housing structure damage for Howard County and its participating incorporated
communities are shown in Figure 3.2.10H.
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.
Jurisdiction
Area
(square
miles)
Total
Housing
Units*
Median
Owner-
Occupied
Housing
Value*
Total Housing
Value
(Estimate)
EF0 EF1 EF2 EF3
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
Estimated Housing Damage
(25% damage factor assumed)
Sources: *U.S. Census Bureau, 2011-2015 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates
Tornado Vulnerability Analysis
Figure 3.2.10F
Jurisdictional Data
11F
224
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.
225
Section 4: Mitigation Strategy
4.1 Hazard Mitigation Goals
Requirement
§201.6(c)(3)(i):
[The hazard mitigation strategy shall include a] description of
mitigation goals to reduce or avoid long-term vulnerabilities to the
identified hazards.
Hazard mitigation goals were developed during the planning process for the original Howard
County Hazard Mitigation Plan (2006). For the current update, the goals were reviewed 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.
226
4.2 Update of Mitigation Actions
Requirement
§201.6(c)(3)(ii):
[The mitigation strategy shall include a] section that identifies and
analyzes a comprehensive range of specific mitigation actions and
projects being considered to reduce the effects of each hazard, with
particular emphasis on new and existing buildings and
infrastructure.
The Project Steering Committee which developed the original Howard County Hazard
Mitigation Plan (2006) developed a comprehensive range of mitigation actions to promote the
agreed upon mitigation goals. Objectives were defined under each goal and mitigation actions
were then developed to promote each objective. The following six categories of mitigation
were considered in developing the mitigation actions:
Prevention tools - regulatory methods such as planning and zoning, building regulations,
open space planning, land development regulations, and storm water management.
Property protection measures - acquisition of land, relocation of buildings, modifying
at-risk structures, and 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.
227
Requirement
§201.6(d)(3):
A local jurisdiction must review and revise its plan to reflect
changes in development, progress in local mitigation efforts, and
changes in priorities, and resubmit it for approval within 5 years in
order to continue to be eligible for mitigation project grand funding.
The Planning Committee for the update (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.
228
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.
229
Figure 4.2.1B
Assessment of Mitigation Actions in 2012 Plan Update Number in 2012
Plan Mitigation Action Assessment for Update
1.1.1
Continue to enforce flood damage
prevention/floodplain management
ordinances in compliance with NFIP
requirements.
Retained for update (ongoing).
1.1.2 Complete Community Rating System
(CRS) application of the NFIP. This is retained for the update, although not
completed due to funding limitations.
1.1.3 Ensure adequate maintenance of drainage
systems. Retained for update (ongoing).
1.1.4 Develop and maintain stormwater policies. Retained for update (ongoing).
1.1.5
Encourage cooperative agreements
between water districts and connect
disparate water supplies as much as
possible.
Retained for update (ongoing).
1.1.6 Provide continuing education for
firefighters on fighting wildfires. This is done on an ongoing basis; retained for
update.
1.1.7
Encourage appropriate County, municipal,
special district and educational staff to
continually update their knowledge base
regarding earthquake safety.
Completed; retained for update (ongoing).
1.1.8
Continue to meet the Revised Statutes of
Missouri concerning earthquake
emergency system and earthquake safety
in schools.
Deleted. This is redundant to state statute.
1.1.9
Evaluate and maintain school emergency
preparedness plans and incorporate into
the County Local Emergency Operations
Plan (LEOP).
This is done on an ongoing basis; retained for
update.
1.1.10 Maintain file of Emergency Action Plans
(EAPs) for state regulated high hazard
dams.
Completed; retained for update
(ongoing).
1.1.11 Hold annual training on Local Emergency
Operations Plan (LEOP) for County and
City officials.
This is done on an ongoing basis; retained for
update.
230
1.2.1
Establish formal agreements with
appropriate shelter locations through out
the County. Encourage shelters to have
alternative power and heating sources.
Modified to read: "Encourage Red Cross
certified shelter locations throughout the
county."
1.2.2 Encourage shelters to have alternative
power and heating sources.
Modified to read: "Coordinate with the Red
Cross to ensure that shelters are encouraged
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. Retained for update.
2.1.1 Review and update flood damage
prevention ordinance to ensure maximum
protection from flood hazard events.
This is done on an ongoing basis; retained for
update.
2.1.2 Encourage all fire districts in the Planning
Area to pass burn ordinances. Retained for update (ongoing).
2.2.1 Adopt and enforce latest model building
codes and national engineering standards. Partially completed; only some cities have
codes. Retained for update.
2.2.2 Adopt regulations that preserve riparian
corridors in developments. Retained for update (ongoing).
3.1.1 Protect critical infrastructure. This is done on an ongoing basis; retained for
update.
3.1.2 Evaluate access problems to critical
infrastructure in the event of a flood. This is done on an ongoing basis; retained for
update.
3.1.3 Mitigate the effects of flooding on public
infrastructure. This is done on an ongoing basis; retained for
update.
3.1.4 Provide backup power to all critical
infrastructure (police, fire, hospitals, local
government buildings). Retained for update (ongoing).
3.1.5 Remove vegetation and combustible
materials around critical infrastructure. This is done on an ongoing basis; retained for
update.
3.1.6 Ensure that manufactured homes are
secured to ground to maximize their
longevity
This is done on an ongoing basis; retained for
update.
3.1.7 Stabilize the riverbank along Water Street
in the City of Glasgow. Completed. Deleted for update.
231
3.1.8 Relocate buildings out of floodplain. Deleted. This is unnecessary.
3.2.1 Ensure reliable warning system and
dissemination of information regarding
high wind situations throughout county. Retained for update (ongoing).
3.2.2 Promote the use of NOAA weather radios. This is done on an ongoing basis; retained for
update.
3.2.3 Ensure that school buses have two way
radios on board. Retained for update (ongoing).
3.2.4 Coordinate with local law enforcement to
include scanner frequency in 2-way radios
at schools. Retained for update (ongoing).
3.2.5 Build tornado safe rooms. Retained for update (ongoing).
3.2.6 Encourage new mobile home parks to have
saferooms on the premises. This is done on an ongoing basis; retained for
update.
3.2.7 Encourage nursing and residential care
facilities to have alternate power and
heating sources.
This is done on an ongoing basis; retained for
update.
3.2.8 Have a plan for cooling centers in all
communities. Partially completed; retained for update.
3.2.9 Identify potential transportation for
vulnerable populations. This is done on an ongoing basis; retained for
update.
3.2.10 Establish a community storm shelter with
heat and backup power. Deleted. Redundant to Actions 1.2.1 and
1.2.2.
4.0.1 Develop public education hazard
awareness program. Retained for update (ongoing).
4.0.2 Maintain flood awareness signs at low
water crossings and flash flooding areas. Retained for update (ongoing).
4.0.3 Encourage safe driving through public
education campaigns, websites,
community events, etc.
This is done on an ongoing basis; retained for
update.
4.0.4 Encourage the MO Dept. of Conservation
(MDC) to continue their trainings on
controlled burns.
This is done on an ongoing basis; retained for
update.
4.0.5 Encourage levee districts to restrict access
at access points to the levees. Completed; retained for update (ongoing).
232
5.0.1 Encourage developers to build earthquake
resistant structures. This is done on an ongoing basis; retained for
update.
5.0.2 Retrofit structures to new earthquake
safety standards when undergoing
renovations/improvements.
This is done when possible and encouraged
on an ongoing basis.
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
Statutes of Missouri concerning
earthquake emergency system
and earthquake safety in
schools.
This is required by state statute
and is redundant to established
statutory requirements.
3.1.7 Stabilize the riverbank along
Water Street in the City of
Glasgow.
Completed.
3.1.8 Relocate buildings out of the
floodplain. This was not seen as an issue by
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
shelter with heat and backup
power.
This is redundant to Actions
1.2.1 and 1.2.2.
233
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.
234
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.
235
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.
236
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.
237
Figure 4.3.1
Ac
tio
n #
Mitigation Action
Da
m F
ailu
re
Dro
ug
ht
Ea
rth
qu
ak
e
Ex
tre
me
He
at
Flo
od
LS
/Sin
kh
ole
Le
ve
e F
ailu
re
Se
v. W
inte
r W
ea
the
r
Win
ds
torm
To
rna
do
Ha
ils
torm
Wild
fire
Co
un
ty
Arm
str
on
g
Fa
ye
tte
Gla
sg
ow
Ne
w F
ran
klin
Ne
w F
ran
klin
R-I
S. D
.
Ho
wa
rd C
o. R
-ii S
.D.
Fa
ye
tte
R-I
II S
.D.
Ce
ntr
al M
eth
od
ist
Un
iv.
H.C
. R
eg
.Wa
ter
Co
mm
.
1.1.1
Continue to enforce flood damage
prevention/floodplain management ordinances in
compliance with NFIP requirements.
x x x x x x x
1.1.2Complete Community Rating System (CRS)
application of the NFIP.x x x x
1.1.3 Ensure adequate maintenance of drainage systems. x x x x x x
1.1.4 Develop and maintain stormwater policies. x x x
1.1.5
Encourage cooperative agreements between water
districts and connect disparate water supplies as
much as possible.
x x x x
1.1.6Provide continuing education for firefighters on
fighting wildfires.x x x x x x x x x x x
1.1.7
Encourage appropriate county, municipal, special
district and educational staff to continually update
their knowledge base regarding earthquake safety.
x x x x x x x x x
1.1.8
Evaluate and maintain school emergency
preparedness plans and incorporate into the County
Local Emergency Operations Plan (LEOP).
x x x x x x x x x x x x
1.1.9Maintain file of Emergency Action Plans (EAPs) for
state regulated high hazard dams.x x x
Mitigation Actions - Hazards Addressed and Applicable Jurisdictions
Hazards Jurisdictions
238
Figure 4.3.1 (cont.)
Ac
tio
n #
Mitigation Action
Da
m F
ailu
re
Dro
ug
ht
Ea
rth
qu
ak
e
Ex
tre
me
He
at
Flo
od
LS
/Sin
kh
ole
Le
ve
e F
ailu
re
Se
v. W
inte
r W
ea
the
r
Win
ds
torm
To
rna
do
Ha
ils
torm
Wild
fire
Co
un
ty
Arm
str
on
g
Fa
ye
tte
Gla
sg
ow
Ne
w F
ran
klin
Ne
w F
ran
klin
R-I
S. D
.
Ho
wa
rd C
o. R
-ii S
.D.
Fa
ye
tte
R-I
II S
.D.
Ce
ntr
al M
eth
od
ist
Un
iv.
H.C
. R
eg
.Wa
ter
Co
mm
.
1.1.10Hold annual training on Local Emergency Operations
Plan (LEOP) for County and City officials.x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
1.2.1Encourage Red Cross certified shelter locations
througout the county.x x x x x x x x x x x
1.2.2Encourage shelters to have alternative power and
heating sources.x x x x x x x x x x x
1.2.3Encourage local motels to provide their customers
with safety information for high wind/tornado events.x x x x x
2.1.1
Review and update flood damage prevention
ordinance to ensure maximum protection from flood
hazard events.
x x x x x x x
2.1.2Encourage all fire districts in the Planning Area to
pass burn ordinances.x x x x x x x x x x x
2.2.1Adopt and enforce latest model building codes and
national engineering standards. x x x x x x x x
2.2.2Adopt regulations that preserve riparian corridors in
developments.x x
3.1.1 Protect critical infrastructure. x x x x x x x x x x x x x
Mitigation Actions - Hazards Addressed and Applicable Jurisdictions
Hazards Jurisdictions
239
Figure 4.3.1 (cont.)
Ac
tio
n #
Mitigation Action
Da
m F
ailu
re
Dro
ug
ht
Ea
rth
qu
ak
e
Ex
tre
me
He
at
Flo
od
LS
/Sin
kh
ole
Le
ve
e F
ailu
re
Se
v. W
inte
r W
ea
the
r
Win
ds
torm
To
rna
do
Ha
ils
torm
Wild
fire
Co
un
ty
Arm
str
on
g
Fa
ye
tte
Gla
sg
ow
Ne
w F
ran
klin
Ne
w F
ran
klin
R-I
S. D
.
Ho
wa
rd C
o. R
-ii S
.D.
Fa
ye
tte
R-I
II S
.D.
Ce
ntr
al M
eth
od
ist
Un
iv.
H.C
. R
eg
.Wa
ter
Co
mm
.
3.1.2Evaluate access problems to critical infrastructure in
the event of a flood.x x x x
3.1.3Mitigate the effects of flooding on public
infrastructure.x x x x x x x x
3.1.4Provide backup power to all critical infrastructure
(police, fire, hospitals, local government buildings).x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
3.1.5Remove vegetation and combustible materials around
critical infrastructure. x x x x x x x x
3.1.6Ensure that manufactured homes are secured to
ground to maximize their longevityx x x x
3.1.7Seek funding opportunities for transfer swtiches to
make existing back-up generators usable.x x x x
3.2.1
Ensure reliable warning system and dissemination of
information regarding high wind situations throughout
county.
x x x x x x x x x x
3.2.2 Promote the use of NOAA weather radios. x x x x x x x x x
3.2.3Ensure that school buses have two way radios on
board.x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
3.2.4Coordinate with local law enforcement to include
scanner frequency in 2-way radios at schools.x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
3.2.5 Build tornado safe rooms. x x x x x x x x
Mitigation Actions - Hazards Addressed and Applicable Jurisdictions
Hazards Jurisdictions
240
Figure 4.3.1 (cont.)
Ac
tio
n #
Mitigation Action
Da
m F
ailu
re
Dro
ug
ht
Ea
rth
qu
ak
e
Ex
tre
me
He
at
Flo
od
LS
/Sin
kh
ole
Le
ve
e F
ailu
re
Se
v. W
inte
r W
ea
the
r
Win
ds
torm
To
rna
do
Ha
ils
torm
Wild
fire
Co
un
ty
Arm
str
on
g
Fa
ye
tte
Gla
sg
ow
Ne
w F
ran
klin
Ne
w F
ran
klin
R-I
S. D
.
Ho
wa
rd C
o. R
-ii S
.D.
Fa
ye
tte
R-I
II S
.D.
Ce
ntr
al M
eth
od
ist
Un
iv.
H.C
. R
eg
.Wa
ter
Co
mm
.
3.2.6Encourage new mobile home parks to have
saferooms on the premises.x x x x x x x
3.2.7Encourage nursing and residential care facilities to
have alternate power and heating sources. x x x x x x x x x x x x
3.2.8 Have plan for cooling centers in all communities. x x x
3.2.9Identify potential transportation for vulnerable
populations.x x x x x x
3.2.10
Create a confidential voluntary list of individuals with
critical medical devices for emergency services and
disaster response/recovery.
x x x x x x x x x x x x
4.0.1Develop public education hazard awareness
program.x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
4.0.2Maintain flood awareness signs at low water
crossings and flash flooding areas.x x
4.0.3Encourage safe driving through public education
campaigns, websites, community events, etc.x x x x x
4.0.4Encourage the MO Dept. of Conservation (MDC) to
continue their trainings on controlled burns.x x x x x x x x x x x
4.0.5Encourage levee districts to restrict access at access
points to the levees.x x x x
Mitigation Actions - Hazards Addressed and Applicable Jurisdictions
Hazards Jurisdictions
241
Figure 4.3.1 (cont.)
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
5.0.1Encourage developers to build earthquake resistant
structures.x x x
5.0.2Retrofit structures to new earthquake safety
standards when undergoing
renovations/improvements.
x x x
5.0.3
Establish ongoing communication with the Army
Corps of Engineers and Howard County regarding
flooding and levee issues.
x x x x
Mitigation Actions - Hazards Addressed and Applicable Jurisdictions
Hazards Jurisdictions
242
Requirement
§201.6(c)(3)(ii):
[The mitigation strategy] must also address the
jurisdiction's participation in the National Flood
Insurance program (NFIP), and continued
compliance with NFIP requirements, as
appropriate.
Details of NFIP participation and current flood maps have been included in the Flood Profile in
Section 3 (see Figure 3.2.5L). Howard County and all the incorporated communities belong to
the NFIP, as shown in Figure 4.3.2.
Figure 4.3.2
Jurisdictions Participating in NFIP
Howard County
Armstrong
Fayette
Franklin*
Glasgow
New Franklin * Franklin is not a participating jurisdiction in the Howard County Hazard Mitigation Plan (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.
243
4.4 Prioritization, Implementation, and Administration
Requirement
§201.6(c)(3)(iii):
[The mitigation strategy section shall include] an action plan
describing how the actions identified in section (c)(3)(ii) will be
prioritized, implemented, and administered by the local jurisdiction.
Prioritization shall include a special emphasis on the extent to
which benefits are maximized according to a cost benefit review of
the proposed projects and their associated costs.
Requirement
§201.6(c)(3)(iv):
For multi-jurisdictional plans, there must be identifiable action
items specific to the jurisdiction requesting FEMA approval or
credit of the plan.
Requirement
§201.6(c)(4)(ii):
[The plan shall include a] process by which local governments
incorporate the requirements of the mitigation plan into other
planning mechanisms such as comprehensive or capital
improvement plans, when appropriate.
4.4.1 Prioritization of Actions using STAPLEE and Benefit/Cost Reviews
After the comprehensive list of mitigation actions for the entire Planning Area had been
developed, members of the Planning Committee carried out a STAPLEE review and
Benefit/Cost review on the actions. The following guidelines were used:
STAPLEE Review
The questions below were used as starting points for evaluating each action according to the STAPLEE
criteria. Scoring: 3 = Definitely YES
2 = Maybe YES
1 = Probably NO
0 = Definitely NO
Social: Is the action socially acceptable to the community?
Technical: Will the proposed strategy work? Will the action independently solve the problem?
Administrative: Is there someone to coordinate and lead the effort?
Political: Is the action politically acceptable? Is there public support both to implement and to
maintain the project?
Legal: Is there legal authority to implement the action?
Economic: Will the action benefit the area economically? Does the cost seem reasonable for the size
of the problem and the likely benefits?
Environmental: Is the action consistent with local, state, and federal environmental laws and
regulations? Will the project have a positive impact on the environment? Will historic structures be
saved or protected?
244
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
245
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
246
Figure 4.4.1
xx3=Def YES 1=Prob NO
xx2=Maybe YES 0=Def NO
Acti
on
#
MITIGATION ACTIONS S T A P L E E
ST
AP
LE
E T
ota
l
Lo
ss
es
Av
oid
ed
(2 p
ts e
ac
h)
Ben
efi
t
Co
st
B/C
To
tal
TO
TA
L
PR
IOR
ITY
1.1.1Continue to enforce flood damage prevention/floodplain management ordinances
in compliance with NFIP requirements.3 3 3 2 3 3 3 20
PD,LF,E
MCC6 -1 5 25 H
1.1.2 Complete Community Rating System (CRS) application of the NFIP. 2 3 1 2 3 2 3 16PD,LF,E
MCC6 -3 3 19 M
1.1.3 Ensure adequate maintenance of drainage systems. 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 20
I/C,
PD,LF,E
MCC
8 -3 5 25 H
1.1.4 Develop and maintain stormwater policies. 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 17
I/C,
PD,LF,E
MCC
8 -3 5 22 H
1.1.5Encourage cooperative agreements between water districts and connect disparate
water supplies as much as possible.3 3 3 3 3 3 3 21
I/C,
PD,LF,E
MCC
8 -1 7 28 H
1.1.6 Provide continuing education for firefighters on fighting wildfires. 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 21
I/C,
PD,LF,E
MCC
8 -3 5 26 H
1.1.7Encourage appropriate county, municipal, special district and educational staff to
continually update their knowledge base regarding earthquake safety.3 2 2 3 3 3 3 19
I/C, PD,
EMCC6 -1 5 24 H
1.1.8Evaluate and maintain school emergency preparedness plans and incorporate
into the County Local Emergency Operations Plan (LEOP).3 3 3 3 3 2 3 20
I/C,
EMCC4 -1 3 23 H
1.1.9Maintain file of Emergency Action Plans (EAPs) for state regulated high hazard
dams.3 3 3 3 3 3 3 21
I/C, PD,
EMCC6 -1 5 26 H
Prioritization of Mitigation Actions
247
Figure 4.4.1 (cont.)
xx3=Def YES 1=Prob NO
xx2=Maybe YES 0=Def NO
Acti
on
#
MITIGATION ACTIONS S T A P L E E
ST
AP
LE
E T
ota
l
Lo
ss
es
Av
oid
ed
(2 p
ts e
ac
h)
Ben
efi
t
Co
st
B/C
To
tal
TO
TA
L
PR
IOR
ITY
1.1.10 Hold annual training on Emergency Operations Plan for County and City officials. 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 21
I/C,
PD,LF,E
MCC
8 -1 7 28 H
1.1.10 Hold annual training on Emergency Operations Plan for County and City officials. 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 21
I/C,
PD,LF,E
MCC
8 -1 7 28 H
1.2.1Establish formal agreements with appropriate shelter locations throughout the
County. 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 21
I/C,
EMCC4 -1 3 24 H
1.2.2 Encourage shelters to have alternative power and heating sources. 3 2 2 3 3 2 3 18I/C,
EMCC4 -5 -1 17 M
1.2.3Encourage local motels to provide their customers with safety information for
high wind/tornado events.3 2 1 3 0 2 3 14
I/C,
EMCC4 -1 3 17 M
2.1.1Review and update flood damage prevention ordinance to ensure maximum
protection from flood hazard events.2 3 3 2 3 3 3 19
PD,LF,E
MCC6 -1 5 24 H
2.1.4 Encourage all fire districts in Planning Area to pass burn ordinances. 2 3 3 2 3 3 3 19
I/C,
PD,LF,E
MCC
8 -1 7 26 H
2.2.1Adopt and enforce latest model building codes and national engineering
standards. 2 3 3 2 3 3 3 19
I/C,
PD,LF,E
MCC
8 -3 5 24 H
2.2.2 Adopt regulations that preserve riparian corridors in developments. 2 3 2 2 3 2 3 17PD,
EMCC4 -3 1 18 M
Prioritization of Mitigation Actions
248
Figure 4.4.1 (cont.)
xx3=Def YES 1=Prob NO
xx2=Maybe YES 0=Def NO
Acti
on
#
MITIGATION ACTIONS S T A P L E E
ST
AP
LE
E T
ota
l
Lo
ss
es
Av
oid
ed
(2 p
ts e
ac
h)
Ben
efi
t
Co
st
B/C
To
tal
TO
TA
L
PR
IOR
ITY
3.1.1 Protect critical infrastructure. 3 2 3 2 3 3 3 19
I/C,
PD,LF,E
MCC
8 -5 3 22 H
3.1.2 Evaluate access problems to critical infrastructure in the event of a flood. 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 20
I/C,
PD,LF,E
MCC
8 -3 5 25 H
3.1.3 Mitigate the effects of flooding on public infrastructure. 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 20
I/C,
PD,LF,E
MCC
8 -5 3 23 H
3.1.4Provide backup power to all critical infrastructure (police, fire, hospitals, local
government buildings).3 2 3 2 3 1 2 16
I/C,
PD,LF,E
MCC
8 -5 3 19 M
3.1.5 Remove vegetation and combustible materials around critical infrastructure. 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 21
I/C,
PD,LF,E
MCC
8 -3 5 26 H
3.1.6Ensure that manufactured homes are secured to ground to maximize their
longevity2 3 3 2 3 3 3 19
I/C,
PD,LF,E
MCC
8 -3 5 24 H
3.1.7Seek funding opportunities for transfer switches to make existing back-up
generators usable.3 3 3 3 3 3 2 20
I/C, LF,
EMCC6 -5 1 21 H
Prioritization of Mitigation Actions
249
Figure 4.4.1 (cont.)
xx3=Def YES 1=Prob NO
xx2=Maybe YES 0=Def NO
Acti
on
#
MITIGATION ACTIONS S T A P L E E
ST
AP
LE
E T
ota
l
Lo
ss
es
Av
oid
ed
(2 p
ts e
ac
h)
Ben
efi
t
Co
st
B/C
To
tal
TO
TA
L
PR
IOR
ITY
3.2.1Ensure reliable warning system and dissemination of information regarding
severe weather events throughout the county.3 3 3 3 3 3 3 21
I/C,
EMCC4 -3 1 22 H
3.2.2 Promote the use of NOAA weather radios. 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 21I/C, PD,
EMCC6 -1 5 26 H
3.2.3 Ensure that school buses have two way radios on board. 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 21I/C,
EMCC4 -1 3 24 H
3.2.4 Coordinate with local law enforcement to include scanner frequency in 2-way
radios at schools.3 3 3 3 3 2 3 20
I/C, PD,
EMCC6 -1 5 25 H
3.2.5 Build tornado safe rooms. 3 3 2 2 3 3 3 19I/C,
EMCC4 -5 -1 18 M
3.2.6 Encourage new mobile home parks to have saferooms on the premises. 2 3 3 1 3 3 3 18I/C,
EMCC4 -5 -1 17 M
3.2.7Encourage nursing and residential care facilities to have alternate power and
heating sources. 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 20
I/C,
EMCC4 -5 -1 19 M
3.2.8 Have plan for cooling centers in all communities. 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 21I/C,
EMCC4 -1 3 24 H
3.2.9 Identify potential transportation for vulnerable populations. 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 21I/C,
EMCC4 -1 3 24 H
3.2.10Create a confidential voluntary list of individuals with critical medical devices for
emergency services and disaster response/recovery.2 3 2 2 3 3 3 18
I/C,
EMCC4 -3 1 19 M
Prioritization of Mitigation Actions
250
Figure 4.4.1 (cont.)
xx3=Def YES 1=Prob NO
xx2=Maybe YES 0=Def NO
Acti
on
#
MITIGATION ACTIONS S T A P L E E
ST
AP
LE
E T
ota
l
Lo
ss
es
Av
oid
ed
(2 p
ts e
ac
h)
Ben
efi
t
Co
st
B/C
To
tal
TO
TA
L
PR
IOR
ITY
4.0.1 Develop public education hazard awareness program. 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 21
I/C,
PD,LF,E
MCC
8 -1 7 28 H
4.0.2 Maintain flood awareness signs at low water crossings and flash flooding areas. 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 21I/C, PD,
EMCC6 -3 3 24 H
4.0.3Encourage safe driving through public education campaigns, websites,
community events, etc.3 3 3 3 3 3 3 21
I/C, PD,
EMCC6 -1 5 26 H
4.0.4Encourage the MO Dept. of Conservation (MDC) to continue their trainings on
controlled burns.3 3 3 3 3 3 3 21
I/C,
PD,LF,E
MCC
8 -1 7 28 H
4.0.5 Encourage levee districts to restrict access at public access points to the levees. 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 20
I/C,
PD,LF,E
MCC
8 -1 7 27 H
4.0.6 Promote the usage of text alerts for severe weather. 3 2 1 3 3 3 3 18I/C, LF,
EMCC6 -3 3 21 H
4.0.7 Educate public on how to safely shelter in place. 3 3 2 3 3 2 3 19I/C,
EMCC4 -3 1 20 H
5.0.1 Encourage developers to build earthquake resistant structures. 1 3 3 1 2 2 3 15
I/C,
PD,LF,E
MCC
8 -5 3 18 M
5.0.2Retrofit structures to new earthquake safety standards when undergoing
renovations/improvements.0 3 2 0 2 2 3 12
I/C,
PD,LF,E
MCC
8 -5 3 15 M
5.0.3Establish ongoing communication with the Army Corps of Engineers and Howard
County regarding flooding and levee issues.3 1 2 3 3 2 3 17 PD, LF 4 -1 3 20 H
Prioritization of Mitigation Actions
251
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.
252
Howard County
The following are mitigation actions for which Howard County is the lead. It should be noted
that Howard County Emergency Management Agency is the lead for many actions which
mitigate for hazards in multiple jurisdictions. In the case of these actions, complete information
about the action and its implementation is given in this section.
The charts for the Howard County led actions also indicate for which jurisdictions Howard
County is undertaking the action; in some cases the action is undertaken only for the County
(unincorporated area) and in other cases the action is applicable to other jurisdictions.
Actions led by the County which are applicable to other jurisdictions are repeated in list form
under each participating jurisdiction to which they apply.
The benefits (losses avoided) key for the charts is: I/C=Injuries or Casualties, PD=Property
Damages, LF=Loss-of-function/displacement impacts, EMCC=Emergency
management/community costs
Action 1.1.1 Continue to enforce flood damage prevention/floodplain management
ordinances in compliance with NFIP requirements.
Priority High
Plan for Implementation &
Administration Review permit applications and only approve those in compliance with
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 &
Administration Clean ditches on a regular basis.
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
253
Action 1.1.6 Provide continuing education for firefighters on fighting wildfires.
Priority High
Plan for Implementation &
Administration Contact fire districts, MDC, and MU Fire & Rescue Training Institute to
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
Action 1.1.7 Encourage appropriate county, municipal, special district and educational
staff to continually update their knowledge base regarding earthquake
safety.
Priority High
Plan for Implementation &
Administration Continue to make staff aware of SEMA training opportunities.
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
Action 1.1.9 Evaluate and maintain school emergency preparedness plans and
incorporate into the County Local Emergency Operations Plan (LEOP).
Priority High
Plan for Implementation &
Administration Incorporate school emergency preparedness plans into LEOP after
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.
254
Hazards Addressed Earthquake, Extreme Heat, Flood, Levee Failure, Severe Winter Weather,
Windstorm, Tornado, Hailstorm
Applicable Jurisdictions County and School districts
Benefits (Losses Avoided) I/C, EMCC
Action 1.1.10 Maintain file of Emergency Action Plans (EAPs) for state regulated high
hazard dams.
Priority High
Plan for Implementation &
Administration
Emergency Action Plans (EAPS) are being written for state regulated
high hazard dams in conjunction with inundation studies being carried
out; maintain a file of these EAPs in the Emergency Management
Agency once they are completed.
Lead Howard Co. Emergency Management Agency
Partners DNR, dam owners
Projected Cost/Funding Minimal/operating budget
Projected Completion Ongoing
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
Action 1.1.11 Hold annual training on Local Emergency Operations Plan (LEOP) for
County and City officials.
Priority High
Plan for Implementation &
Administration
Personnel is updated annually on changes to the LEOP during the annual
meeting of the Local Emergency Planning Committee (LEPC). City
officials, fire, police, and emergency responders are all invited to this
meeting.
Lead Howard Co. Emergency Management Agency
Partners LEPC
Projected Cost/Funding Minimal/internal funds
Projected Completion Ongoing
Action Update (2017) This is an ongoing action and completed on an ongoing basis.
Criterion for Completion Annual update takes place.
Hazards Addressed Dam Failure, Drought, Earthquake, Extreme Heat, Flood, Land
Subsidence/Sinkhole, Levee Failure, Severe Winter Weather, Windstorm,
Tornado, Hailstorm, Wildfire
Applicable Jurisdictions County and incorporated communities
Benefits (Losses Avoided) I/C, PD, LF, EMCC
Action 1.2.1 Encourage Red Cross certified shelter location throughout the county.
255
Priority High
Plan for Implementation &
Administration Encourage potential shelter locations to become certified Red Cross
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.
Criterion for Completion Formal agreements are in place and shelters are available throughout the
County.
Hazards Addressed Earthquake, Flood, Levee Failure, Severe Winter Weather, Windstorm,
Tornado
Applicable Jurisdictions County and all incorporated 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 &
Administration Look for funding opportunities for transfer switches so that more
locations throughout the County are available for generator hookup.
Lead Howard Co. Emergency Management 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.
Hazards Addressed Earthquake, Flood, Levee Failure, Severe Winter Weather, Windstorm,
Tornado
Applicable Jurisdictions County and all incorporated communities
Benefits (Losses Avoided) I/C, EMCC
Action 1.2.3 Encourage local motels to provide their customers with safety
information for high wind/tornado events.
Priority Medium
Plan for Implementation &
Administration
Contact Silver Bell Motel in Fayette and East Acres Motel in Glasgow to
discuss possibilities for informing customers of safety for high
wind/tornado events.
Lead Howard Co. Emergency Management Agency
Partners Local hotels/motels
Projected Cost/Funding Minimal/operating budget
Projected Completion 2012
256
Action Update (2017) This is is not actively done within the county, but during the update
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
Action 2.1.1 Review and update flood damage prevention ordinance to ensure
maximum protection from flood hazard events.
Priority High
Plan for Implementation &
Administration Ordinance was updated in 2009 and will be updated as required.
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
Plan for Implementation &
Administration
Talk with Glasgow Fire Protection District re: burn ordinance.
(Armstrong Fire District and Howard Co. Fire District already have burn
ordinances.)
Lead Howard Co. Emergency Management Agency
Partners Glasgow Fire Protection District
Projected Cost/Funding Minimal/operating budget
Projected Completion 2013
Action Update (2017) This is partially completed and will be continued throughout the next five
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
257
Plan for Implementation &
Administration Monitor roads and bridges for safe travel and protect/repair as needed.
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.
Criterion for Completion Actions are taken as needed to protect roads and bridges from the effects
of natural hazards.
Hazards Addressed Dam Failure, Earthquake, Flood, Levee Failure, Severe Winter Weather,
Windstorm, Tornado, Wildfire
Applicable Jurisdictions 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 &
Administration Monitor public infrastructure and mitigate as needed.
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.
Criterion for Completion Successful mitigation of flooding effects on public infrastructure, if and
when needed.
Hazards Addressed Dam Failure, Flood, Levee Failure
Applicable Jurisdictions County
Benefits (Losses Avoided) I/C, PD, LF, EMCC
Action 3.1.4 Provide backup power to all critical infrastructure (police, fire, hospitals,
local government buildings).
Priority Medium
Plan for Implementation &
Administration Look for funding opportunities for transfer switches and additional
generators.
Lead Howard Co. Emergency Management Agency
Partners Cities, Fire Districts, Howard Co. Commission
Projected Cost/Funding Significant/grants
Projected Completion Ongoing
Action Update (2017)
Most nursing homes have backup power, schools have backup power, and
some governement buildings have backup power. The County has backup
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.
258
Hazards Addressed Dam Failure, Earthquake, Extreme Heat, Flood, Land
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
3.1.7* Seek funding opportunities for transfer switches to make existing back-up
generators usable.
Priority High
Plan for Implementation &
Administration Monitor grant and funding availabiliy
Lead Howard County Commission, Howard County Emergency Services
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
Plan for Implementation &
Administration
A public education campaign will be undertaken through the local media
to encourage the public to purchase NOAA radios since warning sirens
are designed only to be heard outdoors.
Lead Howard County Emergency Management Agency
Partners Local media
Projected Cost/Funding Minimal/operating budget
Projected Completion Ongoing
Action Update (2017) This is done on an ongoing basis.
Criterion for Completion Information regarding NOAA radios is published in the local media each
spring before thunderstorm season.
Hazards Addressed Severe Winter Weather, Windstorm, Tornado, 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 &
Administration Talk to new developers of mobile home parks about the importance of
some type of protection for windstorm/tornado events.
259
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.
Criterion for Completion All new mobile home park owners are made aware of the importance of
some type of protection for their tenants for windstorm/tornado events.
Hazards Addressed Windstorm, Tornado
Applicable Jurisdictions County and all incorporated communities
Benefits (Losses Avoided) I/C, EMCC
Action 3.2.7 Encourage nursing and residential care facilities to have alternate power
and heating sources.
Priority Medium
Plan for Implementation &
Administration Discuss the importance of backup power with those facilities which don't
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
Action Update (2017) Most of the nursing homes in Howard County have alternate power or a
backup generator.
Criterion for Completion All have backup power
Hazards Addressed Earthquake, Extreme Heat, Flood, Levee Failure, Severe Winter Weather,
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 &
Administration Contact school districts and OATS for buses.
Lead Howard Co. Emergency Management Agency
Partners School districts, OATS
Projected Cost/Funding Minimal to moderate/operating budget
Projected Completion Ongoing
Action Update (2017) This is done on an ongoing basis. Although formal agreements or plans
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.
260
Hazards Addressed Earthquake, Extreme Heat, Flood, Levee Failure, Severe Winter Weather,
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 &
Administration Ensure that local media receives information re: hazard awareness.
Lead Howard Co. Emergency Management Agency
Partners SEMA, local media
Projected Cost/Funding Minimal/operating budget
Projected Completion Ongoing
Action Update (2017) This is done, but it is not a priority. It remains in the 2017 update to
continue.
Criterion for Completion Educational information about hazards and emergency preparedness is
regularly distributed through local media.
Hazards Addressed Dam Failure, Drought, Earthquake, Extreme Heat, Flood, Land
Subsidence/Sinkhole, Levee Failure, Severe Winter Weather, Windstorm,
Tornado, Hailstorm, Wildfire
Applicable Jurisdictions County and all incorporated communities
Benefits (Losses Avoided) I/C, PD, LF, EMCC
Action 4.0.2 Maintain flood awareness signs at low water crossings and flash flooding
areas.
Priority High
Plan for Implementation &
Administration Permanent signs are installed and will be maintained.
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.
Criterion for Completion Low water crossings and flash flooding areas are posted with warning
signs.
Hazards Addressed Flood
Applicable Jurisdictions County
Benefits (Losses Avoided) I/C, PD, EMCC
Action 4.0.4 Encourage the MO Dept. of Conservation (MDC) to continue their
trainings on controlled burns.
Priority High
261
Plan for Implementation &
Administration Provide feedback to the MDC re: the importance of this training program
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
Action 4.0.5 Encourage levee districts to restrict public access at access points to the
levees.
Priority High
Plan for Implementation &
Administration Emergency Management Directors will discuss with levee personnel.
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
Applicable Jurisdictions County, Franklin, New Franklin, Howard Co. Consolidated Public Water
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 &
Administration Cities and county will encourage citizens to use local news stations text
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
262
4.0.7* Educate public on how to safely shelter in place.
Priority High
Plan for Implementation &
Administration Emergency Management Directors
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
Action 5.0.3* Establish ongoing communication with the Army Corps of Engineers and
Howard County regarding flooding and levee issues.
Priority High
Plan for Implementation &
Administration County commissioners will set up a meeting between stakeholders in the
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
Criterion for Completion Communication between Army Corps of Engineers and levee personnel is
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.
263
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
Action 1.1.1 Continue to enforce flood damage prevention/floodplain management
ordinances in compliance with NFIP requirements.
Priority High
Plan for Implementation &
Administration Monitor any potential construction in the floodplain to ensure it is in
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 &
Administration Clean out drainage ditches and reestablish along streets where
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
264
Action 2.1.1 Review and update flood damage prevention ordinance to ensure
maximum protection from flood hazard events.
Priority High
Plan for Implementation &
Administration Update ordinance as needed or required.
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
Action 3.1.4 Provide backup power to all critical infrastructure (police, fire, hospitals,
local government buildings).
Priority High
Plan for Implementation &
Administration A portable generator is available from Howard Co. EMA, if needed (and
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.
Hazards Addressed Dam Failure, Earthquake, Extreme Heat, Flood, Land
Subsidence/Sinkhole, Levee Failure, Severe Winter Weather,
Windstorm, Tornado, Hailstorm, Wildfire
Benefits (Losses Avoided) I/C, PD, LF, EMCC
265
3.2.10 Create a confidential voluntary list of individuals with critical medical
devices for emergency services and disaster response/recovery.
Priority Moderate
Plan for Implementation &
Administration
Due to HIPPA laws, emergency management officials cannot get a list
of those with critical medical devices. Of particular concern is oxygen in
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
Hazards Addressed Dam Failure, Earthquake, Flood, Levee Failure, Severe Winter
Weather, Windstorm, Tornado, Hailstorm, Wildfire
Benefits (Losses Avoided) I/C, PD, LF, EMCC
266
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.
267
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
Action 1.1.1 Continue to enforce flood damage prevention/floodplain management
ordinances in compliance with NFIP requirements.
Priority High
Plan for Implementation &
Administration Check permit applications and ensure that they are in compliance with
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 &
Administration This was not completed since the last update, but is retained in the plan
in the case that funds permit.
Lead Building Inspector
Partners City Administrator
Projected Cost/Funding Minimal/operating budget
Projected Completion Dependent on funding
Action Update (2017) This was not done due to funding issues, but is retained in case funding
becomes available.
Criterion for Completion CRS application is completed or decision has been made to not
participate.
Hazards Addressed Flood, Levee Failure
Benefits (Losses Avoided) PD,LF,EMCC
268
Action 1.1.3 Ensure adequate maintenance of drainage systems.
Priority High
Plan for Implementation &
Administration Cleaning out culverts, replacing old culverts, and ditching are ongoing
efforts throughout the city.
Lead Street Department
Partners MoDOT, local contractor
Projected Cost/Funding Moderate/city budget
Projected Completion Ongoing
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
Plan for Implementation &
Administration
An ordinance is in place that stormwater cannot run into the sewer
system; Building Inspector regulates stormwater according to building
codes.
Lead Building Inspector
Partners Street Superintendent
Projected Cost/Funding Minimal/operating budget
Projected Completion Ongoing
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
269
Action 1.1.7 Encourage appropriate County, municipal, special district and
educational staff to continually update their knowledge base regarding
earthquake safety.
Priority High
Plan for Implementation &
Administration Appropriate city staff will attend trainings.
Lead City of Fayette
Partners Howard County Emergency Management Agency, SEMA
Projected Cost/Funding Minimal/internal
Projected Completion Ongoing
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
Action 2.1.1 Review and update flood damage prevention ordinance to ensure
maximum protection from flood hazard events.
Priority High
Plan for Implementation &
Administration The flood ordinance was updated in 2009 and will be updated as
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
Action 2.2.1 Adopt and enforce latest model building codes and national engineering
standards.
Priority High
Plan for Implementation &
Administration The city has adopted the 2009 ICC codes; these will be updated on a
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.
270
Hazards Addressed Earthquake, Severe Winter Weather, Windstorm, Tornado, Hailstorm,
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 &
Administration City Building Inspector will research ordinances; City Attorney will
draft ordinance which will then be presented to City Council.
Lead City Building Inspector, City Attorney, City 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 &
Administration Building Inspector will monitor for problems and report to City
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.
Hazards Addressed Dam Failure, Earthquake,Flood, Levee Failure, Severe Winter Weather,
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 &
Administration Building Inspector will monitor for flooding problems and report to City
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.
271
Hazards Addressed Dam Failure, Flood, Levee Failure
Benefits (Losses Avoided) I/C, PD, LF, EMCC
Action 3.1.5 Remove vegetation and combustible materials around critical
infrastructure.
Priority High
Plan for Implementation &
Administration
Building Inspector sends out letters re: needed cleanup; if action is not
taken by the contacted party, city or contracted crews will do the
cleanup and the party will be billed. Note: City agencies are not exempt
from receiving these letters.
Lead Building 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
Action 3.1.6 Ensure that manufactured homes are secured to ground to maximize
their longevity.
Priority High
Plan for Implementation &
Administration A city ordinance is in place which follows state requirements; the
ordinance is enforced by the Building Inspector.
Lead Building Inspector
Projected Cost/Funding Minimal/operating budget
Projected Completion Ongoing
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 &
Administration Include plans for a tornado saferoom in any new city building project.
Lead City Council, City Administrator
Partners SEMA, FEMA
Projected Cost/Funding Significant/grants, loans
272
Projected Completion Ongoing
Action Update (2017) This is limited due to funding, but if funding is available, it will be
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
Plan for Implementation &
Administration
The Fayette Public Library and the Fayette Senior Center are used as
cooling centers. This is advertised in the newspaper and on radio
stations, as needed.
Lead City Administrator
Partners Fayette Public Library and Fayette Senior Center
Projected Cost/Funding Minimal/operating budget
Projected Completion Ongoing
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
3.2.10* Create a confidential voluntary list of individuals with critical medical
devices for emergency services and disaster response/recovery.
Priority Moderate
Plan for Implementation &
Administration
Due to HIPPA laws, emergency management officials cannot get a list
of those with critical medical devices. Of particular concern is oxygen in
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
Hazards Addressed Dam Failure, Earthquake, Flood, Levee Failure, Severe Winter
Weather, Windstorm, Tornado, Hailstorm, Wildfire
Benefits (Losses Avoided) I/C, PD, LF, EMCC
273
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).
274
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.
275
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
Action 1.1.1 Continue to enforce flood damage prevention/floodplain management
ordinances in compliance with NFIP requirements.
Priority High
Plan for Implementation &
Administration
The only occupied structures currently in the floodplain are city
properties: 2 wells, the lift station and the lagoon. The building
inspector issues new building permits. Permits will only be issued for
projects in compliance with the floodplain ordinance.
Lead Building 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 &
Administration Check for problems and repair or replace.
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
276
Action 1.1.4 Develop and maintain stormwater policies.
Priority High
Plan for Implementation &
Administration Ordinances are in place that stormwater cannot go into the sewer
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
Action 1.1.5 Encourage cooperative agreements between water districts and connect
disparate water supplies as much as possible.
Priority High
Plan for Implementation &
Administration Explore possibility of agreement(s) with the City of Slater (Saline
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
Action 1.1.7 Encourage appropriate County, municipal, special district and
educational staff to continually update their knowledge base regarding
earthquake safety.
Priority High
Plan for Implementation &
Administration Attend trainings offered by Howard County Emergency Management
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
277
Action 2.1.1 Review and update flood damage prevention ordinance to ensure
maximum protection from flood hazard events.
Priority High
Plan for Implementation &
Administration Ordinance will be reviewed and updated as needed or required.
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
Action 2.2.1 Adopt and enforce latest model building codes and national engineering
standards.
Priority High
Plan for Implementation &
Administration Update codes to the IBC (International Building Code) or equivalent.
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.
Hazards Addressed Earthquake, Severe Winter Weather, Windstorm, Tornado, Hailstorm,
Wildfire
Benefits (Losses Avoided) I/C, PD, LF, EMCC
Action 3.1.1 Protect critical infrastructure.
Priority High
Plan for Implementation &
Administration Monitor critical infrastructure for any potential problems and mitigate.
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.
278
Hazards Addressed Dam Failure, Earthquake, Flood, Levee Failure, Severe Winter Weather,
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 &
Administration Work on possible solutions to lagoon and lift station flooding; mitigate
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.
Criterion for Completion Flooding of lagoon and lift stations is no longer a problem; no other
public infrastructure is in danger of flooding.
Hazards Addressed Dam Failure, Flood, Levee Failure
Benefits (Losses Avoided) I/C, PD, LF, EMCC
Action 3.1.4 Provide backup power to all critical infrastructure (police, fire, hospitals,
local government buildings).
Priority Medium
Plan for Implementation &
Administration Two military generators are available for power at the wells or
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.
Hazards Addressed Dam Failure, Earthquake, Extreme Heat, Flood, Land
Subsidence/Sinkhole, Levee Failure, Severe Winter Weather,
Windstorm, Tornado, Hailstorm, Wildfire
Benefits (Losses Avoided) I/C, PD, LF, EMCC
Action 3.2.1 Ensure reliable warning system and dissemination of information
regarding high wind situations throughout county.
Priority High
Plan for Implementation &
Administration Update all three warning sirens in the city.
Lead City Administrator
279
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 &
Administration All city owned structures with air conditioning will be left open and
advertised as cooling centers for the public during extreme heat events.
Lead City 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 &
Administration This will be addressed during the update of the building codes.
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
3.2.10 Create a confidential voluntary list of individuals with critical medical
devices for emergency services and disaster response/recovery.
Priority Moderate
Plan for Implementation &
Administration
Due to HIPPA laws, emergency management officials cannot get a list
of those with critical medical devices. Of particular concern is oxygen in
the case of a fire or when power goes out.
280
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
Hazards Addressed Dam Failure, Earthquake, Flood, Levee Failure, Severe Winter
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.
281
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.
282
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
Action 1.1.1 Continue to enforce flood damage prevention/floodplain management
ordinances in compliance with NFIP requirements.
Priority High
Plan for Implementation &
Administration Permits are, and will be, only issued for projects in compliance with the
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.
Criterion for Completion Permits are issued appropriately and all floodplain ordinances are
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 &
Administration Evaluate value of completing CRS for the city and begin application if
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.
Criterion for Completion A decision re: CRS has been made and appropriate action taken, if
warranted.
Hazards Addressed Flood, Levee Failure
Benefits (Losses Avoided) PD,LF,EMCC
283
Action 1.1.3 Ensure adequate maintenance of drainage systems.
Priority Medium to High
Plan for Implementation &
Administration Use sewer jet to blow out culverts on a regular basis.
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.
Criterion for Completion This work is being done proactively on a regular basis and not only in
response to problems.
Hazards Addressed Flood
Benefits (Losses Avoided) I/C, PD, LF, EMCC
Action 2.1.1 Review and update flood damage prevention ordinance to ensure
maximum protection from flood hazard events.
Priority High
Plan for Implementation &
Administration This will be updated as needed when notified of required changes by
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 &
Administration Monitor for any problems around critical infrastructure and mitigate as
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.
Hazards Addressed Dam Failure, Earthquake, Flood, Levee Failure, Severe Winter Weather,
Windstorm, Tornado, Wildfire
Benefits (Losses Avoided) I/C, PD, LF, EMCC
284
Action 3.1.3 Mitigate the effects of flooding on public infrastructure.
Priority High
Plan for Implementation &
Administration Evaluate any problems and look for solutions.
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
Action 3.1.4 Provide backup power to all critical infrastructure (police, fire, hospitals,
local government buildings).
Priority Medium
Plan for Implementation &
Administration
Generators are available upon request from the MO Rural Water
Association, Howard Co. Emergency Management Agency, and the
Howard Co. Fire Protection District.
Lead Chief of Police
Partners MO Rural Water Association, Howard Co. Emergency Management
Agency, and the Howard Co. Fire Protection District
Projected Cost/Funding Minimal/operating 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.
Hazards Addressed Dam Failure, Earthquake, Extreme Heat, Flood, Land
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 &
Administration Include a safe room in plans if ever building a new City Hall or Police
Department building.
Lead City Administrator
Partners SEMA/FEMA
Projected Cost/Funding Significant/grants, loans
Projected Completion Ongoing
Action Update (2017) This is retained for the update so it can be completed if a new building is
constructed.
285
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 &
Administration Encourage this if any new subdivision development is planned.
Lead Building Inspector
Partners Mayor, Board of Aldermen
Projected Cost/Funding Significant/cost would be rolled into cost of development
Projected Completion Ongoing
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
Action 5.0.2 Retrofit structures to new earthquake safety standards when undergoing
renovations/improvements.
Priority Medium
Plan for Implementation &
Administration Include this if doing any major renovations of city buildings.
Lead Building Inspector
Partners Mayor, Board of Aldermen
Projected Cost/Funding Significant/grants, loans
Projected Completion Ongoing
Action Update (2017) This is an ongoing action and done on an ongoing basis.
Criterion for Completion Any major renovation of city buildings includes retrofitting to current
earthquake resistant standards.
Hazards Addressed Earthquake
Benefits (Losses Avoided) I/C, PD, LF, EMCC
3.2.10 Create a confidential voluntary list of individuals with critical medical
devices for emergency services and disaster response/recovery.
Priority Moderate
Plan for Implementation &
Administration
Due to HIPPA laws, emergency management officials cannot get a list
of those with critical medical devices. Of particular concern is oxygen in
the case of a fire or when power goes out.
Lead Emergency Management District
Partners Howard Co. Emergency Management Agency
Projected Cost/Funding Minimal
286
Projected Completion Ongoing
Action Update (2017) New action
Criterion for Completion A confidential voluntary list is created
Hazards Addressed Dam Failure, Earthquake, Flood, Levee Failure, Severe Winter
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.
287
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
Action 1.1.7 Encourage appropriate County, municipal, special district and
educational staff to continually update their knowledge base regarding
earthquake safety.
Priority High
Plan for Implementation &
Administration This is already in place and is a yearly practice.
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
288
Action 1.1.9 Evaluate and maintain school emergency preparedness plans and
incorporate into the County Local Emergency Operations Plan (LEOP).
Priority High
Plan for Implementation &
Administration
Emergency preparedness plans are evaluated on a regular basis and will
be send to the Emergency Action Agency for incorporation into the
LEOP.
Lead School administration, city officials, law enforcement
Partners County Emergency Management Directors
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.
Hazards Addressed Earthquake, Extreme Heat, Flood, Levee Failure, Severe Winter
Weather, Windstorm, Tornado, Hailstorm
Benefits (Losses Avoided) I/C, PD, LF, EMCC
Action 3.2.1 Ensure reliable warning system and dissemination of information regarding
high wind situations throughout county.
Priority High
Plan for Implementation &
Administration NOAA radios are in place in all schools.
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 &
Administration Already in place with continued maintenance
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
289
Action 3.2.4 Coordinate with local law enforcement to include scanner frequency in
2-way radios at schools.
Priority High
Plan for Implementation &
Administration School district personnel will contact local law enforcement to program
the frequencies needed.
Lead School district personnel
Partners Local law enforcement, EMDs
Projected Cost/Funding Minimal/internal funds
Projected Completion 2012
Action Update (2017) There was little interest in this from the Planning Committee but it is
retained for the update as it can be a valuable mitigation activity.
Criterion for Completion Law enforcement scanner frequencies are programmed into 2-way
radios at schools
Hazards Addressed Earthquake, Flood, Levee Failure, Severe Winter Weather, Windstorm,
Tornado, Hailstorm
Benefits (Losses Avoided) I/C, PD, LF, EMCC
Action 3.2.5 Build tornado safe rooms.
Priority Medium
Plan for Implementation &
Administration Maintain awareness for any funding opportunities which would help
provide the 25% local match required in FEMA grants
Lead School administration
Partners FEMA, SEMA, other grant programs, local patrons
Projected Cost/Funding Significant/grants and some source of funding for local match
Projected Completion Ongoing
Action Update (2017) This is retained for the update, as schools are interested in a safe room
but funding is difficult to obtain.
Criterion for Completion Tornado Safe Room is built.
Hazards Addressed Windstorm, Tornado
Benefits (Losses Avoided) I/C, EMCC
Action 4.0.3
Encourage safe driving through public education campaigns, websites,
community events, etc.
Priority High
Plan for Implementation &
Administration Posters in school, seat belt checks, and curriculum in health class related
to drinking and drug use.
Lead Staff and administration
Partners Local and state law enforcement
Projected Cost/Funding Minimal/internal funds
Projected Completion Ongoing
290
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.
291
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
Action 1.1.7 Encourage appropriate County, municipal, special district and
educational staff to continually update their knowledge base regarding
earthquake safety.
Priority High
Plan for Implementation &
Administration This is in place in the school district.
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
Action 1.1.8 Continue to meet the Revised Statutes of Missouri concerning
earthquake emergency system and earthquake safety in schools.
Priority High
Plan for Implementation &
Administration In place - annual drill and week of education information.
Lead School personnel
Partners Local law enforcement
Projected Cost/Funding Minimal/budget
Projected Completion Ongoing
292
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
Action 1.1.9 Evaluate and maintain school emergency preparedness plans and
incorporate into the County Emergency Operations Plan (EOP).
Priority High
Plan for Implementation &
Administration In place
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.
Criterion for Completion Review plan on an ongoing basis; updated plan is incorporated into
LEOP.
Hazards Addressed Earthquake, Extreme Heat, Flood, Levee Failure, Severe Winter
Weather, Windstorm, Tornado, Hailstorm
Benefits (Losses Avoided) I/C, PD, LF, EMCC
Action 3.2.1
Ensure reliable warning system and dissemination of information regarding
high wind situations throughout county.
Priority High
Plan for Implementation &
Administration NOAA radios are in place in all schools.
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.
293
Priority High
Plan for Implementation &
Administration Already in place with continued maintenance
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
Action 3.2.4 Coordinate with local law enforcement to include scanner frequency in
2-way radios at schools.
Priority High
Plan for Implementation &
Administration School district personnel will contact local law enforcement to program
the frequencies needed.
Lead School district personnel
Partners Local law enforcement, EMDs
Projected Cost/Funding Minimal/internal funds
Projected Completion 2012
Action Update (2017) There was little interest in this from the Planning Committee but it is
retained for the update as it can be a valuable mitigation activity.
Criterion for Completion Law enforcement scanner frequencies are programmed into 2-way
radios at schools
Hazards Addressed Earthquake, Flood, Levee Failure, Severe Winter Weather, Windstorm,
Tornado, Hailstorm
Benefits (Losses Avoided) I/C, PD, LF, EMCC
Action 3.2.5 Build tornado safe rooms.
Priority Medium
Plan for Implementation &
Administration Maintain awareness for any funding opportunities which would help
provide the 25% local match required in FEMA grants
Lead School administration
Partners FEMA, SEMA, other grant programs, local patrons
Projected Cost/Funding Signif/grants and some source of funding for local match
Projected Completion Ongoing
294
Action Update (2017) This is retained for the update, as schools are interested in a safe room
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
Action 4.0.4
Encourage safe driving through public education campaigns, websites,
community events, etc.
Priority High
Plan for Implementation &
Administration In place
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.
295
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
Action 1.1.7 Encourage appropriate County, municipal, special district and
educational staff to continually update their knowledge base regarding
earthquake safety.
Priority High
Plan for Implementation &
Administration This is covered in the District Crisis Intervention Plan.
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
Action 1.1.9 Evaluate and maintain school emergency preparedness plans and
incorporate into the County Emergency Operations Plan (EOP).
Priority High
Plan for Implementation &
Administration In place
Lead School staff/local law enforcement
Partners Law enforcement - local and county
Projected Cost/Funding Minimal/local budget
296
Projected Completion Ongoing
Action Update (2017) This is an ongoing action and done on an ongoing basis.
Criterion for Completion Review plan on an ongoing basis; updated plan is incorporated into
LEOP.
Hazards Addressed Earthquake, Extreme Heat, Flood, Levee Failure, Severe Winter
Weather, Windstorm, Tornado, Hailstorm
Benefits (Losses Avoided) I/C, PD, LF, EMCC
Action 3.2.1
Ensure reliable warning system and dissemination of information regarding
high wind situations throughout county.
Priority High
Plan for Implementation &
Administration In house weather radios are in place.
Lead District administration/local law enforcement
Partners Local law enforcement
Projected Cost/Funding Minimal/local funds
Projected Completion This is in place.
Action Update (2017) The school has weather radios, are in close proximity to sirens, and are
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 &
Administration Already in place with continued maintenance
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
297
Action 3.2.4 Coordinate with local law enforcement to include scanner frequency in
2-way radios at schools.
Priority High
Plan for Implementation &
Administration This is in place.
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.
Criterion for Completion Law enforcement scanner frequencies are programmed into 2-way
radios at schools
Hazards Addressed Earthquake, Flood, Levee Failure, Severe Winter Weather, Windstorm,
Tornado, Hailstorm
Benefits (Losses Avoided) I/C, PD, LF, EMCC
Action 3.2.5 Build tornado safe rooms.
Priority Medium
Plan for Implementation &
Administration Maintain awareness for any funding opportunities which would help
provide the 25% local match required in FEMA grants
Lead School administration
Partners FEMA, SEMA, other grant programs, local patrons
Projected Cost/Funding Signif/grants and some source of funding for local match
Projected Completion Ongoing
Action Update (2017) Fayette applied for safe-room funding roughly a year and a half ago but
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
Action 4.0.4
Encourage safe driving through public education campaigns, websites,
community events, etc.
Priority High
Plan for Implementation &
Administration Posters in high school, safety instruction in classes, seatbelt checks
Lead District Administration/counselors/teachers
298
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.
299
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
Action 1.1.7 Encourage appropriate County, municipal, special district and
educational staff to continually update their knowledge base regarding
earthquake safety.
Priority High
Plan for Implementation &
Administration Ensure that faculty and staff are aware of earthquake procedures;
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.
Criterion for Completion Faculty and staff are aware of procedure and informational session is
conducted annually
Hazards Addressed Earthquake
Benefits (Losses Avoided) I/C, PD, EMCC
Action 3.1.4 Provide backup power to all critical infrastructure (police, fire, hospitals,
local government buildings).
Priority Medium
Plan for Implementation &
Administration The Crisis Committee is currently carrying out investigative studies
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
300
Action 3.2.1 Ensure reliable warning system and dissemination of information
regarding high wind situations throughout county.
Priority High
Plan for Implementation &
Administration
A voluntary text messaging and computer banner alert system is
available on campus for faculty, staff and students. The Fayette warning
siren can also be heard out-of-doors on campus and in some parts of
buildings.
Lead Crisis Committee
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 Text messaging and computer banner alert system is kept in place;
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 &
Administration This possibility will be considered during the update of the Facilities
Master Plan.
Lead Steering Committee
Partners SEMA/FEMA
Projected Cost/Funding Significant/grants
Projected Completion Dependent on Master Plan decisions and availability of funding
Action Update (2017) A safe room is still under consideration and will continued to be
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
Plan for Implementation &
Administration
Hazard awareness is discussed in staff meetings; residence hall directors
cover this subject with students; campuswide emails outlining
emergency procedures are sent out a beginning of school year; text
messaging/computer banner alert system is in place.
Lead Crisis Committee
Partners Student Development
Projected Cost/Funding Minimal/operating budget
Projected Completion Ongoing
301
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.
302
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
In addition to the above mitigation actions for which Howard Co. Consolidated Public Water
Supply District #1 is the lead, Howard County will be the lead on the following actions for the
CPWSD#1:
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.
Action 1.1.5Encourage cooperative agreements between water districts and connect
disparate water supplies as much as possible.
Priority High
Plan for Implementation &
Administration
CPWSD#1 is currently connected with the water supplies of the cities of
Fayette and New Franklin. The three water providers have joined together to
form the Howard Co. Regional Water Commission which is projected to be
operational around the year 2016.
Lead CPWSD#1, City of Fayette, City of New 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.
Priority High
Plan for Implementation &
Administration
Secure funds for buyout/demolition of water treatment
plant/offices/boardroom and warehouse located in floodplain; contruct new
building(s) for offices, boardroom and warehouse out of floodplain.
Lead Board of Directors
Partners SEMA/FEMA
Projected Cost/Funding Significant/grants, loans
Projected Completion Dependent on availability of funding
Criterion for CompletionCurrent treatment plant is demolished; offices, boardroom, warehouse are
relocated.
Hazards Addressed Dam Failure, Flood, Levee Failure
Benefits (Losses Avoided) I/C, PD, LF, EMCC
303
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.
304
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
Action 1.1.5 Encourage cooperative agreements between water districts and connect
disparate water supplies as much as possible.
Priority High
Plan for Implementation &
Administration This is constantly in discussion with other water supply districts.
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 &
Administration Monitor for any problems around critical infrastructure and mitigate as
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.
Hazards Addressed Dam Failure, Earthquake,Flood, Levee Failure, Severe Winter Weather,
Windstorm, Tornado, Wildfire
Benefits (Losses Avoided) I/C, PD, LF, EMCC
305
Action 3.1.2 Evaluate access problems to critical infrastructure in the event of a
flood.
Priority High
Plan for Implementation &
Administration Develop alternative access to infrastructure. Maintain access roads.
Lead Operations Manager
Partners Board of Directors, MECO Engineering
Projected Cost/Funding Minimal/operations budget
Projected Completion Ongoing
Action Update (2017) This is done on an ongoing basis, but flooding is unlikely to be an issue
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 &
Administration Evaluate any problems and look for solutions.
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
Action 3.1.5 Remove vegetation and combustible materials around critical
infrastructure.
Priority High
Plan for Implementation &
Administration This is done routinely as part of general maintenance.
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
306
Action 5.0.1 Encourage developers to build earthquake resistant structures.
Priority Medium
Plan for Implementation &
Administration The latest earthquake safety standards were used in building design and
construction.
Lead Board of Directors
Partners MECO Engineering
Projected Cost/Funding Minimal to significant (undetermined at this time)/ operations budget to
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.
307
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
308
Mitigation activities which are eligible for funding vary between the programs (see Figure 4.5.1).
All potential projects must match the stated goals and objectives of the Howard County Hazard
Mitigation Plan and the State of Missouri Hazard Mitigation Plan.
Application and Cost Share Requirements:
The application process for the FEMA Mitigation Grant Programs includes a Benefit Cost
Analysis (BCA). A potential project must have a Benefit Cost Ratio of at least 1.0 to be
considered for funding; a ratio of 1.0 indicates at least $1 benefit for each $1 spent on the project.
A BCA is the first step in assessing if a project has the potential to be funded. The BCA for a
potential project is run on FEMA’s BCA Software; planners at the Mid-MO RPC are trained on
this software.
Application for most of the mitigation grant programs must be made through eGrants, FEMA’s
web-based, electronic grants management system. HMGP has a paper application.
Cost share requirements and the application format for these five programs are shown in Figure
4.5.2. Contributions of cash, in-kind services or materials, or any combination thereof, may be
accepted as part of the non-Federal cost share. For FMA, not more than one half of the non-
Federal contribution may be provided from in-kind contributions.
Figure 4.5.1
Activity HMGP PDM FMA RFC 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
Eligible Activities for FEMA Mitigation Grant Programs
Source: www.fema.gov/library/viewRecord.do?id=3648
309
Details of each program are discussed below.
Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP)
The Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) was created in November 1988 through Section
404 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act. The HMGP assists
states and local communities in implementing long-term mitigation measures following a
Presidential disaster declaration. After a major disaster, communities may be able to identify
additional areas where mitigation can help prevent losses in the future.
HMGP funding is allocated using a “sliding scale” formula based on the percentage of the funds
spent on Public and Individual Assistance programs for each Presidential Disaster Declaration.
Due to the Enhanced Missouri State Hazard Mitigation Plan, the State of Missouri receives 20%
of the federal total of a Disaster Declaration as additional mitigation funds through the HMGP.
Federal/Local
Match Notes Application
HMGP 75/25 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
percent of the national per capita income, based on best
available data. (For current information:
http://www.bea.gov)
• A local unemployment rate exceeding by 1 percentage
point or more the most recently reported, average yearly
national unemployment rate. (For current information:
http://www.bls.gov/eag/eag.us.htm)
• Meet other criteria required by the State/Tribe/Territory
in which the community is located
FMA 75/25 e-grants
FMA
(Severe
Repetitive Loss
Property)
90/10
In Missouri, this cost share is less than the usual 75/25
because the State has an approved “Enhanced” State
Mitigation Plan.
e-grants
RFC 100/0RFC is only available to applicants who cannot meet the
cost share requirement of FMA.e-grants
SRL 90/10
In Missouri, this cost share is less than the usual 75/25
because the State has an approved “Enhanced” State
Mitigation Plan.
e-grants
Figure 4.5.2
FEMA Mitigation Grant Programs
Grant
Program
Cost Share
PDM
(Small
Impoverished
Community)
90/10 e-grants
310
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/
311
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.
312
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
313
Section 5: Plan Maintenance Process
Requirement
§201.6(c)(4)(i):
[The plan maintenance process shall include a] section describing
the method and schedule of monitoring, evaluating, and updating
the mitigation plan within a five-year cycle.
5.1 Plan Monitoring and Evaluation The Howard County Hazard Mitigation Plan will be monitored and evaluated on an annual basis,
beginning in the year following approval and adoption. This means there will be four
monitoring/evaluation periods. The last monitoring and evaluation period will lead into the 5-
year update process.
The monitoring and evaluation with be facilitated through the Mid-MO Regional Planning
Commission. It will consist of the following:
1. Surveys will be sent to all participating jurisdictions for information including: progress
on the mitigation strategy outlined in the plan and any significant changes in the
jurisdiction which should be noted. A sample survey is shown in Figure 5.1.1.
2. Survey information will be collated by planners at the Mid-MO RPC.
3. Meeting(s) of the Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee will be convened by the Mid-
MO RPC to discuss survey feedback, any changes in hazard risks in the county, and any
other pertinent information.
4. An annual report will be written and included as an addendum to the current plan.
314
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.
315
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
Preliminary update of data Yearly during
maintenance/review of plan Mid-MO RPC
Prepare cost estimates for update of plan
and submit to SEMA PED - 14 months Mid-MO RPC
Receive Memorandum of Agreement from
SEMA for update PED - 12 months SEMA
Review data for any additional updates PED - 12 months Mid-MO RPC
Contact participating jurisdictions re:
representation on Planning Committee for
update of plan PED - 12 months Mid-MO RPC
Meetings to conduct preliminary review
and update of plan PED - 11 months Planning Committee
Survey to participating jurisdictions re:
capabilities, vulnerable assets, future
development PED - 11 months Mid-MO RPC
Public Meeting #1 for comment and input
on draft update PED - 9 months
Mid-MO RPC/Planning
Committee
Draft of update due at SEMA PED - 8 months Mid-MO RPC
Participating jurisdictions hold meetings
to discuss plan and mitigation actions PED - 8 months Participating Jurisdictions
Public Meeting #2 for comment and input
on final update PED - 6 months
Mid-MO RPC/Planning
Committee
Final plan due at SEMA for review before
submission to FEMA PED - 5 months Mid-MO RPC
Plan reviewed by SEMA PED - 4 months SEMA
Required changes/additions made to plan PED - 4 months Mid-MO RPC
Plan submitted to FEMA PED - 3 months SEMA
Participating jurisdictions adopt approved
plan PED - 2 months Participating Jurisdictions
316
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
Requirement
§201.6(c)(4)(iii):
[The plan maintenance process shall include a] discussion on how
the community will continue public participation in the plan
maintenance process.
The Howard County Hazard Mitigation plan will remain posted on the website of the Mid-
Missouri Regional Planning Commission (http://mmrpc.org/reports-library/hazard-mitigation-
reports/) for public review and comment. Either the plan itself or links to the plan will also be
posted on as many websites of participating jurisdictions as possible.
The Howard County Emergency Management Directors will facilitate presenting the entire plan
to interested groups within the county including:
Health Department Personnel
City Fire and Rural Fire Protection Districts
City Elected Officials/Administrators
Educational Personnel
Local Emergency Planning Committees
Local Police/Sheriff Department Personnel
Howard County Commissioners/Directors
In addition, all Planning Committee meetings for the review and maintenance of the plan will be
open to the public, announced on the Mid-MO RPC website and posted as required by
Missouri’s Sunshine Law.
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
City of Fayette Insured
Replacement Value
Prem. #
Bldg. #
Building Description Building Contents
1 1 City Hall 530,486 17,000
2 1 Fuel Storage Tanks 4,785 53,700
2 2 Electric Plant 173,114 5,386,500
2 3 Water Treatment Plant 1,323,495 387,516
2 4 New Water Treatment Plant 207,738 -
2 5 Garage and Storage Building 136,678 39,100
3 1 Swimming Pool 296,513 -
4 1
City Lagoon - Lab and Testing
Station 193,479 36,700
4 2 City Lagoon - Generator 58,000 -
4 3 City Lagoon - Headworks Building 674,200 -
4 4 City Lagoon - UV Building 145,000 -
4 5 City Lagoon - Blower Building 162,000 -
4 6
City Lagoon - Cover for WWT
Lagoon 525,000 -
5 1 Water Tower - Lucky Street 1,136,900 -
6 1 City Library 457,840 -
7 1 Water Tower - Givens Road 456,525 -
8 1 Cabinet Shop 146,300 -
9 1 Vaccine Laboratory 97,986 -
10 1 Garage - S. Church 426,964 -
11 1 Spec Building 576,585 -
12 1 Fayette City Park - Shelter House 45,841 -
12 2 Fayette City Park - Shelter House 17,029 -
12 3 Fayette City Park - Restroom 15,315 -
13 1 Liberty Park - Shelter House 22,919 -
13 2 Liberty Park - Shelter House 5,783 -
13 3 Liberty Park - Restroom 17,457 -
14 1 D.C. Rogers Lake - Shelter House 6,319 -
14 2 D.C. Rogers Lake - Shelter House 5,998 -
14 3 D.C. Rogers Lake - Shelter House 5,783 -
14 4 D.C. Rogers Lake - Restroom 8,354 -
14 5 D.C. Rogers Lake - Restroom 8,354 -
15 1 Ricketts Lake - Shelter House 5,569 -
16 1 Courthouse Substation 6,690 -
17 1 CMU Substation 4,514 -
18 1 Hospital Substation 6,690 -
18 2 Hospital Substation 6,690 -
19 1 Taylor Mart Substation 5,048 -
City of Fayette Insured
Replacement Value
Prem. #
Bldg. #
Building Description Building Contents
20 1 Bank Substation 7,263 -
21 1 McDonald's Substation 6,690 -
22 1 Fayette Medical Clinic Substation 4,514 -
23 1 Fastland Taco Bell Substation 4,514 -
24 1 Fayette High School Substation 9,554 -
25 1 Linn Memorial Methodist Substation 4,514 -
26 1 CMU Woodward Hall Substation 6,690 -
26 2 CMU McMurry Hall Substation 9,554 -
26 3 CMU McMurry Hall Substation 7,263 -
26 4 CMU College Kitchen Substation 9,104 -
27 1 Ashbury Heights Substation 5,108 -
28 1 C & R Market Substation 7,691 -
29 1 CMU Student Union Substation 7,100 -
30 1 Howard County Jail Substation 3,090 -
31 1 Industrial Building Substation 13,182 -
32 1 Division of FS/Head Start Substation 3,086 -
33 1 Power Plant & Water Plant 7,263 -
35 1 Carbon Building 27,389 -
36 1 Potassium Pump House Building 3,000 -
37 1 Single Family Dwelling 30,000 -
38 1 CMU Football Field Substation 8,000 -
39 1 CMU Softball Field Substation 8,000 -
Total 8,116,510 5,920,516
Source: City of Fayette Insurance Statement
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
Recommended