Howard County Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 Mitigation/Howard... · 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

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





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


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


Howard Co. Levee


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):



(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


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






Appendices

Sources Consulted

Requirement

§201.6(b):



(3) Review and incorporation, if appropriate, of existing plans,

studies, reports, and technical information.

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

include:

The Missouri State Hazard Mitigation Plan (2013), State Emergency Management

Agency (SEMA), was used extensively in developing the hazard profiles and

vulnerability assessments in Section 3. Some information from the 2007 State Plan

and 2010 State Plan (not included in the 2013 State Plan) were also used in this plan.

The Missouri Hazard Analysis (2013), SEMA, was used in developing the hazard

profiles in Section 3.

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

from the LEOP has been integrated into the appropriate sections of the Howard

County Hazard Mitigation Plan, specifically in the section on Communications and

Media.

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

natural hazards (Section 3). The Situation Reports document levels of damage and

disruption (by county) for major events. The type of information potentially available

includes power outages and restoration progress, sheltering needs, and buildings

damaged. This information was used to supplement the more generalized NOAA

(National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) data. (Note: In the early

drafting stages of this plan, an archive of Situation Reports was available online; due

to a remake of the SEMA website, only more recent reports appear to be available at

the current time.)

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


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


0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Missouri

Moniteau

Cooper

Cole

Callaway

Boone

Howard

Minutes

Commute Time in Counties of Mid-MO Region


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


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


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.

https://usfiredept.com/howard-county-fire-protection-district-11001.html

https://usfiredept.com/howard-county-fire-protection-district-11001.html

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



Total housing units 153

Water service Thomas Hill Public Water Supply District #1

Electric service Kansas City Power and Light


Sewer service City of Armstrong

Fire service Armstrong Fire Protection District

Website No

Master plan No


Stormwater Plan No

Building regulations No

Zoning regulations No




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


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


Population 2,708



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


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.


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



3,572,818 Agricultural $47,120



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


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


Population 1,135




Water service City of Glasgow

Electric service Kansas City Power and Light


Sewer service City of Glasgow

Fire service Glasgow Fire Protection District

Website http://www.glasgowmo.com

Master plan No


Stormwater Plan Yes

Building regulations Yes



Stormwater regulations Yes



68

Figure 2.10.18

Property Count and Valuation - Glasgow


Building Type #

Residential 679

Commercial 42

Industrial 13

Agricultural 10

Religious 6

Governmental 1

Educational 2

Source: HAZUS MH

2010 Assessed Values - Glasgow



$2,402,597 Agricultural $23,440


Total $6,484,210 $2,402,597


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



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


Population 1,242




Water service City of New Franklin

Electric service Ameren Missouri


Sewer service City of New Franklin

Fire service Howard County Fire Protection District

Website http://newfranklinmo.org/

Master plan No


Stormwater Plan No

Building regulations Yes


Subdivision regulations Yes




71

Figure 2.10.22

Property Count and Valuation - New Franklin


Building Type #

Residential 536

Commercial 17

Industrial 7

Agricultural 0

Religious 3

Governmental 1

Educational 2

Source: HAZUS MH

2010 Assessed Values - New Franklin



$1,438,843 Agricultural $35,640

Commercial $502,910

Total $4,911,080 $1,438,843


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


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.


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)



$6,843,154 Agricultural $3,200,790



District Owned Property

Buildings (2) $14,700,368

Vehicles (7) - Source: New Franklin R-I School District Personnel


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)



$7,287,432 Agricultural $3,122,310




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


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)



$13,612,127 Agricultural $6,040,300

Commercial $5,368,240 Total $37,965,120 $13,612,127



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


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


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.


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.


Figure 2.10.28 Howard Co. CPWSD #1

Owned Property


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


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.


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


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


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


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


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


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.)

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

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










MO50669 MONITEAU CREEK WS DAM L- 2 1996 24 6 0 NA







94


MO50995 MONITEAU CREEK WS DAM M- 17 1999 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.


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


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


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.


Probability:

High – Howard Co. (unincorporated)

Low – Armstrong, Fayette, New Franklin, Glasgow, New Franklin R-I School District,


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,


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.


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.


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.


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


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.


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


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.

http://dnr.mo.gov/geology/geosrv/geores/techbulletin1.htm

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.


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)


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)


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



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


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:






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


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

http://www.nws.noaa.gov/os/heat/heat_index.shtml

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.


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.

http://www.wrh.noaa.gov/psr/general/safety/heat/heatindex.png

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)

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

132


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.


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.


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


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


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


Fayette, county (Moniteau River) 5/27-5/28/1996 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


Fayette, Lamine River at Otterville) 2/7-2/8/1999 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


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


Moniteau Creek near Fayette,

Lamine River near Otterville) 5/4-5/10/1999 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


Lamine River at Otterville) 6/27-6/30/1999 Flood 1 0 0 750K


Moniteau Creek at Fayette) 7/1-7/14/1999 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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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



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


Route Z W/NW of Franklin 8/4/2004 Flash 0 0 0 0



Fayette) 11/1/2004 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


Route H and Highway 124 E/SE of

Fayette 1/12-1/13/2005 Flash 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 2/5- 2/6/2008 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




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.


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.


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



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


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





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


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


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.


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


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:






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


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


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.


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.


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.


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


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


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.


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.


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


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


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 side slope: Landside and riverside slopes 1 on 3


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.


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





Average side slope: Landside ranges from 1 on 3 to 1 on 6; riverside ranges from 1 on 3 to 1 on 4


Protected Features*



* 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


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





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*







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





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*





Sponsorship and Inspection


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


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


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


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


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


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.



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


Figure 3.2.7M

Figure 3.2.7N

183


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


Level of protection provided: Exceeds a 25-year flood event

Average height of levee: 8' to 16' above landside natural ground surface


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



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


Grain Bins: 11

Other facilities: Approximately 5 miles of Katy Trail State Park



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


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.


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


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.


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


1/31-

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-


3/1-


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.


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.


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


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.


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.


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


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.


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


1/11/2012 Fayette Unknown 15 Primary Responder Howard Co FPD

1/12/2012 Fayette Miscellaneous 5 Primary Responder Howard Co FPD





3/6/2012 Armstrong Unknown 1 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



199

3/13/2012 Harrisburg Unknown 5 Primary Responder Howard Co FPD






5/23/2012 Fayette Equipment 15 Primary Responder Howard Co FPD



6/25/2012 Fayette Debris 1 Primary Responder Howard Co FPD







8/11/2012 Harrisburg Debris 1 Primary Responder Howard Co FPD




8/28/2012 New Franklin Equipment 1 Primary Responder Howard Co FPD











3/19/2013 Higbee Unknown 2 Primary Responder Howard Co FPD






11/30/2013 Fayette Campfire 5 Primary Responder Howard Co FPD




200


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 Harrisburg Miscellaneous 170 Primary Responder Howard Co FPD

3/16/2014 New Franklin Not Reported 4 Primary Responder Howard Co FPD





3/30/2014 Higbee Miscellaneous 2 Primary Responder Howard Co FPD



4/18/2014 New Franklin Unknown 0.5 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





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.


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



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


Source: http://mdc7.mdc.mo.gov/applications/FireReporting/Report.aspx

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.


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.


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


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


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


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 3/12/2006 16:30 Tstm Wind 52 0 0 $5,000

ROANOKE 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


ARMSTRONG 4/3/2011 21:55 Tstm Wind 61 0 0 $4,000





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


Total $303,000

209


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.


Probability: High

Severity: Low

Windstorm Vulnerability Overview



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.


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.


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


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.


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.


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.


Probability: High

Severity: Moderate

Hailstorm Vulnerability Overview Vulnerable Jurisdictions: Entire planning area


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.


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.


The entire planning area is vulnerable to hailstorms. While Census figures indicate a slight


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).


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


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


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


Probability: High

Severity: High Tornado Vulnerability Overview



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.


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


The entire planning area is vulnerable to tornadoes. While Census figures indicate a slight


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


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.


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.


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


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.


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.


update.

4.0.4 Encourage the MO Dept. of Conservation

(MDC) to continue their trainings on

controlled burns.


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


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



239


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



240


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



241


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


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



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




Acti

on

#


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


248




Acti

on

#


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


249




Acti

on

#


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


250




Acti

on

#


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


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


Administration Clean ditches on a regular basis.

Lead Howard Co. Road & Bridge Department

Projected Cost/Funding Minimal/operating budget



Criterion for Completion Ditches are kept free of obstructions.

Hazards Addressed Flood


Benefits (Losses Avoided) I/C, PD, LF, EMCC

253

Action 1.1.6 Provide continuing education for firefighters on fighting wildfires.

Priority High


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




Criterion for Completion Training sessions on fighting wildfire are offered.

Hazards Addressed Wildfire

Applicable Jurisdictions All participating jurisdictions


Action 1.1.7 Encourage appropriate county, municipal, special district and educational

staff to continually update their knowledge base regarding earthquake

safety.

Priority High


Administration Continue to make staff aware of SEMA training opportunities.

Lead Howard County Emergency Management Agency

Partners SEMA




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


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 Completion Fall 2011


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


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.


Partners DNR, dam owners




Criterion for Completion File is maintained.

Hazards Addressed Dam Failure

Applicable Jurisdictions County, Fayette


Action 1.1.11 Hold annual training on Local Emergency Operations Plan (LEOP) for

County and City officials.

Priority High


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.


Partners LEPC




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


Action 1.2.1 Encourage Red Cross certified shelter location throughout the county.

255

Priority High


Administration Encourage potential shelter locations to become certified Red Cross

shelter locations.


Partners Local social service agencies, churches, schools



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


Action 1.2.2 Encourage shelters to have alternative power and heating sources.

Priority Medium


Administration Look for funding opportunities for transfer switches so that more

locations throughout the County are available for generator hookup.


Partners Local social service agencies, churches, schools

Projected Cost/Funding Significant/grants



Criterion for Completion More shelters have alternative power and heating sources.


Tornado



Action 1.2.3 Encourage local motels to provide their customers with safety

information for high wind/tornado events.

Priority Medium


Administration

Contact Silver Bell Motel in Fayette and East Acres Motel in Glasgow to

discuss possibilities for informing customers of safety for high



Partners Local hotels/motels


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


Action 2.1.1 Review and update flood damage prevention ordinance to ensure

maximum protection from flood hazard events.

Priority High


Administration Ordinance was updated in 2009 and will be updated as required.

Lead County Clerk

Partners SEMA




Criterion for Completion Ordinance is updated when needed/required.



Benefits (Losses Avoided) PD,LF,EMCC

Action 2.1.2 Encourage all fire districts in the Planning Area to pass burn ordinances.

Priority High


Administration

Talk with Glasgow Fire Protection District re: burn ordinance.

(Armstrong Fire District and Howard Co. Fire District already have burn

ordinances.)


Partners Glasgow Fire Protection District



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.


Applicable Jurisdictions All jurisdictions


Action 3.1.1 Protect critical infrastructure.

Priority High

257


Administration Monitor roads and bridges for safe travel and protect/repair as needed.

Lead Howard Co. Road and Bridge Department




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



Action 3.1.3 Mitigate the effects of flooding on public infrastructure.

Priority High


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


Criterion for Completion Successful mitigation of flooding effects on public infrastructure, if and

when needed.

Hazards Addressed Dam Failure, Flood, Levee Failure



Action 3.1.4 Provide backup power to all critical infrastructure (police, fire, hospitals,

local government buildings).

Priority Medium


Administration Look for funding opportunities for transfer switches and additional

generators.


Partners Cities, Fire Districts, Howard Co. Commission



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



Applicable Jurisdictions County, all incorporated communities


3.1.7* Seek funding opportunities for transfer switches to make existing back-up

generators usable.

Priority High


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


Benefits (Losses Avoided) I/C, LF, EMCC

Action 3.2.2 Promote the use of NOAA weather radios.

Priority High


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



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.


Action 3.2.6 Encourage new mobile home parks to have safe rooms on the premises.

Priority Medium


Administration Talk to new developers of mobile home parks about the importance of

some type of protection for windstorm/tornado events.

259


Partners Mobile home park owners

Projected Cost/Funding Significant/grants, private funds, membership fees



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.




Action 3.2.7 Encourage nursing and residential care facilities to have alternate power

and heating sources.

Priority Medium


Administration Discuss the importance of backup power with those facilities which don't

currently have it.


Partners Nursing and residential care facilities

Projected Cost/Funding Significant/grants, private funds


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



Applicable Jurisdictions County, Fayette, Glasgow, New Franklin


Action 3.2.9 Identify potential transportation for vulnerable populations.

Priority High


Administration Contact school districts and OATS for buses.


Partners School districts, OATS

Projected Cost/Funding Minimal to moderate/operating budget


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





Action 4.0.1 Develop public education hazard awareness program.

Priority High


Administration Ensure that local media receives information re: hazard awareness.


Partners SEMA, local media



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





Action 4.0.2 Maintain flood awareness signs at low water crossings and flash flooding

areas.

Priority High


Administration Permanent signs are installed and will be maintained.

Lead Howard Co. Road and Bridge Department



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.




Action 4.0.4 Encourage the MO Dept. of Conservation (MDC) to continue their

trainings on controlled burns.

Priority High

261


Administration Provide feedback to the MDC re: the importance of this training program

in Howard County.


Partners




Criterion for Completion MDC is given regular feedback on importance of training program.


Applicable Jurisdictions All jurisdictions


Action 4.0.5 Encourage levee districts to restrict public access at access points to the

levees.

Priority High


Administration Emergency Management Directors will discuss with levee personnel.

Lead Howard Co. Emergency Management Agency, County Commissioners

Partners Levee District personnel



Action Update (2017) This is completed, but is retained in the update to be continued.

Criterion for Completion Public access to levees is restricted.


Applicable Jurisdictions County, Franklin, New Franklin, Howard Co. Consolidated Public Water

Supply District #1


Action 4.0.6* Promote the usage of text alerts for severe weather.

Priority High


Administration Cities and county will encourage citizens to use local news stations text

alerts with a focus on those outside of a siren reach


Partners Howard County Towns and Agencies, Schools



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


Administration Emergency Management Directors


Partners Cities, towns, and other public agencies




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


Action 5.0.3* Establish ongoing communication with the Army Corps of Engineers and

Howard County regarding flooding and levee issues.

Priority High


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 Completion 2017-2018


Criterion for Completion Communication between Army Corps of Engineers and levee personnel is

established

Hazards Addressed Flood, Levee Failure, Dam Failure


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



Priority High


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


Action Update (2017) This is an ongoing action.

Criterion for Completion Floodplain ordinance is enforced




Priority High


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



Criterion for Completion Drainage works well throughout Armstrong



264



Priority High


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


Criterion for Completion Floodplain ordinance is updated as needed or required.





Priority High


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.


Criterion for Completion There is reliable backup power at the Armstrong Fire Protection District.


Subsidence/Sinkhole, Levee Failure, Severe Winter Weather,

Windstorm, Tornado, Hailstorm, Wildfire


265

3.2.10 Create a confidential voluntary list of individuals with critical medical

devices for emergency services and disaster response/recovery.

Priority Moderate


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


Projected Cost/Funding Minimal



Criterion for Completion A confidential voluntary list is created

Hazards Addressed Dam Failure, Earthquake, Flood, Levee Failure, Severe Winter

Weather, Windstorm, Tornado, Hailstorm, Wildfire


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.


officials.

1.2.1 Encourage Red Cross certified shelter locations throughout the county.


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.



3.2.2 Promote the use of NOAA weather radios



4.0.4 Encourage the MO Dept. of Conservation (MDC) to continue their trainings on controlled

burns.



Details on the Implementation and Administration of these actions is found under Howard

County in this section (Section 4.4.2).


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.



PD=Property Damages





Priority High


Administration Check permit applications and ensure that they are in compliance with

regulations.

Lead Building Inspector



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.



Action 1.1.2 Complete Community Rating System Application (CRS) of the NFIP.

Priority Medium-Low


Administration This was not completed since the last update, but is retained in the plan

in the case that funds permit.


Partners City Administrator


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.



268


Priority High


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



Criterion for Completion Water is not backing up on street, yards, or into sewer system



Action 1.1.4 Develop and maintain stormwater policies.

Priority High


Administration

An ordinance is in place that stormwater cannot run into the sewer

system; Building Inspector regulates stormwater according to building

codes.


Partners Street Superintendent




Criterion for Completion Stormwater is continually monitored and ordinance enforced.



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


Administration Appropriate city staff will attend trainings.

Lead City of Fayette

Partners Howard County Emergency Management Agency, SEMA

Projected Cost/Funding Minimal/internal








Priority High


Administration The flood ordinance was updated in 2009 and will be updated as

required.


Partners SEMA, City Council




Criterion for Completion Flood damage prevention ordinance is updated as required.



Action 2.2.1 Adopt and enforce latest model building codes and national engineering

standards.

Priority High


Administration The city has adopted the 2009 ICC codes; these will be updated on a

regular basis as warranted.






Criterion for Completion Building codes are updated as needed.

270

Hazards Addressed Earthquake, Severe Winter Weather, Windstorm, Tornado, Hailstorm,

Wildfire


Action 2.2.2 Adopt regulations that preserve riparian corridors in developments.

Priority Medium to High


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



Action Update (2017) Unknown.

Criterion for Completion Regulations are adopted.


Benefits (Losses Avoided) PD, EMCC


Priority High


Administration Building Inspector will monitor for problems and report to City

Administrator who will report to the City Council for action.


Partners City Administrator, City Council

Projected Cost/Funding Minimal to Significant/operating budget to grants, loans



Criterion for Completion Critical infrastructure is monitored and protected.

Hazards Addressed Dam Failure, Earthquake,Flood, Levee Failure, Severe Winter Weather,




Priority High


Administration Building Inspector will monitor for flooding problems and report to City

Administrator who will report to the City Council for action.



Projected Cost/Funding Minimal to Significant/operating budget to grants, loans



Criterion for Completion Public infrastructure is monitored and protected from flooding.

271



Action 3.1.5 Remove vegetation and combustible materials around critical

infrastructure.

Priority High


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.


Partners Property owners, cleanup crews




Criterion for Completion Vegetation and combustibles are monitored and cleaned up.

Hazards Addressed Earthquake, Severe Winter Weather, Windstorm, Tornado, Wildfire


Action 3.1.6 Ensure that manufactured homes are secured to ground to maximize

their longevity.

Priority High


Administration A city ordinance is in place which follows state requirements; the

ordinance is enforced by the Building Inspector.





Criterion for Completion Manufactured homes are monitored for compliance with city ordinance.

Hazards Addressed Earthquake, Windstorm, Tornado


Action 3.2.5 Build tornado safe rooms.

Priority Medium


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


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.



Action 3.2.8 Have plan for cooling centers in all communities.

Priority High


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



Action Update (2017) There are cooling centers in Fayette

Criterion for Completion Cooling centers are available when needed.

Hazards Addressed Extreme Heat


3.2.10* Create a confidential voluntary list of individuals with critical medical


Priority Moderate


Administration













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:


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


officials.

1.2.1 Encourage Red Cross certified shelter locations throughout the County.






buildings).






sources.



burns.





274


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.



PD=Property Damages





Priority High


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.





Criterion for Completion All building permits comply with floodplain ordinance.




Priority High


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



Criterion for Completion Drainage systems are working well.



276

Action 1.1.4 Develop and maintain stormwater policies.

Priority High


Administration Ordinances are in place that stormwater cannot go into the sewer

system; update as needed.

Lead Public Works




Criterion for Completion Stormwater policies are maintained and updated, if needed.



Action 1.1.5 Encourage cooperative agreements between water districts and connect

disparate water supplies as much as possible.

Priority High


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




earthquake safety.

Priority High


Administration Attend trainings offered by Howard County Emergency Management

Agency and SEMA.


Partners County, SEMA, schools

Projected Cost/Funding Minimal/internal






277



Priority High


Administration Ordinance will be reviewed and updated as needed or required.

Lead Building Inspector, City Council

Partners SEMA

Projected Cost/Funding Minimal/internal budget



Criterion for Completion Floodplain ordinance is updated as needed.



Action 2.2.1 Adopt and enforce latest model building codes and national engineering

standards.

Priority High


Administration Update codes to the IBC (International Building Code) or equivalent.




Projected Completion Enforcement is ongoing


Criterion for Completion Building codes are updated and enforced.

Hazards Addressed Earthquake, Severe Winter Weather, Windstorm, Tornado, Hailstorm,

Wildfire



Priority High


Administration Monitor critical infrastructure for any potential problems and mitigate.



Projected Cost/Funding Minimal to significant/operating budget or loans, grants if significant



Criterion for Completion Critical infrastructure is continually protected.

278





Priority High


Administration Work on possible solutions to lagoon and lift station flooding; mitigate

any other flooding of public infrastructure, if need becomes apparent.


Partners FEMA, SEMA, USDA




Criterion for Completion Flooding of lagoon and lift stations is no longer a problem; no other

public infrastructure is in danger of flooding.





Priority Medium


Administration Two military generators are available for power at the wells or

elsewhere.

Lead City of Glasgow




Criterion for Completion Backup power is available when needed.





Action 3.2.1 Ensure reliable warning system and dissemination of information

regarding high wind situations throughout county.

Priority High


Administration Update all three warning sirens in the city.


279

Partners USDA



Action Update (2017) This is retained in the update to continue completion.

Criterion for Completion Sirens are updated.



Action 3.2.8 Have plan for cooling centers in all communities.

Priority High


Administration All city owned structures with air conditioning will be left open and

advertised as cooling centers for the public during extreme heat events.




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


Action 5.0.1 Encourage developers to build earthquake resistant structures.

Priority Medium


Administration This will be addressed during the update of the building codes.





Action Update (2017) Developers are encouraged to build earthquake resistant structures.

Criterion for Completion Building codes address earthquake resistance.





Priority Moderate


Administration




280










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:



officials.







buildings).




sources.



burns.


281





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.



PD=Property Damages





Priority High


Administration Permits are, and will be, only issued for projects in compliance with the

floodplain ordinances.


Partners Building Inspector




Criterion for Completion Permits are issued appropriately and all floodplain ordinances are

enforced.



Action 1.1.2 Complete Community Rating System Application (CRS) of the NFIP.

Priority Medium


Administration Evaluate value of completing CRS for the city and begin application if

justified.


Partners Mid-Missouri Regional Planning Commission

Projected Cost/Funding Minimal to moderate/operating budget


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.



283


Priority Medium to High


Administration Use sewer jet to blow out culverts on a regular basis.

Lead Public Works Department




Criterion for Completion This work is being done proactively on a regular basis and not only in

response to problems.





Priority High


Administration This will be updated as needed when notified of required changes by

SEMA.


Partners Board of Aldermen, SEMA



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.




Priority High


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







284


Priority High


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



Criterion for Completion Public infrastructure is protected from flooding.





Priority Medium


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




Criterion for Completion Backup power is provided as needed.






Priority Medium


Administration Include a safe room in plans if ever building a new City Hall or Police

Department building.


Partners SEMA/FEMA



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.




Priority Medium


Administration Encourage this if any new subdivision development is planned.


Partners Mayor, Board of Aldermen

Projected Cost/Funding Significant/cost would be rolled into cost of development



Criterion for Completion New subdivision developments have earthquake resistant structures.



Action 5.0.2 Retrofit structures to new earthquake safety standards when undergoing


Priority Medium


Administration Include this if doing any major renovations of city buildings.


Partners Mayor, Board of Aldermen




Criterion for Completion Any major renovation of city buildings includes retrofitting to current

earthquake resistant standards.





Priority Moderate


Administration







286







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).



officials.





buildings).






sources.



burns.

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



287


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.



PD=Property Damages





earthquake safety.

Priority High


Administration This is already in place and is a yearly practice.

Lead School personnel

Projected Cost/Funding Minimal/school budget



Criterion for Completion Yearly check



288


incorporate into the County Local Emergency Operations Plan (LEOP).

Priority High


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




Criterion for Completion Plan is evaluated and incorporated into LEOP.

Hazards Addressed Earthquake, Extreme Heat, Flood, Levee Failure, Severe Winter

Weather, Windstorm, Tornado, Hailstorm


Action 3.2.1 Ensure reliable warning system and dissemination of information regarding

high wind situations throughout county.

Priority High


Administration NOAA radios are in place in all schools.


Partners County Emergency Management, local law enforcement



Action Update (2017) This is completed but retained for the update.

Criterion for Completion NOAA radios are in place and maintained.



Action 3.2.3 Ensure school buses have two-way radios on board.

Priority High


Administration Already in place with continued maintenance

Lead School district personnel

Projected Cost/Funding Minimal/Program Funds



Criterion for Completion Radios on board

Hazards Addressed All hazards with the exception of Drought


289

Action 3.2.4 Coordinate with local law enforcement to include scanner frequency in

2-way radios at schools.

Priority High


Administration School district personnel will contact local law enforcement to program

the frequencies needed.


Partners Local law enforcement, EMDs



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


Tornado, Hailstorm



Priority Medium


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


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.



Action 4.0.3

Encourage safe driving through public education campaigns, websites,


Priority High


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



290


Criterion for Completion Above actions are carried out on an ongoing basis.

Hazards Addressed Flood, Severe Winter Weather



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).





burns.


Integration of Actions into Current Planning Processes

New Franklin R-I School District has a Facilities Plan, an Emergency/Crisis Response Plan, and

a Missouri School Improvement Plan (MSIP).

The MSIP is a requirement for all public schools in the state; it focuses on the particular area(s)

of need in the school. The MSIP planning committee meets at least once a year, sometimes

more, to identify problems, instigate possible solutions, and assess the outcomes of past

planning. Safety and facilities are always included in the plan.

The school district will consider the information and mitigation actions in the Howard County

Hazard Mitigation Plan before finalizing these plans.

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.



PD=Property Damages





earthquake safety.

Priority High


Administration This is in place in the school district.


Partners Local law enforcemnt

Projected Cost/Funding Minimal/budget



Criterion for Completion Annual drill/education are carried out.



Action 1.1.8 Continue to meet the Revised Statutes of Missouri concerning

earthquake emergency system and earthquake safety in schools.

Priority High


Administration In place - annual drill and week of education information.


Partners Local law enforcement

Projected Cost/Funding Minimal/budget


292


Criterion for Completion Drill/education information take place each year.




incorporate into the County Emergency Operations Plan (EOP).

Priority High


Administration In place

Lead School staff/local law enforcement

Partners Law enforcement - local and county

Projected Cost/Funding Minimal/local budget



Criterion for Completion Review plan on an ongoing basis; updated plan is incorporated into

LEOP.




Action 3.2.1

Ensure reliable warning system and dissemination of information regarding


Priority High


Administration NOAA radios are in place in all schools.


Partners County Emergency Management, local law enforcement



Action Update (2017) This is completed but retained for the plan update.

Criterion for Completion NOAA radios are in place and maintained.




293

Priority High






Action Update (2017) This is completed but retained for the plan update.






Priority High


Administration School district personnel will contact local law enforcement to program

the frequencies needed.


Partners Local law enforcement, EMDs



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.


radios at schools


Tornado, Hailstorm



Priority Medium






Projected Cost/Funding Signif/grants and some source of funding for local match


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.




Action 4.0.4



Priority High



Lead School staff and local law enforcment

Partners Local police/Highway Patrol




Criterion for Completion Posters, assemblies, seat belt checks




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).





burns.



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


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.



PD=Property Damages





earthquake safety.

Priority High


Administration This is covered in the District Crisis Intervention Plan.

Lead District Administration


Projected Cost/Funding Minimal/Local funds

Projected Completion In place now - ongoing


Criterion for Completion In place now




incorporate into the County Emergency Operations Plan (EOP).

Priority High



Lead School staff/local law enforcement

Partners Law enforcement - local and county


296



Criterion for Completion Review plan on an ongoing basis; updated plan is incorporated into

LEOP.




Action 3.2.1

Ensure reliable warning system and dissemination of information regarding


Priority High


Administration In house weather radios are in place.

Lead District administration/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.




Priority High






Action Update (2017) This is complete but retained for the update.




297



Priority High


Administration This is in place.




Projected Completion In place

Action Update (2017) This is complete but retained for the update.


radios at schools


Tornado, Hailstorm



Priority Medium






Projected Cost/Funding Signif/grants and some source of funding for local match


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.




Action 4.0.4



Priority High


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.


Criterion for Completion Activities take place on a regular basis.




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).





burns.



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.



PD=Property Damages





earthquake safety.

Priority High


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




Criterion for Completion Faculty and staff are aware of procedure and informational session is

conducted annually





Priority Medium


Administration The Crisis Committee is currently carrying out investigative studies

regarding onsite power generation.



Projected Completion 2012-2016


Criterion for Completion Power generation is available on campus.

Hazards Addressed Earthquake, Severe Winter Weather, Windstorm, Tornado


300

Action 3.2.1 Ensure reliable warning system and dissemination of information

regarding high wind situations throughout county.

Priority High


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.





Criterion for Completion Text messaging and computer banner alert system is kept in place;

faculty, staff and students are encouraged to sign up.




Priority Medium


Administration This possibility will be considered during the update of the Facilities

Master Plan.

Lead Steering Committee

Partners SEMA/FEMA


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.



Action 4.0.1 Develop public education hazard awareness program.

Priority High


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.


Partners Student Development



301


Criterion for Completion Hazard awareness measures continue to be carried out each school year.

Hazards Addressed Earthquake, Severe Winter Weather, Windstorm, Tornado


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).



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:


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.


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.



PD=Property Damages



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:



officials.


buildings).




Action 1.1.5Encourage cooperative agreements between water districts and connect


Priority High


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


Criterion for Completion Cooperative agreements and connections are in place.



Action 3.1.8 Relocate buildings out of floodplain.

Priority High


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 Completion Dependent on availability of funding

Criterion for CompletionCurrent treatment plant is demolished; offices, boardroom, warehouse are

relocated.



303


burns.


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.



PD=Property Damages



Action 1.1.5 Encourage cooperative agreements between water districts and connect


Priority High


Administration This is constantly in discussion with other water supply districts.

Lead Board President

Partners Neighboring water districts

Projected Cost/Funding Minimal/operations budget



Criterion for Completion Signed agreements and legal counsel approval




Priority High


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




Hazards Addressed Dam Failure, Earthquake,Flood, Levee Failure, Severe Winter Weather,



305

Action 3.1.2 Evaluate access problems to critical infrastructure in the event of a

flood.

Priority High


Administration Develop alternative access to infrastructure. Maintain access roads.


Partners Board of Directors, MECO Engineering



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



Priority High


Administration Evaluate any problems and look for solutions.


Partners Board of Directors, SEMA, FEMA

Projected Cost/Funding Minimal to significant/operations budget to grants, loans



Criterion for Completion Public infrastructure is protected from flooding.



Action 3.1.5 Remove vegetation and combustible materials around critical

infrastructure.

Priority High


Administration This is done routinely as part of general maintenance.





Criterion for Completion Area of critical infrastructure is free of combustible materials.

Hazards Addressed Earthquake, Severe Winter Weather, Windstorm, Tornado, Wildfire


306


Priority Medium


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



Criterion for Completion Buildings are constructed to earthquake safety standards.



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:



officials.


buildings).





burns.


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


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.

http://www.dnr.mo.gov/env/wrc/damsft/damsfthp.htm

http://www.damsafetyaction.org/

Appendix A

Adoption Resolutions

Howard County

Armstrong

Fayette

New Franklin R-1 School District


Howard County Regional Water Commission

Appendix B

Meeting Announcements and Agendas

General Planning Meeting #1




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 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

Documents

Howard County Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 Mitigation/Howard... · 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