Section 1: Introduction Mitigation/Electric... · 2017-08-24 · Table 1.3 provides information concerning total asset valuation. Table 1.3 Howard Asset Inventory Valuation Summary

[HOWARD ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE] May 18, 2012

| 19-1

Section 1: Introduction

Howard Electric Cooperative (HEC) was established in 1936 to provide electric service

to the rural areas of central Missouri. A Touchstone Energy Cooperative, HEC is

headquartered in Fayette, Missouri, and provides service to members in Boone, Chariton,

Howard, and Randolph counties. In addition to supplying electric to cooperative

members, HEC also provides propane and internet. The cooperative is run by a board of

nine directors who approve the company’s mission and internally developed business

policy:

“Howard Electric Co-op has remained committed to providing its

members with quality and affordable energy services that both meet and

exceed their expectations. It is with great pride that we celebrate 75 years

of cooperative success.”

HEC’s service boundary includes Howard County in its entirety as well as southern

Randolph County, portions of southeastern Chariton County, and a small portion of

northwestern Boone County. The cooperative owns 900 miles of distribution lines within

these counties. Figure 1 depicts the geographic boundaries of the cooperative in relation

to USGS local quadrangles. (Map sources: www.usgs.gov, Howard Electric

Cooperative.)

Figure 1

May 18, 2012 [HOWARD ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE]

19-2 |

The member base of HEC is currently 3,400 with 97% residential and non-residential

making up the remaining 3%. Table 1.1 provides the summary of meters by county.

Please note that some members may have multiple meters.

Table 1.1 Meters by County

County Number of meters

Howard 2414

Boone 68

Chariton 102

Randolph 816

The average monthly member usage for HEC is 1,192 kilowatt-hours (kWh). Annual

total usage of HEC members in 2010 was 48,651,674 kWh of service. Population density

for the cooperative service area is depicted in Figure 2 (Map source: U.S. Census 2010).

Figure 2


| 19-3

Section 2: Planning process

Through a partnership between the Association of Missouri Electric Cooperatives and the

Missouri Association of Councils of Government, the Mid-Missouri Regional Planning

Commission was contracted to facilitate a hazard mitigation planning process for HEC.

The initial meeting between the two entities was held on February 9, 2011 as part of a

regional kick-off meeting for central Missouri. This informational meeting provided the

basic responsibilities for each agency and allowed for initial discussion concerning the

project timelines, data collection and other pertinent topics. The template for this process

was created by the Northwest Regional Council of Governments (NWRCOG),

Association of Missouri Electric Cooperatives (AMEC), and the Atchison-Holt Electric

Cooperative (AHEC). The template for the planning process was approved by FEMA an

SEMA prior to the meetings held with Howard Electric Cooperative.

Three additional planning meetings were held at the HEC offices in Fayette, Missouri

throughout the month of September. Table 1.2 summarizes the attendees and topics of

each meeting. Meeting summaries and attendance sheets are available in the chapter

appendix.

Table 1.2 HEC Planning Meeting Synopsis

Meeting Date Attendees, Title, Organization Topics of discussion

September 6, 2011

Richard Fowler, CEO, HEC Don Lough, Line Supt., HEC Mardell Wies, Office Manager, HEC Chad Westhues, Lineman, HEC Richard Colvin, Lineman, HEC Doug Asbury, Lineman, HEC Jesse Swanson, Lineman, HEC Brandon Lightfoot, Lineman, HEC Susan Galeota, Regional Planner, Mid-Mo RPC Katrina Thomas, Regional Planner, Mid-Mo RPC

HEC business structure Member information Critical facilities information Asset inventory by type and location Data collection assignments

September 19, 2011

Richard Fowler, CEO, HEC Don Lough, Line Supt., HEC Susan Galeota, Regional Planner, Mid-Mo RPC Katrina Thomas, Regional Planner, Mid-Mo RPC

Data collection review Current mitigation strategies Establishment of goals, actions, and objectives

September 27, 2011

Richard Fowler, CEO, HEC Don Lough, Line Supt., HEC Susan Galeota, Regional Planner, Mid-Mo RPC Katrina Thomas, Regional Planner, Mid-Mo RPC

Method of prioritization Prioritization of goals, actions, and objectives Implementation and Maintenance

Public Involvement

HEC posted their local chapter on the company’s website, inviting both cooperative

members and the general public to provide comment. Print copies of the chapter were

also made available upon request through the local office. Comments from neighboring

jurisdictions were also solicited using the standardized AMEC letter which was mailed to

the appropriate contacts, including:


19-4 |

Boone County Commission

Chariton County Commission

Howard County Commission

Randolph County Commission

local emergency management directors, and

the local Red Cross chapter

HEC provides service to several critical facilities/infrastructure. Critical facilities for the

purpose of this planning process include cellular towers, public health and safety

facilities, water towers, and other power suppliers that HEC works with. These facilities

were also sent a standardized AMEC letter asking for comment on the chapter draft.

Additionally, HEC’s mitigation plan was included in the public comment period for the

combined AMEC plan. The following facilities/districts were sent the AMEC letter:

Maplelawn Residential Care Facility

Howard County Ambulance (Tower)

Howard County 911

Howard County Fire District

Howard County Public Water Supply District No. 1

Howard County Public Water Supply District No. 2

Thomas Hill Public Water Supply District No. 1

Central Electric Power Co-op

Kansas City Power and Light (KCPL)

Verizon Wireless

Cingular Wireless

Chariton Valley Wireless

RFM Facilities Management

Chariton Valley Telephone

Southwestern Bell/AT&T Services


| 19-5

Section 3: Asset inventory

Howard Electric Cooperative has a wide variety of assets by type. Real estate owned by

the company includes an office building, warehouse, pole yard, and transmitter building.

Twelve vehicles provide access to members and infrastructure. HEC does not own any

electric generation or transmission infrastructure. 900 miles of distribution lines are

owned and maintained by HEC. HEC also provides high speed internet and propane

service. The valuation of these assets is not available because they offer these services in

coordination with other companies and that data is proprietary to those corporations.

Table 1.3 provides information concerning total asset valuation.

Table 1.3 Howard Asset Inventory Valuation Summary

Asset Total Replacement Cost

Cost breakdown

Total HEC Assets $56,480,900

Buildings and vehicles - $1,835,000 Overhead assets - $48,424,900 Underground assets - $6,221,000

Distribution Lines $29,573,750 OH $6,000,000 UG

OH Single-phase lines - $21,345,000 UG Single-phase lines - $6,000,000 OH Three-phase lines - $8,228,750

Supporting Infrastructure

$12,630,150 OH $221,000 UG

Meters - $425,000 Poles - $6,147,050 OH Transformers - $3,230,000 UG Transformers - $221,000 Guys/Anchors - $1,689,750 Cross-arms - $577,500 Regulators - $314,500 Single-phase Oil-Circuit Reclosures - $222,750 Three-phase Oil-Circuit Reclosures - $36,000 Capacitors - $23,600

Office Building $855,000 $580,000 Building, $275,000 personal prop.

Warehouses $505,000 $230,000 Building, $275,000 personal prop.

Vehicles $800,000

Source: Internal HEC Accounting and Insurance records, 2011

Ensuring quality distribution to its members, HEC maintains not only distribution lines,

but also the supporting infrastructure as well. Table 1.4 includes a list of asset types,

replacement costs, quantities by county, and total infrastructure numbers.


19-6 |

Table 1.4 Howard Asset Inventory by service county

Asset Replacement Cost per unit

or mile

Number of units or miles:



Number of units or miles: Total number

of units or miles:

BOONE CHARITON HOWARD RANDOLPH

Meter $125/unit 68 102 2414 816 3,400

Pole $350/unit 351 527 12470 4215 17,563

SP*** distribution line

$30,000/mile OH

15 OH** 22.5 OH 510 OH 164 OH 711.5 OH ($5.68/foot

OH)

$80,000/mile UG

1.5 UG*** 2.5 UG 53 UG 18 UG 75 UG ($15.15/foot

UG)

TP**** distribution line (OH only)

$72,500/mile

0 OH 2.5 OH 75 OH 36 OH 113.5 OH

($13.73/foot)

Transformers $1,000 OH 65 OH 95 OH 2295 OH 775 OH 3,230 OH

$1,300 UG 15 UG 10 UG 35 UG 110 UG 170 UG

Guys/anchors $150/unit 225 340 8,000 2,700 11,265

Cross-arms $150/unit 75 120 2,730 925 3,850

Regulators $8,500/unit 0 0 26 11 37

Oil Circuit Reclosures

$750 SP 0 SP 6 SP 145 SP 145 SP 296

$18,000 TP 0

Capacitors $400/unit 0 1 38 20 59

Total Replacement Value by county

$691,350 OH

$1,222,350 OH

$29,653,200 OH

$10,636,250 OH

$42,203,150 OH

$139,500 UG

$213,000 UG

$4,285,500 UG

$1,583,000 UG

$6,221,000 UG

**OH = overhead ***UG = underground ***SP = Single phase ****TP – Three phase

Source: Internal Howard Electric Cooperative Accounting and Maintenance records


| 19-7

Section 4: Identified Hazards and Risk Assessment Methodology

Natural hazards in central Missouri vary dramatically with regard to intensity, frequency,

and scope of impact. Some hazards, like earthquakes, happen without warning and do not

provide any opportunity to prepare for the threat. Other hazards, such as tornadoes,

flooding, or severe winter storms, provide a period of warning which allows for public

preparation prior to their occurrence. Regardless, hazard mitigation planning can lessen

the impact of any natural disaster regardless of onset time. The following natural hazards

have been identified as potential threats for the HEC service area:

Tornadoes

Severe Thunderstorms, Hail, and High Winds

Flood and Levee Failure

Severe Winter Weather

Wildfire

Earthquakes

Dam Failure

Severe land subsidence

Likewise, a number of hazards may be eliminated from consideration due to Missouri’s

geographic location, including tsunamis, hurricanes, coastal storms, volcanic activity,

avalanche, and tropical storms. Additionally, a number of hazards may be eliminated

specifically for HEC because of asset types and geographic location. Those hazards

eliminated for the HEC service area include:

Drought

Landslides

Heat Wave

Although drought can impact Mid-Missouri, water availability does not directly impact

the delivery of electric service to HEC members. Similarly, heat wave has been

eliminated. Though it may result in additional usage and potentially tax the system, heat

waves do not usually cause infrastructure damage to cooperative assets. The results of a

heat wave in the service area may be considered cascading events rather than damage

caused directly by the hazard itself. Landslides have also been eliminated based upon

local soil structure categorization by the USGS and the evaluation by HEC staff.

For the purpose of this risk assessment, the identified hazards for the HEC service area

have been divided into two categories: historical and non-historical hazards.

Historical Hazards are those hazards with a measurable previous impact upon

the service area. Damage costs per event and a chronology of occurrences are

available. The associated vulnerability assessments utilize the number of events

and cost of each event to establish an average cost per incident. For HEC,

hazards with historical data include tornadoes, severe thunderstorms/high

wind/hail, flood and levee failure, severe winter weather, and wildfire.


19-8 |

Non-historical Hazards are hazards with no previous record of impact upon the

local service area. As such, the associated vulnerability assessments for each of

these hazards will have an occurrence probability of less than 1% in any given

year, but the extent of damage will vary considerably. For HEC, hazards without

historical data include earthquakes, dam failure, and severe land subsidence.

Probability of Occurrence

In determining the potential frequency of occurrences, a simple formula was used. For

historical events, the number of recorded events for the service area was divided by the

number of years of record. This number was then multiplied by 100 to provide a

percentage. This formula was used to determine future probability for each hazard. For

events that have not occurred, a probability of less than 1% was automatically assigned as

the hazard cannot be excluded from the possibility of occurrence. Likewise, when

discussing the probable risk of each hazard based upon historical occurrences, the

following scale was utilized:

Less than 1% chance of an event occurrence in any given year.

1-10% chance of an event occurrence in any given year

10-99% chance of an event occurrence in any given year

Near 100% chance of an event occurrence in any given year

The number of occurrences was further refined to focus on damage-causing events.

Those occasions which had reported damages were divided by the total number of

recorded events to obtain a percentage of total storms which result in infrastructure

damage. (Formula: Number of damage-causing events / total number of events =

Percentage of occurrences which cause damage.)

Potential Extent of Damage

Vulnerability Assessment matrices for each hazard are included on the following pages.

These worksheets detail loss estimates for each hazard affecting the cooperative’s service

area. Loss estimates were calculated using the asset summary created by internal

accounting records. Each hazard has a unique impact upon the service area, requiring

each hazard to utilize a different valuation amount depending upon the level of impact.

Non-historical hazards assume damage to all general assets. For Historical Hazards,

assets were divided into two groups based upon historical impact which were utilized in

the hazard damage analysis:

Overhead infrastructure assets and buildings

o Used for Tornado damage assessments

o Valued at $50,259,900

Overhead infrastructure assets only

o Used for:

Severe Thunderstorm / High Wind / Hail



| 19-9


Wildfire

o Valued at $48,424,900

In addition, historical hazards with recorded damages were used to identify an average

cost per event. (Formula: Total cost of damages / total number of events = Average

damage cost per event.) When discussing the extent of potential damages for all hazards,

the following scale was utilized:

Less than 10% potential damages to total cooperative infrastructure

10-25% potential damages to total cooperative infrastructure

25-50% potential damages to total cooperative infrastructure

More than 50% potential damages to total cooperative infrastructure

Regardless of hazard categorization, the following matrix (Table 1.5) will be utilized to

identify the potential damage extent and likelihood of occurrence for each natural hazard

type.

Table 1.5 Howard Electric Cooperative Infrastructure Vulnerability Assessment Matrix Hazard: _____________

Probability of Hazard Occurrence

Less than

1% in any

given year

1-10% chance

in any given

year

10- 99%

chance in any

given year

Near 100%

probability in

any given year

Po

ten

tial

Ext

ent

of

Dam

age

Less than 10% of damage

to system

10-25% damage of system


More than 50% damage of

system

In many instances, natural hazard events occur without causing significant damage to the

cooperative’s infrastructure. The more significant impact of natural hazard episodes

comes in the form of reported customer outages. The infrastructure may not be

significantly harmed by an ice storm, but may result in prolonged and widespread outages

in the cooperative’s service area. In considering the potential impact of a hazard, loss of

function provides a more concise picture for comparison of events and geographic

regions of the state. In addition to system damage, each hazard will be evaluated on the

average number of reported or estimated outages per event occurrence. (Formula:

Average number of outages reported / Total number of customers = Average percentage

of outages reported per event)


19-10 |

Table 1.6 Howard Electric Cooperative Service Interruption Vulnerability Assessment Matrix Hazard: _____________

Probability of Damage-causing Hazard Occurrence

Less than

1% in any

given year

1-10% chance

in any given

year

10- 99%

chance in any

given year

> Near 100%

probability in

any given year

Po

ten

tial

Ext

ent

of

Imp

act Less than 10% of

customers report outages

10-25% of customers

report outages

26-50% of customers

report outages

More than 50% of



| 19-11

Section 5: Risk Assessment

A) Historical Hazards:

Tornadoes

In the last 52 years, 6 tornadoes have

been reported within the HEC

cooperative boundaries. Figure 3

represents all recorded tornado

touchdown sites and tracks. (Data for

map collected from NOAA.)

A data insufficiency exists, however,

between 1958 and 2006 in records

concerning damage estimates. For the

purpose of this assessment, the years for

which records exist for both data sets

have been used. From 2006 to 2011,

the HEC service area has experienced

three tornadic events. Using the

previously described methodology, the

probability of a tornadic event in the

HEC service area in any given year is

near 60% (3 events /5 years = 60%).

Estimated cooperative material

damages associated with each of these events were compiled by HEC staff. Two of the

three occurrences caused damage to cooperative assets, resulting in a 66.66% probability

that any given tornadic occurrence will produce damage. Table 1.7 provides a summary

of event dates, EF-scale ratings, damage cost estimates and outages reported.

Table 1.7 HEC Tornadic Event Summary

Date of event EF Scale rating Damage Estimates Outages Reported

3/12/2006 0 $24,061 573

4/4/2010 0 $13,509 474

Data provided by NOAA and internal HEC records

Based upon the 5 years of HEC records, the average tornado to affect the cooperative will

include an EF0 rating, causing an average damage cost of $18,785 per event ($37,570/2

events = $18,785). This averaged amount accounts for less than 1% of HEC’s total

overhead assets and building valuation ($18,785/ $50,259,900= 0.037%). Table 1.8

demonstrates the probability of occurrence in conjunction with the potential extent of

damage.

Figure 3


19-12 |

Table 1.8 Howard Electric Cooperative Infrastructure Vulnerability Assessment Matrix Hazard: Tornado


Less than

1% in any

given year

1-10% chance

in any given

year

10- 99%

chance in any

given year

Near 100%

probability in

any given year

Po

ten

tial

Ext

ent

of

Dam

age


to system




system

An average of 523 members reported outages during recorded tornadoes since 2006.

When compared with the total number of members served by HEC, it can be projected

that 21.8% of all members may report outages during any given tornadic event. Table 1.9

demonstrates the probability of occurrence in conjunction with the potent extent of

impact upon members.

Table 1.9 Howard Electric Cooperative Service Interruption Vulnerability Assessment Matrix Hazard: Tornado


Less than

1% in any

given year

1-10% chance

in any given

year

10- 99%

chance in any

given year

> Near 100%

probability in

any given year

Po

ten

tial

Ext

ent

of

Imp



10-25% of customers

report outages

26-50% of customers

report outages

More than 50% of



| 19-13

Severe Thunderstorms, High Wind, and Hail

From 1958-2011, HEC’s service area has experienced a total 126 hail events and 86

thunderstorm/high wind events. Therefore, the probability of either event in any given

year is greater than 100% (126 events / 53 years = 237% for Hail and 86 events / 53 years

= 162% for thunderstorm/high wind).

A data insufficiency exists, however, between 1958 and 2007 in records concerning

damage estimates. For the purpose of this assessment, the years for which records exist

for both data sets have been used. From 2007-2011, HEC’s service area has experienced

no damage-causing Hail events and a total of nine thunderstorm / high wind events.

Estimated material damages associated with each of these events were compiled by HEC

staff. Table 1.10 provides a summary of those thunderstorm/high wind events which

caused damage to cooperative infrastructure by date, cost estimate of damage, and

reported outages. None of the 126 hail event occurrences caused damage to cooperative

assets, resulting in a less than 1% probability that any given hail occurrence will produce

damage. (0/126=0%). Based upon historical records, the average hail event to affect the

cooperative will cause an average damage cost of $0 ($0 / 0 events = $0). This accounts

for less than 1% of HEC’s total overhead asset valuation.

Nine of the 86 thunderstorm / high wind occurrences caused damage to cooperative

assets, resulting in a 10.4% probability that any given thunderstorm/high wind occurrence

will produce damage (9 / 86 = 10.4%).

Based upon historical records, the average thunderstorm/high wind event to affect the

cooperative will cause an average damage cost of $8,880 ($79,922 / 9 events = $8,880).

This averaged amount accounts for less than 1% of HEC’s overhead asset valuation

($8,880/ $48,424,900= 0.018%). Tables 1.11 demonstrates the probability of occurrence

in conjunction with the potential extent of damage for both hail and thunderstorm/high

wind events.

Table 1.10 HEC Severe Thunderstorms, High Wind Event Damage Summary

Event date Damage estimates Outages reported

8/12/2007 $8,376 326

3/31/2008 $6,526 590

6/24/2008 $14,143 661

6/26/2008 $14,143 147

8/28/2008 $2,398 370

6/13/2010 $11,128 9

6/19/2010 $11,128 814

7/18/2010 $11,128 121

4/3/2011 $952 249

Totals $79,922 3,287

Data provided based on internal HEC records which reflect cost from the referenced event year.


19-14 |

Table 1.11 Howard Electric Cooperative Infrastructure Vulnerability Assessment Matrix Hazard: Thunderstorm/High Wind/Hail


Less than

1% in any

given year

1-10% chance

in any given

year

10- 99%

chance in any

given year

Near 100%

probability in

any given year

Po

ten

tial

Ext

ent

of

Dam

age


to system




system

An average of 365 customers reported outages during recorded hail, thunderstorm, and

high wind events since 2007. When compared with the total number of customers served

by HEC, it can be projected that 15% of all customers may report outages during any

given hail, thunderstorm, or high wind event. Table 1.12 demonstrates the probability of

occurrence in conjunction with the potent extent of impact upon members.

Table 1.12 Howard Electric Cooperative Service Interruption Vulnerability Assessment Matrix Hazard: Severe Thunderstorms, High Wind, and Hail


Less than

1% in any

given year

1-10% chance

in any given

year

10- 99%

chance in any

given year

> Near 100%

probability in

any given year

Po

ten

tial

Ext

ent

of

Imp



10-25% of customers

report outages

26-50% of customers

report outages

More than 50% of



| 19-15


In Howard County, approximately 12% of the cooperative service area is located directly

within the 100 year floodplain. Less than 3% of Randolph County and Chariton County

lies within the 100 year floodplain. Figure 4 below depicts the 100 year floodplain in

relation to the cooperative’s boundaries. (Map sources: FEMA Map Services Center)

Currently, inundation data for levee failure is lacking due to issues surrounding mapping,

appropriate models, and its close association with flooding events. Figure 5 below

provides the location of known non-federal levees within the cooperative’s region. A

detailed map of levee locations is not available at this time. This map is part of a larger

map book that was produced by the US Army Corps of Engineers in 2011. (Map sources:

US Army Corps of Engineers)

Figure 4


19-16 |

From 1994-2008, HEC’s service area has experienced a flooding event almost every year,

with the exception of the year 2000 which was an exceptionally dry summer. Currently,

no data concerning levee failure damage can be separated from flood damage data.

Therefore, the probability of a flood/levee failure event affecting the cooperative assets in

any given year is more than 90% (13 annual flooding events / 14 years = 92%).

Estimated material damages associated with each of these events were not available.

Fig

ure

5


| 19-17

Flood and levee failure events vary widely based upon numerous factors including, but

not limited to, annual precipitation and extent of levee damage. Not all events, however,

are extensive. Of the 14 flooding events, none have instances of recorded damages in

cooperative records, resulting in a less than 1% probability that any given flooding event

will cause damage to cooperative assets (0 events / 14 instances = 0%). Using the hazard

worksheet that is provided in the appendix, the HEC staff categorized the impact of a

future flood event/levee failure as having a negligible impact (less than 10% of damage to

system). Using the methodology from Section 4 a Flood event could potentially result in

damage costing an estimated $4,824,290 or less (10% of $48,424,900).

There were no reported outages in the HEC service area due to flooding or levee failure

from 1994-2008. Therefore it can be projected that less than 1% of all customers may

report outages during any given flooding event. Table 1.13 demonstrates the probability

of occurrence in conjunction with the potent extent of impact upon members.

Table 1.13 Howard Electric Cooperative Service Interruption Vulnerability Assessment Matrix Hazard: Flood


Less than

1% in any

given year

1-10% chance

in any given

year

10- 99%

chance in any

given year

> Near 100%

probability in

any given year

Po

ten

tial

Ext

ent

of

Imp



10-25% of customers

report outages

26-50% of customers

report outages

More than 50% of



19-18 |


From 1994-2011, HEC’s service area has experienced a total of 25 Severe Winter

Weather events, including significant snowfall and ice storms. Therefore, the probability

of a severe winter weather event in the HEC service area in any given year is near 100%

(25 events / 17 years = 147%). Estimated material damages associated with each of these

events were compiled by HEC staff, but damage estimates are available for a single event

in 2011 only. Table 1.14 provides a summary of the event date, type, associated damage

estimate, and reported outages. Only one of the 25 occurrences caused damage to

cooperative assets, resulting in a 4% probability that any given severe winter weather

occurrence will produce damage. (1 / 25 = 4%)

Based upon these historical records, the average severe winter weather event to affect the

cooperative will cause an average damage cost of $8,702 ($8,702 / 1 event = $8,702).

This averaged amount accounts for less than 1% of HEC’s total overhead asset valuation

($8,702 / $48,424,900= 0.0179%). Table 1.15 demonstrates the probability of occurrence

in conjunction with the potential extent of damage.

Table 1.15 Howard Electric Cooperative Infrastructure Vulnerability Assessment Matrix Hazard: Severe Winter Weather


Less than

1% in any

given year

1-10% chance

in any given

year

10- 99%

chance in any

given year

Near 100%

probability in

any given year

Po

ten

tial

Ext

ent

of

Dam

age


to system




system

An average of 19 members reported outages during the 2011 event. When compared

with the total number of members served by HEC, it can be projected that less than 1% of

all members may report outages during any given severe winter weather event. Table

1.16 demonstrates the probability of occurrence in conjunction with the potential extent

of impact upon members.

Table 1.14 HEC Severe Winter Weather Event Summary

Event date Event type Damage Estimates Outages Reported

1/10/2011 Winter Weather $8,702 19

Data Source: Internal HEC Records


| 19-19

Table 1.16 Howard Electric Cooperative Service Interruption Vulnerability Assessment Matrix Hazard: Severe Winter Weather


Less than

1% in any

given year

1-10% chance

in any given

year

10- 99%

chance in any

given year

> Near 100%

probability in

any given year

Po

ten

tial

Ext

ent

of

Imp



10-25% of customers

report outages

26-50% of customers

report outages

More than 50% of


Wildfire

The incidence of wildfire in the HEC service area presents a unique risk assessment.

Wildfire events have occurred in each of the four counties. According to the Missouri

Department of Conservation, Boone, Chariton, Howard, and Randolph counties have

experienced wildfires between 2004 and 2008. Table 1.17 summarizes the incidences of

wildfire within the four counties. Therefore, the probability of a wildfire event in the

HEC service area in any given year is near 100% (242 events / 4 years = 6,050%).

Table 1.17 Wildfire summary by county

County # of

Wildfires, 2004-08

Average Annual #

of Wildfires

Acres Burned

Average Annual Acres

Burned

Total Buildings Damaged

Boone 1 0.2 0.1 0 0

Chariton 87 17.4 953.5 191 2

Howard 10 2 347.0 69 0

Randolph 144 28.8 1192.5 239 2

Totals 242 48.4 2493.1 499 4

Source: Missouri State Hazard Mitigation Plan, 2010

The potential extent of damage caused by wildfire is difficult to determine. To date, 242

fires have burned a total of 2,493.1 acres, for an average of 10.3 acres affected per event.

HEC retains no damage information related to wildfires in its service area during this

time period. Cooperative assets are located throughout the service area rather than being

located at a single central site. With an average of 10 acres per fire in the service area, it

is unlikely that infrastructure damage would exceed 25% based upon asset location and

unlikeliness of an uncontrollable wildfire. This initial assessment assumes a limited

impact upon electric distribution infrastructure of less than 10% (Table 1.18). Further

study will be required to create a model for damage assessments related to wildfire.


19-20 |

Table 1.18 Howard Electric Cooperative Infrastructure Vulnerability Assessment Matrix Hazard: Wildfire


Less than

1% in any

given year

1-10% chance

in any given

year

10- 99%

chance in any

given year

Near 100%

probability in

any given year

Po

ten

tial

Ext

ent

of

Dam

age


to system




system

No members have reported outages during recorded wildfires between 2004 and 2008.

When compared with the total number of members served by HEC, it can be projected

that less than 10% of all members may report outages during any given wildfire event.

Table 1.19 demonstrates the probability of occurrence in conjunction with the potent

extent of impact upon local customers.

Table 1.19 Howard Electric Cooperative Service Interruption Vulnerability Assessment Matrix Hazard: Wildfire


Less than

1% in any

given year

1-10% chance

in any given

year

10- 99%

chance in any

given year

> Near 100%

probability in

any given year

Po

ten

tial

Ext

ent

of

Imp



10-25% of customers

report outages

26-50% of customers

report outages

More than 50% of



| 19-21

B. Non-historical Hazards

Earthquakes

The closest source of earthquake risk in central Missouri is the South Central Illinois

Seismic Zone or the New Madrid Seismic Zone. The seismic areas or located in eastern

and southeastern Missouri respectively. The following excerpts were taken from the

2010 Boone County Hazard Mitigation Plan profiling the threat of earthquake in the

region:

“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. Historical quakes along the New Madrid

Seismic Zone in southeastern Missouri have been some of the largest in U.S. history since

European settlement. The Great New Madrid Earthquake of 1811-1812 was a series of

over 2000 quakes which caused destruction over a very large area. According to

information from Missouri, SEMA’s Earthquake Program, some of the quakes measured

at least 7.6 in magnitude and five of them measured 8.0 or more.

The 1811-1812 quakes changed the course of the Mississippi River. Some of the shocks

were felt as far away as Washington D.C. and Boston.”

According to the USGS, the entire HEC service area would be severely impacted by a 7.6

magnitude earthquake with an epicenter on or near the New Madrid Seismic Zone. Areas

close to the Missouri River may be particularly vulnerable, which includes most of

Howard County. The soil, or alluvium, along river channels is especially vulnerable to

liquefaction from earthquake waves; river alluvium also tends to amplify the waves.

Scientists from the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and the Center for Earthquake

Research and Information (CERI) at the University of Memphis have estimated the

probability of a magnitude 6.0 or greater earthquake from the New Madrid Fault is 25-40

percent through the year 2053. The projected earthquake intensity ratings for the

cooperative region changes based upon the Modified Mercalli Scale. Given a New

Madrid earthquake with a 6.7 magnitude, the region would experience Level VI intensity

characteristics. In the event of an earthquake with a 7.6 magnitude, the region would

experiences Level VII intensity characteristic while an earthquake with an 8.6 magnitude

would most likely cause Level VIII intensity characteristics.

In the event of an earthquake with a 7.6 magnitude, the HEC service area would most

likely experience the following characteristics:

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. (Source: Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale)


19-22 |

Distribution lines overhead and underground could become disconnected or severed, and

transformers could be damaged. According to the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) the

following expectations for earthquakes in the New Madrid Seismic Zone in the next 50

years are as follows:

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)

Though the probability of occurrence is small, the potential extent of damage could

significantly impact both the cooperative and its members as demonstrated in Table 1.20.

Table 1.20 Howard Electric Cooperative Infrastructure Vulnerability Assessment Matrix Hazard: Earthquake


Less than

1% in any

given year

1-10% chance

in any given

year

10- 99%

chance in any

given year

Near 100%

probability in

any given year

Po

ten

tial

Ext

ent

of

Dam

age


to system




system

Based upon information from CERI, FEMA, and SEMA and using the standardized scale

for Missouri REC’s, it may be estimated that up to 20%, or 680 customers, could report

outages related to an earthquake event of 7.6 magnitude. Table 1.21 demonstrates the

probability of occurrence in conjunction with the potent extent of impact upon local

members.

Table 1.21 Howard Electric Cooperative Service Interruption Vulnerability Assessment Matrix Hazard: Earthquake


Less than

1% in any

given year

1-10% chance

in any given

year

10- 99%

chance in any

given year

> Near 100%

probability in

any given year

Po

ten

tial

Ext

ent

of

Imp



10-25% of customers

report outages

26-50% of customers

report outages

More than 50% of



| 19-23

Dam Failure

Dam failures have had no measurable impact upon electric infrastructure in the HEC

service area to date. According to Missouri DNR’s Dam Safety Division, 94 dams

currently exist within the cooperative boundary: 71 in Howard County and 23 in

Randolph County. There are no dams in the Chariton County or Boone County portions

of the service area. Of these dams,

six in Howard County and two in

Randolph County are regulated by

the state due to the fact that they

exceed 35 feet in height. Figure 6

shows the locations of all known

dams located within HEC’s service

area. (Map sources:

www.msdis.missouri.edu;

www.dnr.mo.gov/env/wrc.)

26 dam failures have occurred

within the state of Missouri over the

past 100 years. However, no such

event has occurred within or near

the cooperative’s boundaries.

However, for the purposes of this

assessment, dam failure and its

associated impacts cannot be

eliminated from the realm of

possibility. In order to allow for a

risk assessment, the probability of

this event has been included as less

than 1% as shown in Table 1.22.

Table 1.22 Howard Electric Cooperative Infrastructure Vulnerability Assessment Matrix Hazard: Dam Failure


Less than

1% in any

given year

1-10% chance

in any given

year

10- 99%

chance in any

given year

Near 100%

probability in

any given year

Po

ten

tial

Ext

ent

of

Dam

age


to system




system

Figure 6


19-24 |

Determining the potential extent of dam failure is currently impossible due to a lack of

data concerning inundation zones. Further study concerning existing dams and their

impact is required to make a more comprehensive assessment of potential damages. This

initial assessment assumes a limited impact upon downstream electric distribution

infrastructure of less than 10% for both infrastructure damage and service interruption as

shown in Table 1.23.

Table 1.23 Howard Electric Cooperative Service Interruption Vulnerability Assessment Matrix Hazard: Dam Failure


Less than

1% in any

given year

1-10% chance

in any given

year

10- 99%

chance in any

given year

> Near 100%

probability in

any given year

Po

ten

tial

Ext

ent

of

Imp



10-25% of customers

report outages

26-50% of customers

report outages

More than 50% of



| 19-25

Severe Land subsidence

Severe Land subsidence or

“sinkholes”, as they are known

locally, have had no measurable

impact upon electric infrastructure in

the HEC service area to date.

According to the Missouri

Department of Natural Resources,

12 known sinkholes have been

identified within the cooperative

boundary. Figure 7 shows the

locations of all known sinkholes

located within HEC’s service area.

(Map sources:

www.msdis.missouri.edu;

www.dnr.mo.gov)

Although portions of southern

Missouri have had incidences of

severe land subsidence causing

damage to property, central

Missouri, and specifically the HEC

service area, has had no damage

reported. However, for the purposes

of this assessment, severe land subsidence and its associated impacts cannot be

eliminated from the realm of possibility. In order to allow for a risk assessment, the

probability of this event has been included as less than 1% as shown in Table 1.24.

Table 1.24 Howard Electric Cooperative Infrastructure Vulnerability Assessment Matrix Hazard: Severe Land subsidence


Less than

1% in any

given year

1-10% chance

in any given

year

10- 99%

chance in any

given year

Near 100%

probability in

any given year

Po

ten

tial

Ext

ent

of

Dam

age


to system




system

There were no reported outages in the HEC service area due to severe land subsidence.

Therefore it can be projected that less than 1% of all members may report outages during

any given severe land subsidence event. Table 1.25 demonstrates the probability of

occurrence in conjunction with the potent extent of impact upon local members.

Figure 7

http://www.dnr.mo.gov)/


19-26 |

Table 1.25 Howard Electric Cooperative Service Interruption Vulnerability Assessment Matrix Hazard: Severe Land subsidence


Less than

1% in any

given year

1-10% chance

in any given

year

10- 99%

chance in any

given year

> Near 100%

probability in

any given year

Po

ten

tial

Ext

ent

of

Imp



10-25% of customers

report outages

26-50% of customers

report outages

More than 50% of



| 19-27

Section 6: Mitigation strategies

For organizations like HEC, mitigation is considered to be part of prudent business

operations. In order to ensure the delivery of a quality product and minimize service

interruptions, a number of mitigation strategies are continually utilized. Routine

maintenance and upgrades to existing equipment are completed as part of daily tasks.

Vegetation management is utilized to limit the cascading effects of natural hazards.

Safety and reporting information are disseminated to the public through various types of

media. Mutual aid agreements and partnerships create relationships which provide for

future support in the event of a natural disaster.

Additionally, mitigation is considered prior to any expansion of service into special

hazard areas. Before any service is built, it is first “staked out” in coordination with local

builders and property owners. This process, completed by the Line Superintendent and

contracted engineers, identifies and addresses foreseeable hazards and safety issues

before any new service lines area constructed. USDA-RUS specifications regarding

operation and safety are utilized in every step of the process. Steps are taken to

practically minimize the exposure of equipment to loss due to foreseeable hazards.

Existing and potential resources

As stated above, mitigation is a key component of good business practices. Howard

Electric Cooperative includes mitigation strategies as part of regular work activities to

ensure service with minimal interruptions. Funding for these activities is provided

through the cooperative’s normal budgetary process for maintenance.

In order to expand mitigation efforts beyond normal maintenance, it is likely that HEC

will need to seek outside funding sources. These may include private, state, or federal

programs which provide grant and loan funding. Upon passage of this plan, HEC will be

eligible for funding through FEMA in the following categories:

Hazard Mitigation Grant Program

Flood Mitigation Assistance Program

Pre-Disaster Mitigation Program

406 Stafford Act

Development of goals, objectives, and actions

Establishing mitigation goals, objectives, and actions for a business entity requires a

slightly different approach than public agencies. Certainly, a number of similarities exist;

both entities must consider which hazards most commonly occur and have the greatest

potential for causing disruption to members or residents. They must also consider which

types of actions will maximize benefits and minimize costs, how mitigation strategies

will be implemented, who will enforce implementation, and how the overall plan will be

maintained and updated.


19-28 |

The HEC mitigation planning committee, with assistance from Mid-Mo RPC staff,

worked to identify goals, actions, and objectives which addressed hazard mitigation

issues. The committee first identified ongoing mitigation strategies as well as potential

strategies which seek to improve service and limit disruptions resulting from natural

hazards. Action items were then analyzed for common characteristics and summarized to

create four objectives. Likewise, these four objectives were grouped into similar

categories and used as the basis for the two overarching goals. Table 1.26 provides a

simple synopsis of the goals and objectives before prioritization.

Traditionally, the STAPLEE (Social, Technical, Administrative, Political, Legal,

Environmental, and Economic) method is used to prioritize mitigation actions. These

categories, however, do not necessarily align with the private sector in the same way they

are applicable to governmental agencies. A number of action items could be included

with multiple goals and objectives, for example. As a result, the committee chose to use

a different method to prioritize their mitigation strategy.

Table 1.26 HEC goals and objectives

Identified Goals Identified Objectives

Goal 1: Harden Howard Electric Cooperative’s system so future major events will be less likely to cause disruption.

Objective 1: Harden Howard Electric Cooperative’s system so future major events will be less likely to cause disruption.

Goal 2: Provide excellent service to cooperative members during periods of outages while maintaining a safe work environment for cooperative employees.

Objective 1: Use the latest technology to enhance outage restoration and improve safety for cooperative employees and public.

Objective 2: Provide for continued service to people with medical support needs.

Objective 3: Provide for safety of employees and allow for continued work on the system.

After identifying ongoing and potential action items, the committee created three priority

tiers:

First tier actions focus on physical infrastructure protection and improvements

which ensure continued, quality service and seek to reduce power outages. These

types of actions are the highest priority of HEC.

Second tier actions create and maintain working relationships to reduce and

prevent the impact of power outages. These include improvements to safety and

reporting information, mutual aid agreements, and other efforts which seek to

expand and improve both member service and disaster planning.

Third tier actions identify potential projects for other system improvements.

These include mapping efforts, technological improvements, and research related

to the expansion of mitigation efforts.


| 19-29

Actions within each tier may be funded through regular budgetary methods or identified

outside sources. Tables 1.27, 1.28, and 1.29 provide lists of action items by tier as well

as the goals and objectives identified with each.

Table 1.27 Prioritized Mitigation Actions for Howard Electric Cooperative – Tier 1

Tier 1

Action item: Goal/Objective Timeframe for completion Cost-benefit score

Convert older copper wire to ACSR

(steel-reinforced aluminum). Goal 1 / Objective 1 Ongoing effort

High cost

High benefit

Score: 7

Put in higher class of poles. Goal 1 / Objective 1 Ongoing effort

High cost

High benefit

Score: 7

Space poles closer together. Goal 1 / Objective 1

Ongoing effort; Completed as funding/work plan allows.

High cost

High benefit

Score: 7

Build tie lines to provide for loop feed

service. Goal 1 / Objective 1

Contained in work plan, additional loops dependent on funding.

High cost

Medium benefit

Score: 4

Upgrade conductor size. Goal 1 / Objective 1 Ongoing effort

High cost

High benefit

Score: 7

Convert overhead lines to underground

lines or vice versa in troubled areas

based on vulnerability.

Goal 1 / Objective 1 Dependent upon funding, where need is identified.

High cost

High benefit

Score: 7


Tier 2


Maintain existing mutual aid agreements and partnerships with local agencies and other cooperatives.

Goal 2 / Objective 1 Ongoing effort

Low cost

High benefit

Score: 9


19-30 |


Tier 3


Implement new electronic reclosures. Goal 2 / Objective 1 As needed after a severe event.

High cost

High benefit

Score: 7

Implement IVR (Interactive Voice

Response) system to improve outage

reporting.

Goal 2 / Objective 1 2013-2014 or as funding becomes available.

High cost

Medium benefit

Score: 4

Improve outage management using

GPS and GIS technology. Goal 2 / Objective 1

Only if funding were made available

High cost

High benefit

Score: 7

Increase holding of generators owned

for use in disastrous events. Goal 2 / Objective 2

Only if funding were made available

High cost

Medium benefit

Score: 4

Include a tornado safe room when

rebuilding cooperative offices. Goal 2 / Objective 3

Dependent upon funding. Implementation would only occur after destruction of facility.

High cost

High benefit

Score: 7

Use an earthquake-proof design when

rebuilding cooperative offices. Goal 2 / Objective 3

Dependent upon funding. Implementation would only occur after destruction of facility.

High cost

High benefit

Score: 7

Monitor developments in data availability concerning the impact of dam failure, land subsidence, and wildfire upon the Howard Electric service area through local, state, and federal agencies.

Goal 1 / Objective 1

Goal 2 / Objective 1 Ongoing effort.

Low cost Low benefit Score: 3


| 19-31

Section 7: Plan Implementation and Maintenance

Plan incorporation

The goals, objectives, and actions of the previous section identify both ongoing efforts at

mitigation and potential methods for expanding efforts. The plan has been reviewed and

adopted by the Board of Directors as part of the company’s operations policy. This

mitigation plan necessitates involvement from several HEC employment levels as the

organization strives to ensure quality service to their members.

Other Local Planning Mechanisms

Some internal planning mechanisms do exist at HEC. The Hazard Mitigation Plan can be

considered and/or incorporated into regular budgetary planning, the four-year

construction work plan, and the 20-year long term plan designed by consulting engineers.

The counties of Boone, Chariton, and Randolph each have a FEMA-approved Natural

Hazard Mitigation Plan in place. The Howard County is in the process of being updated

and should be approved by mid-2012 or sooner. County emergency management

directors have Local Emergency Operations Plans which seek to mitigate the same

hazards for residents. HEC’s Hazard Mitigation plan can be easily incorporated into

these local plans and allow for coordination across agencies in the event of an

emergency.

Plan Maintenance

Howard Electric Cooperative will conform to the requirements established by the

Association of Missouri Electric Cooperatives (AMEC) for monitoring, evaluating, and

updating the plan.

Continued Public Involvement Opportunities

Howard Electric Cooperative will conform to the requirements established by the

Association of Missouri Electric Cooperatives (AMEC) for continued public

involvement. Opportunities for public comment will continue to be offered through the

cooperative’s website and the physical office of HEC.


19-32 |

This page intentionally left blank.


| 19-33

Chapter Appendix:

Documentation of Participation

Contents:

19-34 : 19-48 Meeting documentation

19-49 Public Comment letter

19-50 Press Release and Newspaper List


19-34 |


| 19-35

Meeting #1 August 6th, 2011, 8:00 am Howard Electric Cooperative, Fayette, MO

Welcome and Introductions

Overview of the Hazard Mitigation Plan

o Planners from Mid-Mo RPC gave an overview of the upcoming

process, meetings, and public involvement that would occur or be

needed.

Business Structure and Members

o HEC staff provided basic information on the cooperative structure

and services.

Asset Inventory – Data Sheets

o Data inventory sheets were given to HEC staff to collect information

on assets by type and cost.

Hazards and Historic Occurrences

o Mid-Mo RPC planners went through all hazards and HEC staff

decided which hazards impacted that service area and how they

effected the service area

In-kind Match


19-36 |

o HEC staff were reminded of the match requirements and given

reporting forms for hours.

Next Meeting was scheduled.


| 19-37

Association of Missouri Electric Cooperatives

Howard Electric Cooperative Data Collection & Asset Inventory

Critical Assets

Pole Yard 400000

transmitter building5000 / 5000 howard 205 highway 5 north 1

Generator15000 howard 205 highway 5 north 1

radio tower50000 howard 205 highway 5 north 1

$35,573,750.00

$800,000.00

638 218 27.5 900

0 12 0 0 12

Address (location)

Emergency

Replacement Cost per

unit or mile

howard 205 highway 5 north

howard 205 highway 5 north

580000/ pp 275000

230000/ pp 275000

205 highway 5 north

Transmission Lines

(miles)

Vehicles

Generation Facility

Number of units

or miles:

Boone

Number of units

or miles:

Howard

Number of units

or miles:

Randolph

1

1

16.5

Substations

Distribution Lines

(miles)

Office Buildings

Emergency

Replacement Cost County

Number of units

or miles:

Chariton

Owned by Central Electric Power Cooperative

Quantity

Warehouses

Supporting

Infrastructure

Critical Assets


19-38 |

Table of Assets

$350.00351 12470 4215 527Poles

0 0 0 0

2.5

65 2295 775 95

68 2414 816 102

0 0 0

15 510 164 22.5

0 75 36

6

0 0 0 0

0 38 20 1

340

75 2730 925 120

0 26 11 0

$18,000.00

$400.00

N.A.

225 8000 2700

1 145 145

0

N.A.

$150.00

$150.00

$8,500.00

$750.00

Capacitors

Other Special

Equipment

Overhead Assets

Guys/Anchors

Cross-Arms

Single phase Oil-

Circuit Reclosures

Three-phase Oil-

Circuit Reclosures

Transmission Lines

(miles)

Single Phase

distribution line

Three-phase

distribution line

Transformers (each)

Meters

Protective Devices

Emergency

Replacement Cost

per unit or mile

Number of units or

miles:

Boone

Number of units or

miles:

Howard

Number of units or

miles:

Randolph

Number of units or

miles:

Chariton

Regulators

$30,000.00

$72,500.00

$1,000.00

$125.00

Meters

Protective Devices

Number of units or

miles:

Boone

Number of units or

miles:

Howard

Number of units or

miles:

Randolph

Number of units or

miles:

Chariton

Single Phase

distribution line

Three-phase

distribution line

Transformers (each)

1.5

Underground Assets

Emergency

Replacement Cost

per unit or mile

53 18

110 35 10

15

15

80000/mi

$1,300.00

$125.00

2.5

110 35 10


| 19-39

PART 1: POTENTIAL MAGNITUDE. In the chart below, please indicate, in your opinion, the potential magnitude of the next event for each of the nine listed natural hazards. The categories are: Negligible: Less than 10% of Howard Electric Cooperative (HEC) infrastructure will be affected by the next event. Limited: 10% to 25% of HEC infrastructure will be affected by the next event. Critical: 25% to 50% of HEC infrastructure will be affected by the next event. Catastrophic: More than 50% of HEC infrastructure will be affected by the next event.

Tornado ___ Negligible _X_ Limited ___ Critical ___ Catastrophic Severe Thunderstorm* ___ Negligible _X_ Limited ___ Critical ___ Catastrophic Flood and Levee Failure_ X_ Negligible ___ Limited ___ Critical ___ Catastrophic Severe Winter Weather**___ Negligible___ Limited ___ Critical _X_ Catastrophic Wildfire/Brush Fire ___ Negligible _X_ Limited ___ Critical ___ Catastrophic Earthquake ___ Negligible ___ Limited ___ Critical _X_ Catastrophic Dam Failure _X_ Negligible ___ Limited ___ Critical ___ Catastrophic Severe Land subsidence _X_ Negligible ___ Limited ___ Critical ___ Catastrophic * Severe Thunderstorm includes hail and high wind

**Severe Winter Weather includes heavy snow, ice event, extreme cold, and blizzard

PART 2: FREQUENCY OF OCCUENCE. In the chart below, please indicate, in your opinion, the probability of each of the nine natural hazard events occurring in the future, using the following scale: Unlikely: Less than 1% probability of occurrence in next 100 years Possible: Between 1% and 10% probability in the next year, or at least one chance in the next 100 years Likely: Between 10% and 100% probability in the next year, or at least one chance in the next 10 years Highly Likely: Near 100% probability of occurrence in the next year

Tornado ___ Unlikely ___ Possible ___ Likely _X_ Highly Likely

Severe Thunderstorm ___ Unlikely ___ Possible ___ Likely _X_ Highly Likely

Flood and Levee Failure ___ Unlikely _X_ Possible ___ Likely ___ Highly Likely

Severe Winter Weather ___ Unlikely ___ Possible ___ Likely _X_ Highly Likely

Wildfire/Brush Fire ___ Unlikely _X_ Possible ___ Likely ___ Highly Likely Earthquake ___ Unlikely _X_ Possible ___ Likely ___ Highly Likely Dam Failure _X_ Unlikely ___ Possible ___ Likely ___ Highly Likely

Severe Land subsidence _X_ Unlikely ___ Possible ___ Likely ___ Highly Likely


19-40 |

PART 3: SPEED OF ONSET. In the chart below, please indicate, in your opinion, the probable amount of warning time for each of the nine natural hazards. The categories are: - Minimal (or no) warning - 6 to 12 hours warning - 12 to 24 hours warning - More than 24 hours warning

Tornado _X_ Minimal ___ 6-12 Hours ___12-24 Hours ___ More than 24 Hours

Severe Thunderstorm _X_ Minimal ___ 6-12 Hours ___12-24 Hours ___ More than 24 Hours

Flood ___ Minimal _X_ 6-12 Hours ___12-24 Hours ___ More than 24 Hours

Severe Winter Weather ___ Minimal _X_ 6-12 Hours ___12-24 Hours ___ More than 24 Hours

Wildfire/Brush Fire _X_ Minimal ___ 6-12 Hours ___12-24 Hours ___ More than 24 Hours

Earthquake _X_ Minimal ___ 6-12 Hours ___12-24 Hours ___ More than 24 Hours

Dam Failure ___ Minimal _X_ 6-12 Hours ___12-24 Hours ___ More than 24 Hours

Severe Land subsidence _X_ Minimal ___ 6-12 Hours ___12-24 Hours ___ More than 24 Hours

PART 4: HAZARD IMPACTS. In the chart below, mark which negative impacts will likely be caused by each natural hazard (i.e., if a flood is more than 50% likely to disrupt transportation, mark that category). Mark all that apply.

Hazards Impacts

Dam

aged

lines

Dam

aged

pole

s

Dam

aged

me

ters

Dam

aged

Tra

nsfo

rme

rs

Dam

aged

OC

Rs

Dam

aged

Regula

tors

Dam

aged

guys/

anchors

Dam

aged

cro

ss a

rms

Dam

aged

capacitors

Loss o

r In

terr

uptio

n o

f

Serv

ice

Tornado X X X X X X X X X X

Severe Storm

X X X X X X X X X X

Flood X X X X X X X X X X

Severe Winter

X X X X X X X X X X

Wild/Brush Fire

X X X X X X X X X X

Earthquake X X X X X X X X X X

Dam Failure

X X X X X X X X X X

Severe Land subsidence

X X X X X X X X X X


| 19-41


19-42 |

Meeting #2

August 19th

, 2011, 8:00 am

Howard Electric Cooperative, Fayette, MO

Review of Data Collection

Mid-Mo RPC staff collected and reviewed asset information provided by

HEC

Current Mitigation Strategies

Current strategies were reviewed for incorporation into the plan chapter

Establishment of Goals, Objectives, and Actions (See following list)

Goal 1: Harden Howard Electric Cooperative’s system so future major events will be

less likely to cause disruption.

Objective 1: Harden Howard Electric Cooperative’s system so future major events will be


Convert older copper wire to ACSR (steel-reinforced aluminum).

Put in higher class of poles.

Space poles closer together.

Build tie lines to provide for loop feed service.

Upgrade conductor size.

Convert overhead lines to underground lines or vice versa in troubled areas based on

vulnerability.

Goal 2: Provide excellent service to cooperative members during periods of outages

while maintaining a safe work environment for cooperative employees.

Objective 1: Use the latest technology to enhance outage restoration and improve safety

for cooperative employees and public.

Implement new electronic reclosures.

Implement IVR (Interactive Voice Response) system to improve outage reporting.

Improve outage management using GPS and GIS technology.


| 19-43

Maintain existing mutual aid agreements and partnerships with local agencies and

other cooperatives


Increase holding of generators owned for use in disastrous events.


Include a tornado saferoom when rebuilding cooperative offices.

Use an earthquake-proof design when rebuilding cooperative offices.


19-44 |


| 19-45

Meeting #3

September 27th

, 2011

Howard Electric Cooperative, Fayette, MO

Prioritization of Goals, Objectives, and Actions

Methods in prioritizing (See following charts)

Organization of Actions (See following charts)

Plan Implementation and Maintenance

HEC staff agreed to maintain and implement the plan according to AMEC

guidelines.

Goals and Objectives:

Goal 1: Harden Howard Electric Cooperative’s system so future major events will be


Objective 1: Harden Howard Electric Cooperative’s system so future major events will be


Goal 2: Provide excellent service to cooperative members during periods of outages

while maintaining a safe work environment for cooperative employees.

Objective 1: Use the latest technology to enhance outage restoration and improve safety

for cooperative employees and public.



Method of prioritization:

Mitigation goals and objectives were identified by representatives of the electric

cooperative using a simple criterion as the baseline: reducing the impact of power

outages due to natural hazards. Each established goal and objective adheres to this

criterion by addressing the most important aspects of impact reduction: protection of the

service area and infrastructure.

Building from the goals and objectives, three mitigation action groups were identified:

Group A - Ongoing mitigation actions,

Group B - Pre-disaster planning and/or immediate response to natural hazard events

Group C - Potential actions given additional funding.

Group A includes actions which continue regardless of outside funding sources. Pre-

disaster planning and/or immediate response to natural hazard events includes

preventative actions as well as the establishment of working relationships with outside

agencies to reduce the impact of natural hazard events. Group B includes public

education campaigns and mutual aid agreements with outside agencies. Potential actions

given additional funding help to identify areas of growth for the cooperative. Group C


19-46 |

includes infrastructure and other system improvements as well as research into new

technology. The chart below provides the actions selected for each mitigation group.

Howard Electric Cooperative

Mitigation Action Groups

Group A Group B Group C

Ongoing Mitigation Actions Pre-disaster planning and

immediate response Potential Actions

Convert older copper wire to

ACSR (steel-reinforced

aluminum).



aluminum).



aluminum).

Put in higher class of poles. Put in higher class of poles. Put in higher class of poles.

Upgrade conductor size. Space poles closer together. Space poles closer together.

Implement new electronic

reclosures.

Build tie lines to provide for loop

feed service.


feed service.

Implement IVR (Interactive

Voice Response) system to

improve outage reporting.

Upgrade conductor size. Upgrade conductor size.

Maintain existing mutual

aid agreements and partnerships

with local agencies and other

cooperatives

Convert overhead lines to

underground lines or vice versa

in troubled areas based on

vulnerability.




vulnerability.





reclosures.

Improve outage management

using GPS and GIS technology.

Improve outage management


Increase holding of generators

owned for use in disastrous

events.



events.

Include a tornado safe room

when rebuilding cooperative

offices.

Include a tornado safe room


offices.

Use an earthquake-proof design


offices.



offices.

Maintain existing mutual aid

agreements and partnerships with

local agencies and other

cooperatives

The committee used the prioritization process that was created by the Northwest Regional

Council of Governments when writing the FEMA approved draft template which divided

potential actions in all groups into three additional tiers:


| 19-47


Mitigation Priority Tiers

Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3

actions focus on physical

infrastructure protection and

improvements which ensure

continued, quality service and

seek to reduce power outages.

These types of actions are the

highest priority of HEC.

actions create and maintain

working relationships to reduce

and prevent the impact of power

outages. These include

improvements to safety and

reporting information, mutual aid

agreements, and other efforts

which seek to expand and

improve both customer service

and disaster planning.

actions identify potential projects

for other system improvements.

These include mapping efforts,

technological improvements, and

research related to the expansion

of mitigation efforts.



aluminum).

Maintain existing mutual aid

agreements and partnerships with

local agencies and other

cooperatives


reclosures.

Put in higher class of poles.




Space poles closer together. Improve outage management



feed service.



events.

Upgrade conductor size. Include a tornado saferoom when

rebuilding cooperative offices.




vulnerability.



offices.


19-48 |


Mitigation Actions Summary

Action Goal/

Objective Group Tier

Convert older copper wire to ACSR (steel-reinforced aluminum). G1/O1 A,B,C 1

Put in higher class of poles. G1/O1 A,B,C 1

Space poles closer together. G1/O1 B,C 1

Build tie lines to provide for loop feed service. G1/O1 B,C 1

Upgrade conductor size. G1/O1 A,B,C 1

Convert overhead lines to underground lines or vice versa in troubled areas

based on vulnerability. G1/O1 B,C 1

Implement new electronic reclosures. G2/O1 A,C 3

Implement IVR (Interactive Voice Response) system to improve outage

reporting. G2/O1 A,B 3

Improve outage management using GPS and GIS technology. G2/O1 B,C 3

Maintain existing mutual aid agreements and partnerships with local agencies

and other cooperatives G2/O1 A,B 2

Increase holding of generators owned for use in disastrous events. G2/O2 B,C 3

Include a tornado saferoom when rebuilding cooperative offices. G2/O2 B,C 3

Use an earthquake-proof design when rebuilding cooperative offices. G2/O2 B,C 3


| 19-49


19-50 | AMEC Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan

206 E. Broadway PO Box 140

Ashland, Missouri 65010 573-657-9779

Fax: 573-657-2829 www.mmrpc.org

October 21, 2011

«Name»

«mailing_address»

«city_state_zip»

RE: Howard Electric Cooperative Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan

Since 1993, the State of Missouri has received thirty-two Presidential Declarations for d isaster related

assistance. This assistance, as set forth in the Stafford Act, is comprised of three basic programs: 1)

ind ividual assistance; 2) public assistance; and 3) Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HGMP). This letter

pertains to HGMP funding. Effective November 1, 2003, any county in Missouri that is declared a federal

d isaster area must have an approved Hazard Mitigation Plan in place to be eligible for HGMP funding.

Hazard mitigation, as defined by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), is any action taken to

eliminate or reduce the loss of life or property as the result of a disaster event. HMGP funds may be used to fund

projects that will reduce or eliminate the losses from future d isasters as well as provide a long term solution

to a problem. Many types of projects can be funded through the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program

includ ing retrofitting structures and facilities to minimize damage from na tural hazards (i.e. utility pole

upgrades, burying electrical lines, etc.).

County governments have participated in this process since its inception. School d istricts were included as

separate entities beginning in 2008. In 2010, the Association of Missouri Electric Cooperatives elected to

create a statewide plan for all rural electric cooperatives (RECs). As a statewide plan, certain elements have

been standard ized , but each ind ividual REC worked with the local regional planning commission to create

their own mitigation strategies. With their participation, each REC is eligible to apply for HMGP funding

towards potential mitigation projects. The Howard Electric Cooperative has been actively working towards

this goal with the Mid -Missouri Regional Planning Commission since February 2011.

All hazard mitigation planning efforts require public notification and an opportunity for public

involvement. As a local jurisd iction, critical facility, or business entity, Howard Electric Cooperative invites

you to provide comments and input on their portion of the statewide plan. Copies of their local chapter

may be accessed through their website (http:/ / www.howardelectric.com ) or at their Fayette office.

Additionally, a copy may be secured by email request to Katrina Thomas at the Mid -Missouri Regional

Planning Commission ([email protected] ).

Thank you for your consideration in this matter. If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to

contact us d irectly using the information above.

Sincerely,

Katrina Thomas

Regional Planner/ GIS Specialist

Newspaper List:

Fayette Democrat Leader

Boonville Daily News & Record

mailto:[email protected]

Documents

Section 1: Introduction Mitigation/Electric... · 2017-08-24 · Table 1.3 provides information concerning total asset valuation. Table 1.3 Howard Asset Inventory Valuation Summary