Moniteau County Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 - Mid-Missouri Mitigation/Moniteau... · 2017-08-24 · Moniteau County, California, Clarksburg, Jamestown, Tipton, Clarksburg C-II School

Moniteau County

Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017

DRAFT JULY 18, 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

1

Executive Summary The Moniteau County Hazard Mitigation Plan is a multi-jurisdictional plan prepared and written with the participation of Moniteau County government and the following Moniteau County communities, school districts, and special districts: California, Clarksburg, Jamestown, Lupus, Tipton, Clarksburg C-II School District, High Point R-III School District, Jamestown C-I School District, Moniteau Co. R-I School District, Moniteau Co. R-V School District, Tipton R-VI School District, California Fire Department, California Rural Fire Protection District, Jamestown Rural Fire Protection District, Plowboy Bend Levee District, and Overton-Wooldridge Levee District. Representatives of private businesses and community volunteers also assisted in the planning process. Moniteau County, California, Clarksburg, Jamestown, Tipton, Clarksburg C-II School District, High Point R-III School District, Jamestown C-I School District, Moniteau Co. R-I School District, Moniteau Co. R-V School District and Tipton R-VI School District completed the requirements to be considered participating jurisdictions in the plan. The plan profiles twelve natural hazards (Windstorm, Tornado, and Hailstorm, Severe Winter Weather, Extreme Heat, Drought, Wildfire, Flood, Earthquake, Dam Failure, Levee Failure and Land Subsidence/Sinkhole) 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: Mitigate the effects of future natural hazards in the County.

Goal 2: Ensure continued operation of government and emergency functions in a disaster.

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.

Specific mitigation actions have been developed and prioritized to further the goals of the overall mitigation strategy in each participating jurisdiction. The Moniteau Hazard Mitigation Plan will be formally adopted by each of the participating jurisdictions after a final draft is approved by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Participation in, and formal adoption of, the plan qualifies a jurisdiction to apply for 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.

2

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.

3

Section 1: Introduction and Planning Process 1.1 Purpose The Moniteau 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 Moniteau County. Each year natural hazards take a great toll in the United States. Moniteau 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 Moniteau County Hazard Mitigation Plan was developed by the communities and citizens of Moniteau County, their elected officials and public servants. The process was carried out by identifying the natural hazards that impact Moniteau 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 Moniteau County participated in the development of this plan update. 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.

4

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 Moniteau 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. Moniteau 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. A Project Steering Committee was formed to oversee the planning and writing of the original Moniteau County Hazard Mitigation Plan. The plan was approved by FEMA and adopted by the participating jurisdictions in April 2006. Maintenance of Hazard Mitigation Plan 2012-2017 The Moniteau 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), and announcements at meetings of the RPC.

5

The maintenance plan in the original document called for an annual review of the plan by the Moniteau 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. This plan update lays out a clearly defined maintenance process with a timetable for review and concrete tool to be employed in the review. This process is found in Section 5 of the plan. While the annual review of the Hazard Mitigation Plan did not occur, there has been mitigation activity taking place in the Planning Area since the original plan was adopted. In the current update review process (see Section 4.2), the following action in the original plan was identified as completed:

• Create, Revise, and update Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs). (New FIRM maps for the Planning Area became effective on March 3, 2011.)

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

• Encourage development of Storm Water Master Plan. • Update staff knowledge of earthquake safety.

• Review emergency access/evacuation routes and mitigate any problem areas.

• Identify, review, and implement mechanisms to foster collaboration among

jurisdictions, agencies and special districts.

• Remove vegetation and combustible material from critical infrastructure.

• Ensure evacuation routes are adequate with special consideration for schools and nursing homes.

• Develop public education hazard awareness program. • Encourage the County and all incorporated communities to participate in the NFIP. • Continue to enforce flood damage prevention/floodplain management ordinance in

compliance with NFIP requirements. • Evaluate access problems to critical infrastructure. • Encourage back-up power for all critical infrastructure. • Mitigate the effects of flooding on public infrastructure.

6

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

• Promote the use of NOAA radios. • Evaluate and maintain emergency preparedness plans. • Conduct emergency preparedness exercises periodically throughout the year. • Review and update school plans on an annual basis to ensure that they adequately

address all potential threats from natural hazards. • Establish and maintain a system of temporary alternative placement sites (“safe

houses”) for emergency evacuation and shelter of school populations. • Recommend camping facilities and mobile home parks have safe rooms on premises. • Encourage safe driving through public education campaigns. • Provide education materials for outdoor workers, school athletic organizations, and

vulnerable populations on the dangers of excessive heat exposure.

7

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

1. Participation in the planning process through planning meetings 2. Completion of survey re: jurisdiction 3. Development of plan for administration and implementation of mitigation actions specific

to jurisdiction 4. Review of plan draft 5. Formal adoption of plan after approval by FEMA

The participating jurisdictions in the original plan (2006) and those participating to any degree in the updated plans, both 2012 and 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 1.1 (“2017 Participating Jurisdictions”) indicates those jurisdictions which have completed the above requirements and are requesting approval of the plan prior to formal adoption. The term “Planning Area” is used in the plan to indicate the area of the participating jurisdictions as a whole.

8

*This chart will be updated as draft review meetings and final plan adoption meetings are held.

Figu

re 1

.4.1

Juris

dict

ion

Part

icip

atin

g Ju

risdi

ctio

n (2

006)

Gro

up

Mee

tings

Indi

vidu

al

Mee

tings

/ C

onta

ct

Gro

up

Mee

tings

Indi

vidu

al

Mee

tings

/ C

onta

ct

Plan

ning

M

eetin

g(s)

Surv

ey

Com

plet

edRe

view

of

Dra

ftM

itiga

tion

Act

ions

Fo

rmal

A

dopt

ion

Mon

iteau

Cou

nty

xx

xx

xx

xx

xCi

ty o

f Cal

iforn

iax

xx

xx

xx

xx

City

of C

lark

sbur

gx

xx

xx

xx

xx

City

of J

ames

tow

nx

xx

xx

xx

xCi

ty o

f Lup

usx

xx

xCi

ty o

f Tip

ton

xx

xx

xx

xx

xCl

arks

burg

C-2

Sch

ool

Dis

trict

xx

xx

xx

xx

Hig

h Po

int R

-III S

choo

l D

istri

ctx

xx

xx

xx

x

Jam

esto

wn

C-I S

choo

l D

istri

ctx

xx

xx

xx

Mon

iteau

Co.

R-I

Scho

ol

Dis

trict

xx

xx

xx

x

Mon

iteau

Co.

R-V

Sch

ool

Dis

trict

xx

xx

xx

xx

Tipt

on R

-VI S

choo

l D

istri

ctx

xx

x

Calif

orni

a Fi

re D

ept.

xx

xx

xCa

lifor

nia

Rura

l Fire

Pr

otec

tion

Dis

trict

xx

xx

x

Jam

esto

wn

Rura

l Fire

Pr

otec

tion

Dis

trict

xx

xx

x

Plow

boy

Bend

Lev

ee

Dis

trict

xx

Ove

rton-

Woo

ldrid

ge

Leve

e D

istri

ctx

x

Mon

iteau

Cou

nty

Haz

ard

Miti

gatio

n Pl

an P

artic

ipan

ts

Parti

cipa

ting

Juris

dict

ion

Crite

ria M

etUp

date

Pro

cess

(2

011)

Upda

te P

roce

ss

(201

7)

9

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 (Plan Author) as specified by contract with Moniteau County. Sarah Nussbaum, Regional Planner, was the lead planner for the update; Zhengting He, Regional Planner Intern, assisted in the plan update; maps were developed and updated by Blake Acton, Regional Planner/GIS Intern, and by Katrina Thomas, Former Regional Planner/GIS Specialist. Mid-MO RPC planners met and 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 Moniteau 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 Presiding Commissioner Kenneth Kunze and Emergency Management Director Bill Roll contacted county and city officials, school districts, special districts, and private businesses by letter and by phone to initiate the planning process in the County.

10

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.) Each meeting was also announced on the calendar of events on the website of the Mid-MO RPC (Plan Author) at mmrpc.org. The Mid-MO RPC is the regional planning commission for a six 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 Moniteau County. Moniteau County Commissioners assisted in notifying individuals involved in the planning process. 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 the Mid-MO RPC.

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 5/23/2016

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 6/13/2017

General Planning #3

Hazard profiling and mitigation actions for Tornado, Windstorm, Hailstorm, and Severe Winter Weather 6/27/2017

General Planning #4

Hazard profiling and mitigation actions for Drought, Extreme Heat, Wildfire, and Land Subsidence/Sinkholes 7/11/2017

*Meetings have not ceased as the review of the draft is ongoing as of July 2017. This chart will be updated as meetings are held. 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.

11

Planning Participation There was wide-ranging participation in the update of the Moniteau County Hazard Mitigation Plan from throughout the Planning Area; some participating jurisdictions had multiple representatives at planning meetings. These factors contributed to the breadth and depth of information available for planning. The primary planning contacts for each of the jurisdictions participating in the process are shown in Figure 1.5.2. In addition, there were many other staff or departments members who attended a meeting or assisted in the planning process in some way. Figure 1.5.2

Primary Planning Contacts by Jurisdiction Jurisdiction Name Position

Moniteau County

Kenneth Kunze Presiding Commissioner Noland Porter Commissioner Greg Robinson Commissioner Roberta Elliot Moniteau County Clerk William Roll Emergency Management Director

City of California Brian Scrivner City Clerk City of Clarksburg Sue Pratt Coty Council City of Jamestown Dayna Coonse Mayor City of Lupus Dyno Don Penny Mayor City of Tipton Jennifer Schmidt City Clerk

Moniteau Sherrif's Office Tony Wheatley Sherrif Joe Woods Chief Deputy Sherrif

Clarksburg C-II School District Wendy Brock Superintendent High Point R-III School District Stan Elliot Administrator Marilyn Maier Administrator Jamestown C-I School District Ellen Ash Superintendent

Moniteau Co. R-I School District Dwight Sanders Superintendent Tim Beydler

Moniteau Co. R-V School District Tanya Brown Latham School Principal Tipton R-VI School District Scott Jarvis Superintendent

Moniteau County Public Health Department

Darrell Hendrickson Stephanie Stevens Andrea Kincaid

California Fire Dept. Allen Smith Chief

California Fire Protection District Glen Bayne Board of Directors Ken Knipker

Public Water Supply District #2 Carl Borgharett Representative

12

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;


In order to develop a more comprehensive approach to reducing the effects of natural disasters, the planning process shall include: (2) An opportunity for neighboring communities, local and regional agencies involved in hazard mitigation activities, and agencies that have the authority to regulate development, as well as businesses, academia and other private and non-profit interests to be involved in the planning process;

While all planning meetings were posted as public meetings in accordance with Missouri’s Sunshine Law, the Mid-Missouri Regional Planning Commission and Howard County plan to hold two meetings after the initial draft is sent to SEMA in order to obtain adequate public comment. In addition to being posted in accordance with Missouri’s Sunshine Law, planning meetings were announced through the following:

• Press releases to The California Democrat and The Tipton Times

• Direct invitations to Emergency Management Directors in the surrounding counties (Boone, Cole, Cooper, Miller, and Morgan)

• Phone calls and letters sent by the Moniteau County Commission and the Moniteau 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)

In addition to the above, the public was made aware of the hazard mitigation planning process through extensive coverage in The California Democrat. A reporter for the newspaper attended most of the planning meetings and filed reports for the paper. The meeting announcements and related information 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.

13

Summary of Changes to Structure of Plan The decision was made early in the planning process (General Planning Meeting #1) to update each section of the plan. The original plan was written early in FEMA’s decision making cycle regarding requirements for Hazard Mitigation Plans. It contained much information of little relevance to hazard mitigation. This superfluous material was removed from the updated plan. The goal was to produce a plan which is relevant, useful, and readable. The plan was also restructured from its original organization to promote readability and flow. An overview of changes and updates made to the original plan structure is shown in Figure 1.5.3.

Description Pages

(Original Plan)

Revised

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 Moniteau County Hazard Mitigation Plan, Participating Jurisdictions, and The Update Process. Material on Plan Monitoring was moved to a new Section in updated plan (Section 5: Plan Maintenance Process). Section 1 renamed "Introduction and Planning Process" for the update.

7-15 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.

16-33 Yes

Section 3: Risk Assessment Updated all charts and graphs; edited text to reflect new information; changed rating system of each hazard to "Measure of Probability and Severity" using a rating system modeled on the one in the Missouri State Hazard Mitigation Plan 2010; reorganized hazard profiles and made specific changes to each hazard profile to make the plan a more relevant and useful document; reformatted vulnerability assessments to meet current interpretation of FEMA guidelines; removed hazard profile worksheets.

34-115 Yes

Section 4: Capability Assessment Section removed entirely: this information is now in Section 2.

116-127 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".

128-142 Yes

Section 6: Plan Maps Removed all maps; numerous new maps created.

143-151 Yes

Appendix B: Moniteau County's Proposed 5-Year Action Matrix This information is included in Section 4 in the updated plan.

154-159 Yes

Appendix C: Local Resolutions This is Appendix A of the updated plan.

160-171 Yes

Endnotes Endnotes are not used in the update; sources are cited in the text.

172-173 Yes

General Review and Update of Plan by SectionFigure 1.5.3

14

The structure of the updated plan is: Table of Contents List of Acronyms Executive Summary Prerequisites Section 1: Introduction and Planning Process Section 2: Planning Area Profile and Capabilities Section 3: Risk Assessment Section 4: Mitigation Strategy Section 5: Plan Maintenance Process Appendices

Sources Consulted


In order to develop a more comprehensive approach to reducing the effects of natural disasters, the planning process shall include: (3) Review and incorporation, if appropriate, of existing plans, studies, reports, and technical information.

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

• The Missouri State Hazard Mitigation Plan (2013, SEMA) was used primarily for data related to hazard profiles and vulnerability assessments (Section 3).

• The Missouri Hazard Analysis (2010, SEMA) was used for data related to hazard profiles and vulnerability assessments (Section 3).

• The Moniteau County Emergency Operations Plan was consulted for information

on existing capabilities (Section 2) and existing mitigation (Section 3).

• SEMA Situation Reports were used in developing a more complete picture of historical hazard events (Section 3).

• The Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy for the Mid-MO Region

(2009, Mid-MO RPC) was used for background demographic information (Section 2).

• The Long Range Transportation Plan) (Missouri Department of Transportation)

was used for information on transportation (Section 2).

• The Regional Transportation Plan (2009, Mid-MO RPC) was used for information on transportation (Section 2).

15

• The Atlas of Missouri Ecoregions (Missouri Department of Conservation) was directly quoted for the body of information on Geography and Ecology (Section 2).

• The History of Cole, Moniteau, Morgan, Benton, Miller, Maries and Osage

counties, Missouri: from the earliest time to the present, including a department devoted to the preservation of sundry personal, business, professional and the private records; besides a valuable fund of notes, original observations, etc. etc. (1889, The Goodspeed Publishing Co., Chicago) was used for general and natural hazard history information (Section 2).

• The Missouri Drought Plan (2002, Missouri Department of Natural Resources) was

used to develop the drought profile (Section 3.2.2).

• The City of California Comprehensive Stormwater Management Plan (2008, Mid-MO RPC) was used for information on stormwater issues in the City of California (Sections 2.10, 3.2.5).

• The Cultural Resource Analysis of Affected Buildings, Village of Lupus,

Missouri (Lupus Town Board) was used for a general history and a detailed flooding history of Lupus (Sections 2.10, 3.2.5).

• The Village of Lupus Flood Mitigation Assistance Basic Plan (June 1997, Lupus

Town Board) was used for information on flooding and the elevation project in Lupus (Section 3.2.5).

• Moniteau County Missouri History (1980, Moniteau Co. Historical Society) was

used for background information on mining in the Planning Area (Section 3.2.8). • 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).

14

Section 2: Planning Area Profile and Capabilities 2.1 Geography and Ecology Moniteau County is located in central Missouri with an area covering approximately 417 square miles. It is roughly midway between Kansas City to the west and St. Louis to the east. The county is bordered on the north by Cooper County and the Missouri River, which separates it from Boone County. It is bordered on the east by Cole County, on the south by Miller County, and on the southwest and west by Morgan County. Figure 2.1

15

Ozark Highlands The entire county 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 are 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 land in Moniteau County falls into four 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.

16

Figure 2.1.1

17

The following information summarized from the Atlas of Missouri Ecoregions gives brief descriptions of the land types found within the Ozark Highlands subsections in Moniteau County:

Missouri River Alluvial Plain This subsection, consisting of the Missouri River channel and its adjoining alluvial plain, is found along the northeastern 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. Outer Ozark Border 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. Inner Ozark Border This subsection consists of dissected plains and hills with local reliefs averaging 100-150 feet. Historically, the area was largely oak savanna, woodland, and forest with frequent glades and small prairie openings. Currently, the area consists of row crops, pasture, second growth forests, and overgrown glades.

Prairie Ozark Border This subsection is a high, smooth plain with less than 100 feet of local relief. The underlying strata are limestone and dolomite and the area is blanketed with loess. This area is transitional between the wooded hills of the Ozarks and the open plains to the west; historically, it was mostly prairie with trees alongside streams. Currently, the land mainly pasture with some significant tracts of cropland.

The Missouri River The Missouri River's relationship to Moniteau County deserves special attention. It is the defining physical feature in Mid-Missouri and forms the northeastern border of the County. 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

18

historical sites along the river and floodplain are all issues which make the management of the river a sensitive balancing act. In both 1994 and 1995 the Missouri River was listed as one of the “10 Most Endangered Rivers in the Country” by American Rivers, a river conservation group (http://www.americanrivers.org/). This “Most Endangered” list does not reflect 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; issues that are still present in 2017. 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.

19

Current Land Use

Current land use in Moniteau County is shown in Figure 2.1.2.

Figure 2.1.2

20

2.2 Climate Moniteau County, like the rest of the state of Missouri, has variable weather patterns and extremes of temperature. 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 Moniteau County has 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 California weather station in the years 1961-1990. The average temperature data showed that the year-round average high temperature is 67.1 °F, and the average low is 45 °F. The rainfall data showed an average of 38.3” of rainfall per year; average rainfall in this data set is defined as including precipitation of any form.

21

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Average Rainfall in Moniteau County, 1961-1990

inches

Fig. 2.2.2

Source: Source: http://www.worldclimate.com/cgi-bin/data.pl?ref=N38W092+2300+231189C

Average Temperature in Moniteau County °F, 1961-1990

Fig. 2.2.1

Source: http://www.worldclimate.com/cgi-bin/grid.pl?gr=N38W092

22

2.3 History Archaeological findings in Moniteau County indicate a long period of occupation of the land prior to the settlement of white people from Kentucky and Louisiana. The name “Moniteau” itself is a French spelling of the native people’s name for the Great Spirit or Deity. The area was part of the Louisiana Purchase of 1803 and originally part of Howard County, the “Mother of Counties," out of which many central Missouri counties were carved. Settlers from Kentucky and Tennessee began arriving somewhere around 1812-1816. They found the land rich for farming and the weather “reasonable”. Moniteau County was organized as a county in 1845. Plentiful lead and coal deposits brought mining companies and miners in the mid-to-late 1800s. 2.4 Natural Hazard History Moniteau 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. Historical accounts tell of a “cyclone” which “created havoc” north of Clarksburg in April of 1880; the cyclone (tornado) demolished every house in the town of Barnettsville, killed many people and seriously injured thirty others. A relief committee was organized in High Point after the storm. In July of 1881, another windstorm did a lot of damage in Linn Township. A destructive hailstorm in April of 1887 destroyed eighty lights in the Aurora school building, forty in the courthouse, and some in all the public and private buildings. 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 memory is the Flood of 1993 (see Figure 2.4.1). This flood was devastating to much of Missouri and the Midwest; it took a great toll in Moniteau County, especially in the town of Lupus and the unincorporated areas along the river. The flood caused significant residential and commercial damage, agricultural losses, and emergency response expenses, In addition, there was notably over a half million dollar damage to public facilities and over $1 Million damage to transportation systems, according to data from the U.S. Corps of Engineers http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/flood/fl93home.html).

http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/flood/fl93home.html

23

Figure 2.4.1

24

Estimates of the per capita costs of this flood for three sectors in the Mid-Missouri Region are shown in Figure 2.4.2. The devastating flood of 1993 was followed by serious flooding again in 1995. There have only been a few years since that time when an official report of some type of flooding in Moniteau County has not been submitted to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Moniteau County has a high number of low-water crossings making any flood-type condition exponentially more dangerous. Thunderstorms can be expected annually. In most years there are reports of associated Hail someplace in the county and reports of high winds (Windstorms). Less frequently, thunderstorms will spawn Tornadoes in the area but these have done considerable damage in the past. Moniteau County experienced twenty tornadoes between 1955 and 2017 resulting in over $25 Million in property damage (NOAA). Severe Winter Weather can be expected in Moniteau County almost every year. The county was included in Major Disaster Declarations due to severe winter weather in 2007 and 20111. Periods of Extreme Heat, usually in July or August, are fairly common. Drought is an ever present concern and has taken its toll in the County in the past. Missouri saw a drought of historic proportions in 2012 that caused significant agricultural damage across the state. Every county in Missouri was declared to be a disaster area by then Governor Jay Nixon. There are numerous abandoned underground mines in the Planning Area and also sinkholes in the northwestern part of the county. To date, there has not been a problem with Land Subsidence or Sinkholes. Although sinkholes create a unique challenge, or rather inconvenience, for residents in areas with a high number of sinkholes in Moniteau County. 1 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 2.4.2

Source: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

25

2.5 Demographics Some key demographic statistics for Moniteau 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 small change of population slightly above the state average and a poverty somewhat below the state average. While the average commute time to work is only slightly above the state average, it is the highest in the Mid-Missouri Region; more information on this can be found in Section 2.8 (Transportation and Commuting Patterns).

Figure 2.5.1 Selected Demographic Statistics

Moniteau County Missouri Total population 15,801 6,045,448 Estimated population change (2010 to 2015)* 2.3% 1.6% Percentage of population 65 years and older 14.3% 15.0% High school graduate or higher (age 25+) 83.0% 88.4% Bachelor's degree or higher (age 25+) 18.1% 27.1% Median household income in the past 12 months $47,725 $48,173 Percentage of people below the poverty level 13.0% 15.6% Average commute time to work (minutes) 25.2 23.2 Percentage speaking language other than English at home 9.3% 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 Moniteau 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 Moniteau County

Race/Ethnicity % White alone 93.0 Black or African-American alone 3.9 Two or more races 1.6 Asian alone <0.5 American Indian and Alaska Native <0.5 Some other race alone 1.1 White non-Hispanic 89.6 Hispanic 4.5 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2011-2015 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates

26

Population Density

There are five incorporated communities in Moniteau County: California (the county seat), Lupus, Clarksburg, Tipton, and Jamestown. Population densities in the county are shown in Figure 2.5.3.

Figure 2.5.3

27

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 estimated that 13.3% of the county’s population were under the age of 10 and 14.4% were 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 homes and extended care facilities are shown in Figure 2.10.3 (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 Moniteau County were estimated to account for 13.0% of the total population of the county, according to American Community Survey 2011-2015 (see Figure 2.5.1).

0.02.04.06.08.0

10.012.014.016.0

Perc

enta

ge

Age Demographics - Moniteau CountyFigure 2.5.4

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

28

2.6 Education Pre K-12 There are six public school districts with schools in the Planning Area and three school districts from outside the Planning Area which serve students in some of the rural areas (see Figure 2.6.1). All of the districts with schools in the Planning Area are participating jurisdictions in the Moniteau Co. Hazard Mitigation Plan. More information on these districts can be found in Section 2.10 (Participating Jurisdictions – Profiles and Assets).

Figure 2.6.1

29

Students are considered a vulnerable population group 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 floodplains and having safe areas within the school where the students can assemble in the event of a disaster. School buildings can also act as safe rooms and shelters during a natural disaster. As of the 2015-2016 school year, there were approximately 2609 students and 271 staff members in the 14 public and private schools in the Planning Area (see Figures 2.6.2 and 2.6.3). Figure 2.6.2

Moniteau County Pre-K - 12 Schools (2016-2017 School Year) Public Location Schools Students Staff Clarksburg C-2 Clarksburg 1 65 10 High Point R-III High Point 1 81 12 Jamestown C-1 Jamestown 2 220 36 Moniteau Co. R-I California 3 1331 128 Moniteau Co. R-V Latham 1 68 12 Tipton R-VI Tipton 2 637 57

Total 10 2402 255 Private Hazel Dell School Latham 1 28 2 Prairie Union School Latham 1 30 2 South Latham School Latham 1 28 3 St. Andrew School Tipton 1 121 9

Total 4 207 16 Total Public and Private 14 2609 271

Sources: Missouri Department of Elementary & Secondary Education; http://www.privateschoolreview.com/county_private_schools/stateid/MO/county/29135; http://private-schools.startclass.com/l/139687/Prairie-Union-School; https://www.niche.com/k12/south-latham-school-pilot-grove-township-mo/

30

Figure 2.6.3

Moniteau County Pre-K - 12 Schools Public Location Schools Students Staff Clarksburg C-2 Clarksburg 1 65 10 High Point R-III High Point 1 81 12 Jamestown C-1 Jamestown 2 220 36 Moniteau Co. R-I California 3 1369 178 Moniteau Co. R-V Latham 1 68 12 Tipton R-VI Tipton 2 637 57

Total 10 2440 305 Private Hazel Dell School Latham 1 28 2 Prairie Union School Latham 1 30 2 South Latham School Latham 1 28 3 St. Andrew School Tipton 1 121 9

Total 4 207 16 Total Public and Private 14 2647 321

Sources: Missouri Department of Elementary & Secondary Education http://www.privateschoolreview.com/county_private_schools/stateid/MO/county/29135 http://private-schools.startclass.com/l/139687/Prairie-Union-School https://www.niche.com/k12/south-latham-school-pilot-grove-township-mo/

http://private-schools.startclass.com/l/139687/Prairie-Union-School

31

2.7 Employment and Income Moniteau County is within the designated Jefferson City, Missouri Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA), according to the U.S. Census Bureau. Metropolitan statistical areas are geographic entities defined by the U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for use by Federal statistical agencies in collecting, tabulating, and publishing Federal statistics. A metropolitan statistical area consists of a core urban area of 50,000 or larger population, the county or counties containing the core urban area, and adjacent counties which have a high degree of social and economic integration with the urban core (as measured by commuting to work) (U.S. Census Bureau). Jefferson City (Cole County) is the urban core for this metropolitan statistical area which includes Cole, Callaway, Osage, and Moniteau Counties. As the capital of the State of Missouri, Jefferson City has jobs that are often more lucrative than other counties of the MSA. A large number of residents of Moniteau County actually work in Jefferson City/Cole County (see Section 2.8, Transportation and Commuting Patterns.) The sectors of employment for workers in Moniteau County are shown in Figure 2.7.1.

Figure 2.7.1 Employment by Industry - Moniteau County - (Workers Age 16 and over)

Educational services, and health care and social assistance 18.5% Construction 7.8% Manufacturing 12.9% Public administration 13.8% Finance and insurance, and real estate and rental and leasing 4.4% Retail trade 9.0% Agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting, and mining 6.4% Arts, entertainment, and recreation, and accommodation and food services 8.8% Other services, except public administration 5.2% Professional, scientific, and management, and administrative and waste management services 4.8% Transportation and warehousing, and utilities 5.2% Wholesale trade 1.8% Information 1.3% Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2011-2015 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates

32

Major Employers According to the Moniteau County Regional Economic Development Council (MRED), some of the Planning Area’s major employers are:

• Burger's Smokehouse, California - curing and processing of ham, turkey, and other specialty meats for domestic and international markets

• Cargill Honeysuckle White, California - poultry products • Tana Wire Marker, California – production of brightly colored balls which alert aircraft

of electrical wires • Arkansas Valley Feather, California - processing and marketing of feather products • Rackers Manufacturing Inc., California - steel fabrication • AeroSonics, California - heating and air conditioning equipment • Mo-Wood, California - cabinets and other products made from red oak, white oak,

sycamore, and soft maple • California Manufacturing Co, California - coats and jackets

Agriculture Agriculture is a much more important component of the economy in Moniteau County than the number of workers employed in the sector would indicate. There are 235,204 acres in farmland in the county, and the farmland comprises over 88.6% of the land area of the county, according to the 2012 Census of Agriculture from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). Corn, soybeans and hay are the major crops in the county; cattle and poultry are the main livestock. The total market value for all agricultural products (crops and livestock) sold in 2012 was $173,480,000, which increased 41% from 2007. (This large increase could possibly be due to a difference in data reporting or data collection between the reporting or collection periods.) Moniteau County ranks high within Missouri for the value of its agricultural production, most notably for cattle and calves (see Figure 2.7.2).

Figure 2.7.2 Comparative Value of Agricultural Production in Moniteau County, 2012

Crop State Rank

Total # Counties with Production

U.S. Rank

Total # Counties with Production

Market value of all agricultural products sold 13 114 667 3,077 Crops, nursery, greenhouse 68 114 1,830 3,072 Livestock, poultry, and products 5 114 245 3,076 Value of Sales by Commodity Group Grains, oilseeds, dry bean, dry peas 71 114 1,479 2,926 Vegetables, melons, potatoes, sweet potatoes 9 109 971 2,802 Nursery, greenhouse, floriculture, sod 6 107 657 2,678 Other crops and hay 55 113 1,417 3,049 Poultry and eggs 10 113 259 3,013 Cattle and calves 1 114 130 3,056 Milk from cows 22 96 877 2,038

33

Hogs and pigs 30 109 517 2,827 Source: 2012 Census of Agriculture - https://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2012/Online_Resources/County_Profiles/Missouri/cp29135.pdf

Income The median household income in Moniteau County ($47,725) is slightly below the state average ($48,173); a breakdown is shown in Figure 2.7.3.

Figure 2.7.3

Household Income and Benefits - Moniteau County Income # of Households % of Households Less than $10,000 332 6.0 $10,000 - $14,999 293 5.3 $15,000 - $24,999 741 13.4 $25,000 - $34,999 620 11.2 $35,000 - $49,999 918 16.6 $50,000 - $74,999 1145 20.7 $75,000 - $99,999 736 13.3 $100,000 - $149,999 564 10.2 $150,000 - $199,999 127 2.3 $200,000 or more 55 1.0 Median household income $47,725 Mean household income $58,633 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2011-2015 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates

Unemployment Rates The entire Mid-Missouri Region has had lower unemployment rates than the state and nation for most of the recent past. Moniteau County has usually had a slightly higher unemployment rate than the average for the region. Along with the rest of the nation, in the last five years, Moniteau county has gradually recovered from the aftermath of the 2007 recession, and the unemployment rate has been declining every year since 2011. (see Figure 2.7.4).

34

2.8 Transportation and Commuting Patterns Roadways Moniteau 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 arteries for the county, moving most goods and services. The Missouri Department of Transportation (MoDOT) maintains the state and federal roads in the county. Moniteau County Public Works takes care of the remaining roads while the incorporated communities maintain their roads. The busiest roads in Moniteau County are U.S. Highway 50 and State Highway 87/179. These roads serve state traffic in addition to the local populations. As many as 4,900 vehicles travel U.S. Hwy 50 from California to Jefferson City each day; 4,500 vehicles travel from California to Tipton daily. As many as 1,500 vehicles travel north/south on Highway 87/179 daily. Much of the traffic on these roads is attributable to the county’s citizens that work and conduct business in neighboring Cole and Boone Counties. Public Transportation OATS, Inc., a private not-for-profit corporation, is the predominant provider of public transportation in Moniteau 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 Moniteau County, OATS provides monthly service to the City of California and Jefferson City in Cole County. OATS predominantly serves the elderly and disabled, but will serve anyone needing transportation.

Airports

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0Pe

rcen

tage

Moniteau County

Mid-MO Region

State of Missouri

US

Unemployment Rates

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

Figure 2.7.4

35

Moniteau County has two small private airports in California– Lions Emergency Evac Heliport (48MO) and Phillips Fld Airport (MO23), but does not have a public airport. The Jefferson City Municipal Airport is about 30 miles from the City of California, just north of the Missouri River in the Callaway County section of Jefferson City. A wide variety of military, state government, corporate, and general aviation aircraft operate out of the airport but there are no scheduled commercial airline flights. The nearest public airport with commercial service is the Columbia Regional Airport (Boone County), located about 40 miles from the City of California. Airports in St. Louis to the east and Kansas City to the west provide national and international service; both airports are located approximately 140-150 miles from the county seat of California. Railroads Rail Freight Union Pacific Railroad has a large freight presence in Moniteau County. Freight rail is a potential source of human made disaster. Passenger Rail The nearest Amtrak passenger rail connection is at Jefferson City (Cole County), approximately 25 miles from California.

36

Figure 2.8.1

37

Commuting Patterns Moniteau County has a high percentage of workers commuting outside of their place of residence (see Figure 2.8.2) and the highest average commute time in the Mid-MO RPC region (see Figure 2.8.3).

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

Missouri

Morgan

Miller

Howard

Cooper

Cole

Callaway

Boone

Moniteau

Percentage

Worked Outside Place of Residence

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Missouri

Howard

Cooper

Cole

Callaway

Boone

Moniteau

Minutes

Commute Time in Counties of Mid-MO Region


Figure 2.8.2

Figure 2.8.3


38

By far, the majority of commuting trips made outside the County for work are to neighboring Cole County (see Figure 2.8.4) but Moniteau County residents commute to numerous other locations to work.

Figure 2.8.4

Places of Work for Moniteau County Residents Place of Work in Missouri* # of Workers % of Total Workers

Moniteau 3,201 51.2% Cole 2,114 33.8%

Morgan 309 4.9% Boone 234 3.7% Cooper 161 2.6% Pettis 134 2.1% Miller 95 1.5% Total 6,248 100.0%

* Only includes destinations with at least 50 trips Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2009-2013 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates

It should be noted, however, that commuting is not only in an outward direction from Moniteau County; some workers, albeit a much smaller number, commute into Moniteau County for work (see Figure 2.8.5).

Figure 2.8.5

Residence of Moniteau County Workers Residence in Missouri* # of Workers % of Total Workers

Moniteau 3,201 75.9% Cole 336 8.0%

Morgan 318 7.5% Cooper 193 4.6% Miller 62 1.5% Pettis 54 1.3%

Benton 53 1.3% Total 4,217 100.0%

* Only includes residences with at least 50 trips Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2009-2013 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates

39

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 Moniteau County has at its disposal a variety of powers given to it by the State of Missouri relevant to mitigation activities. 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.

40

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

Moniteau County and Incorporated Communities

x = Plan or regulations in place

Mon

iteau

C

ount

y

Cal

iforn

ia

Cla

rksb

urg

Jam

esto

wn

Lupu

s

Tipt

on

Master plan x Emergency Operations Plan x x x x x x Stormwater Plan x Building regulations x Zoning regulations Subdivision regulations Stormwater regulations Floodplain Regulations x x x x x

National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) participation x x x x x

As can be seen in Figure 2.9.1, there are no zoning regulations in the Planning Area. The only building regulations are in California, which are limited, and those contained in floodplain regulations. There is limited public support for such regulations so this is not likely to change in the near future, according to members of the Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee.

41

Emergency Operations Plan

The Moniteau County Emergency Operations Plan (EOP) is a comprehensive document covering all aspects of emergency management in the County. It was written in 1999; various annexes have been updated since that time. The latest is the 2017 version.

Some of the Sections most relevant to the Moniteau County Hazard Mitigation Plan are:

• Appendix 5 – Moniteau County Hazard Analysis • Appendix 5, Attachment A – Earthquake Response • Annex B – Communications and Warnings • Annex C – Emergency Public Information • Annex J – Evacuation • Annex K – In-place Protective Shelter

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. Specific information on NFIP participation is shown in Figure 2.9.2.

Figure 2.9.2 Moniteau County Jurisdictions Participating in NFIP

Jurisdiction Entry into Program Date of Current FIRM Moniteau County 10/17/1986 3/3/2011 California 8/24/1984 3/3/2011 (M) Jamestown 8/24/1984 3/3/2011 (M) Lupus 1/3/1986 3/3/2011 Tipton 3/3/2011 3/3/2011 (M) (M) = No Elevation Determined - All Zone A, C and X Source: https://www.fema.gov/cis/MO.pdf

https://www.fema.gov/cis/MO.pdf

42

Communications and Media The ability to distribute timely and reliable information before and at the time of an emergency is an important hazard mitigation tool. There are well established communications procedures within the Planning Area. Communications and Warning Plan Moniteau County Emergency Dispatch (MCED) has the primary responsibility for communications and warnings throughout Moniteau County and its municipalities. The MCED is located at 104 East North Street in California. It has an emergency generator available and is staffed with two dispatchers on a 24 hours basis. The Moniteau County Emergency Operations Center (EOC) is located in the basement of the California City Fire Department (800 W Buchanan St in California). The EOC has radio equipment that can serve as a backup to the MCED. Another radio backup is also available at the Sheriff’s Office (next door to MCED). California and Tipton each provide limited dispatching for their city services during normal business hours.

The plan for communications and warnings in Moniteau County, as outlined in the Moniteau County Emergency Operations Plan (EOP), is shown in Figure 2.9.3, with further explanation following the diagram.

Figure 2.9.3 Communications and Warning Diagram - Moniteau County

National Weather Service MO State Highway Patrol Troop F, Jefferson City

City of Tipton

Moniteau County Emergency

Dispatch (MCED)

City of California

Notification of

Special Facilities

Activation of City Warning Sirens

Notification of

Special Facilities



Law Enforcement Fire

Departments/Districts Ambulance Service

Other

Agencies Weather Spotters

Source: Adapted from the Moniteau County Emergency Operations Plan (2017), Appendix 1 to Annex B.

43

• Initial Warning Information: Initial warning information is received from the National Warning System

(NAWAS). The Missouri State Warning Point is Troop F Headquarters of the Missouri Highway Patrol in Jefferson City. The Alternate State Warning Point is SEMA. There is a NAWAS terminal located in the MCED. The necessary equipment is available to communicate with city, county, and state departments/agencies.

The MCED also has a MULES terminal. MULES is a law enforcement computer data network used by the Missouri Highway Patrol. In addition to its primary law enforcement focus, it is used to disseminate emergency situations such as severe weather events and road conditions.

• Warning sirens are located in California (3), Tipton (2, including a backup), and Jamestown (1). The sirens in California and the primary siren in Tipton are activated by the MCED. The backup siren in Tipton located at the City Hall is activated by either the City Marshal or a Police Officer. The siren in Jamestown is activated by the Jamestown Rural Fire Protection District. All these sirens are tested periodically. These warning sirens are supplemented throughout the County with mobile public address operations operated by the Sheriff’s Office, municipal police and local fire departments. Warnings are also broadcast over radio and television.

• The MCED initiates and assists with the notification/warning of special facilities such as schools, nursing homes, day care centers, and businesses. The MCED notifies the cities of California and Tipton to contact the special facilities in their communities. MCED also activates pagers to dispatch trained Weather Spotters to monitor severe weather situations.

• Radio equipment, if needed for backup, is available in the EOC or at the Sheriff’s Office,

located next door to the MCED. Amateur radio networks are another backup which can be utilized for communication.

• The Missouri Farm Bureau has a signed agreement with SEMA allowing its satellite communications network system to be used to contact SEMA in the event that all other communication systems have failed. The system is available in their county office located at 100 W. Buchanan St. in California.

• Trained weather spotters (sheriff deputies, sheriff reserves, and volunteer firemen) are available to send to the following predetermined locations to monitor the weather: Latham (southwest of California); Clarksburg; north of Clarksburg at the Moniteau County line. The MCED also coordinates with the City of Tipton which has trained weather spotters monitoring that area.

• The Moniteau County Health Department communicates with the emergency dispatch services, radio stations, and others needing to know in the case of heat advisories. The

44

Health Department also uses social media to post information about disasters and warn citizens of disaster events such as heat advisories.

• With the expectation that most individuals in Moniteau County have texting abilities, there is a heavy reliance on text alerts from local television stations in the case of severe weather or winter weather related closings or alerts. This expectation extends to social media usage and information is posted by agencies regarding disaster information.

45

Local Media Outlets Local media outlets are linked with the government agencies monitoring potential hazards/emergencies through the nationwide Emergency Alert System (EAS). The EAS is jointly coordinated by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), FEMA, and the National Weather Service (NWS). The Planning Area is located in the Jefferson City EAS Operational Area. Local media outlets can also provide avenues for educating the public about emergency preparedness and the need for certain mitigation actions. The texting weather alert services provided by some of these media services are one of the primary source of severe weather warnings in areas without access to a tornado siren. The media points of contact for Moniteau County are shown in Figure 2.9.4.

Figure 2.9.4 Media Points of Contact

Radio Stations Frequency Location KTXY 106.9 FM* Jefferson City (Cole County) KWOS 950 AM** Jefferson City (Cole County) KATY 94.3 FM** Jefferson City (Cole County) KLIK 1240 AM Jefferson City (Cole County) KREL 1420 AM California (Moniteau 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) KNLJ 25 Jefferson City (Cole County) Cable Service Charter Communications, Inc. Newspapers California Democrat California (Moniteau County) Tipton Times Tipton (Moniteau County) Jefferson City News-Tribune Jefferson City (Cole County) * LP1 - Primary EAS broadcast station ** LP2 - Secondary EAS broadcast station Sources: Moniteau County EOP; MO State EAS Plan (2017)

The Moniteau County EOP includes sample news releases in Appendix 6 to Annex C. The following samples are included:

• Sample Radio/TV Message – Evacuation Ordered – Flooding • Sample Radio Message – No Information Available – Earthquake • Summary Statement for Media – Hazardous Materials Incident

46

NOAA Weather Radio The Planning Area is also covered by NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) Weather Radio transmissions from a tower site and transmitter in Jamestown (see Figure 2.9.5). NOAA Weather Radio is a service of the National Weather Service (NWS). 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

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

47

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 six fire protection districts/departments located in the Planning Area which respond to fires, accidents, and other emergencies within the Planning Area (see Figures 2.9.6-2.9.7). The districts/departments are also responsible for search and rescue operations and first aid. Figure 2.9.6

48

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

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

Figure 2.9.7 Moniteau County Fire Protection Districts/Departments

Name Type # Fire Stations

Firefighters Other

Employees Other

Volunteers Career Volunteer Paid-per-Call ($)

California Fire Department

Mostly volunteer 1 1 0 24 0 0

California Rural Fire Protection District Volunteer 4 0 35 0 0 2

Fortuna Fire Protection District Volunteer 3 0 28 0 0 0

Jamestown Rural Fire Protection District Volunteer 2 0 33 0 0 1

Tipton Fire Department* Volunteer 1 0 24 0 0 0 Tipton Rural Fire Protection District* * Tipton FD and Tipton RFPD share a building and have the same volunteers; they each have their own equipment and their own Board. Sources: Moniteau Co. EMD; http://dfs.dps.mo.gov/documents/forms/MO_815-F0072.pdf; http://www.firedepartment.net/directory/missouri/moniteau-county

The following fire districts/departments from outside the Planning Area respond to fires in small geographic areas within the Planning Area:

• Moreau Fire Protection District, which mostly serves areas within Miller and Morgan Counties, has a fire station in Moniteau County at High Point (an unincorporated area).

• Regional West Fire Protection District serves a small area north and east of McGirk in Moniteau County.

• Russellville Fire Department, located in neighboring Cole County, serves a small area of southeast Moniteau County

Ambulance District Mid-MO Ambulance District provides ambulance service for the entire Planning Area.

http://dfs.dps.mo.gov/documents/forms/MO_815-F0072.pdf

49

Public Water Supply Districts There are two Public Water Supply Districts (PWSDs) in the Planning Area (see Figure 2.9.8). The Water Districts are responsible for distributing water in areas not served by a municipality or private water provider. Each water district is composed of an elected board. The districts are responsible for developing new water supply infrastructure and maintaining existing infrastructure.

• Moniteau Co. PWSD #1 serves the unincorporated area of Fortuna. • Moniteau Co. PWSD #2 serves an unincorporated part of the county near the City of

California. PWSD #2 now has its own well, and it’s in the process of constructing the second well for backup. The City of California also has a backup system for the Water District #2.

Figure 2.9.8

Source: Moniteau County Emergency Operations Plan (2017)

50

In addition to the PWSDs, the private company Hickory Hills Water & Sewer serves Latham, an unincorporated area west of the City of California, and each of the incorporated cities in the Planning Area has its own wells to provide water.

Interconnection of water supplies is an important mitigation technique to ensure adequate supply should damage to infrastructure or contamination occur during a natural hazard event. In addition, interconnection can be helpful in times of drought and fire. Currently there are no interconnections between the water suppliers in the Planning Area which would provide this type of backup in emergencies.

Road and Bridge Districts The Moniteau County Commission manages 502 miles of roads in two Road and Bridge Districts in the county (see Figure 2.9.9). Figure 2.9.9


51

Non-Governmental and Volunteer Organizations There are established relationships within the Planning Area between the Emergency Management Agency and the California Ministerial Alliances. A number of churches and schools have established Red Cross shelters on their premises (see Figure 2.9.10). The Capital Area Chapter American Red Cross and the Salvation Army, both located in Jefferson City (neighboring Cole County) are available to assist with natural hazards in the Planning Area.

Figure 2.9.10 Red Cross Certified Shelters in Moniteau County

Location Shelter Name Shelter Address Capacity California High Point Baptist Church 40314 Church Road - California Main Street Baptist Church 303 West Main 224 California First Baptist Church 208 S. Oak St. 500 High Point High Point R-III School 60909 Highway C - Latham Latham Christian Church Hwy E - Latham Moniteau County RV School 156 School St. - Tipton Tipton United Methodist Church 204 E. Hwy 50 - Source: Mass Care Coordinator, Region F Regional Homeland Security Oversight Committee (RHSOC)

Community and Regional Partnerships The Moniteau 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 and law enforcement jurisdictions. Moniteau 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 Citizens in the Planning Area have seen firsthand the effects of natural hazards. They are well aware of the impacts events such as floods, tornados, and ice storms can have on a community. Thanks to this high degree of awareness, it is expected that the current and future political climates are favorable for supporting and advancing the following suggested mitigation strategies in Moniteau County and among local governments.

52

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 Moniteau 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

Moniteau Co. Missouri Population 15,801 6,045,448 Persons under 5 years old 6.3% 6.2% Persons under 18 years old 25.0% 23.2% Persons between 18 and 65 years old 60.7% 61.8% Persons 65 years old and over 14.3% 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 2.10.2-2.10.4). 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.

53

Figure 2.10.2

54

Some critical facilities, such as hospitals and care centers, house vulnerable populations. There are not any hospitals in the Planning Area, but there are a number of care centers. The Moniteau County Emergency Operations Plan clearly outlines procedures to ensure that these facilities are warned of impending hazard events in a timely manner. Both Moniteau Care Center and California Care Center in California are equipped with their own backup generators in case of power failure. Figure 2.10.3

55

Critical Water Supply and Water Storage Facilities

Figure 2.10.4 Public Water Supply

District # of Wells

# of Tanks Area Served Population

Served Moniteau Co. PWDS #1 - - Fortuna (unincorp.) 170

Moniteau Co. PWDS #2 1* 1 California area (unincorp.) 1,325

City of California 5 2 California 4,005 City of Clarksburg 2 1 Clarksburg 350 City of Jamestown 2 1 Jamestown 382 City of Tipton 4 2 Tipton 3,307 Hickory Hills Water & Sewer - - Latham (unincorp.) 125 * Another one is in construction that shares the same tank. Source: Public Water Supply Districts and City Personnel; http://projects.nytimes.com/toxic-waters/contaminants/mo/moniteau

The City of Lupus has a system of 6 shared wells set up by private arrangement and owned in common; the well arrangement is written into property abstracts. The water quality in each well was tested before an elevation project in the 1990’s and found to be excellent.

56

Moniteau County

Figure 2.10.5 Moniteau County Profile

Classification Third class Population 15,801 Median household income $47,725 Median owner-occupied housing value $116,500 Total housing units 6,144 Median gross rent $533

Water service Moniteau Co. PWSD #1 and #2, Hickory Hills Water & Sewer

Electric service Co-Mo Electric Cooperative, Ameren Missouri, Three Rivers Electric Cooperative

Ambulance service Mid-MO Ambulance District Sewer service Property owners

Fire service California RFPD, Fortuna FPD, Jamestown RFPD, Tipton RFPD, Moreau FPD, Regional West FPD, Russellville FD

Website No Master Plan No Emergency Operations Plan Yes Stormwater Plan No Building regulations No Zoning regulations No Subdivision regulations No Stormwater regulations No NFIP participation Yes Floodplain regulations Yes Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2011- 2015 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates; local officials

Governmental Structure Moniteau County is governed by an elected three-member Board of Commissioners composed of a Presiding Commissioner, a Northern (District 1) Commissioner, and a Southern (District 2) Commissioner. The Commission carries out the following responsibilities:

• establishes Moniteau 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

57

Moniteau County has the following departments and offices:

• Assessor • Auditor • Collector • County Clerk • Emergency Management • Prosecuting Attorney • Public Administrator • Recorder • Roads and Bridges Department • Sheriff • Treasurer

The following offices and departments play especially important roles in hazard mitigation: Emergency Management The Emergency Management Director (EMD) is responsible for all aspects of emergency management in the Planning Area, including mitigation. The EMD is responsible for the Emergency Operations Plan for Moniteau County which covers many areas relevant to mitigation (see Section 2.9 Planning Area Capabilities.) Sheriff The Sheriff’s Office has trained weather spotters for monitoring potentially dangerous weather conditions. The Sheriff’s Office also assists with public warning of dangerous situations using mobile public address operations; backup radio equipment at the Sheriff’s Office can be made available to the Emergency Operations Center (EOC), if needed.

Agriculture

Figure 2.10.6 shows value estimates for agricultural land in Moniteau County and estimates of crop and livestock production. Since 87.7% of the land area of Moniteau County is farmland, the impact of agricultural losses due to a natural hazard could be a potential threat to the economic stability of the region.

Figure 2.10.6 Moniteau County Agricultural Overview

Land in Farms

235,204 acres (87.7% of land in Moniteau County)

Number of Farms 1,089 Average Size of Farm 216 acres Total Market Value of Products Sold $173,480,000 Crop Sales $16,298,000 Livestock Sales $157,181,000 Average Per Farm $159,302 Source: 2012 Census of Agriculture - https://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2012/Online_Resources/County_Profiles/Missouri/cp29135.pdf

58

Public Land The MO Department of Conservation owns and manages land in five areas in unincorporated Moniteau County (see Figure 2.10.7).

Figure 2.10.7 Public Land in Moniteau County (unincorporated)

Area Name Responsible Agency Acres Manito Lake Conservation Area MO Dept. of Conservation 871* Marion Bottoms Conservation Area MO Dept. of Conservation 2997*** Plowboy Bend Conservation Area MO Dept. of Conservation 2617*** Prairie Home Conservation Area MO Dept. of Conservation 1461*** Roger V. and Viola Wachal Smith Conservation Area MO Dept. of Conservation 517**

* includes area in Morgan County; ** includes area in Cole County; *** includes area in Cooper County

Source: MO Dept. of Conservation website (http://mdc.mo.gov/)

Historic Places

Figure 2.10.8

Moniteau County National Register of Historic Places Historic Place Location

Louis Bruce Farmstead Historic District Russellville Finke Opera House California Geiger Archeological Site Sandy Hook Gray-Wood Buildings California High Point Historic District High Point Maclay Mansion Tipton Moniteau County Courthouse Square California Old Barnhill Building California Old California City Hall and Fire Station California Source: https://dnr.mo.gov/shpo/moniteau.htm

59

Figure 2.10.9

Property Count and Valuation - Moniteau County (unincorporated)

HAZUS Building Count Building Type # Residential 3480 Commercial 96 Industrial 49 Agricultural 84 Religious 10 Governmental 3 Educational 4 Source: HAZUS MH

2010 Assessed Values - Moniteau County

Real Estate Personal Property Residential $42,662,350

Commercial $18,545,847 Agricultural $9,854,620

Total $71,062,817 $29,155,781 Source: Moniteau County Assessor's Office

County Owned Property

Property Number Replacement Cost Buildings 8 - Road Equipment 15 - Other Vehicles - - Total $4,813,599 Sources: County Clerk

Development Trends Moniteau County and its jurisdictions experienced approximately 2.3% population growth between 2010 and 2015, according to the U.S. Census. The data indicates that approximately two-thirds of this growth occurred in the unincorporated, rural areas of Moniteau County (Esri 2012 Updated Demographics). There are no major development or building projects being considered in the unincorporated area of Moniteau County at the present time. The main economic development issue facing the County is retention of businesses.

60

California

Figure 2.10.10 California Profile

Classification City Fourth class Population 4,351 Median household income $37,083 Median owner-occupied housing value $98,500 Total housing units 1,977 Median gross rent $544 Water service City of California Electric service City of California Ambulance service Mid-MO Ambulance District Sewer service City of California Fire service California Fire Department Website http://cityofcalifornia.net Master Plan No Emergency Operations Plan Yes Stormwater Plan Yes Building regulations Yes - minimal Zoning regulations No Subdivision regulations No Stormwater regulations No NFIP participation Yes Floodplain regulations Yes Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2011-2015 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates; local officials

The City of California is governed by a Mayor and Board of Aldermen. The city has a City Clerk and a total staff of 35-40. The Board of Public Works (Water, Sewer, Electric, Sanitation), the Street Department and the Parks Department make up the public works services in the city. Water for the city is provided by five deep wells; the city has two storage tanks. Currently, there is no backup power at the wells. The city also sells water to PWSD #2 which supplies water to some of the surrounding unincorporated area. There are 3 warning sirens located in California; these are activated by the MCED and are tested monthly.

The main economic development issue facing the City of California is job opportunities.

Public Land The City of California owns and maintains Proctor Lake Park in the southern part of the City. This 7-8 acre reservoir, which drains 315 acres, is contained by a 20 foot high dam. The dam has

61

a federal classification of low hazard and state classification of 3. (For more information on dam classification, see Section 3.2.1 Dam Failure.)

The lake is populated with bass, sunfish, and catfish and provided with a dock. The City also maintains sand volleyball court, tennis courts, playground, walking trail, disc golf course, picnic tables, pavilions, and restrooms at the park.

Development Plans 2017 Update Annexation The City of California is currently annexed parcels south and west of the city; increasing the size of the city by 256 acres or 12% of its size in 2012. Future annexation to the south could incorporate land in the 100-year floodplain along some branches/creeks. California is a member of the NFIP and development in the 100-year floodplain would be regulated by the city’s floodplain ordinance. Water System The City completed a water system improvement plan in 2016. The project cost $3.3 million and was funded by the MoDNR Drinking Water State Revolving Fund Loan. The project would constructed a new 1 million gallon storage tank with SCADA (Supervisory Control And Data Acquisition), made modifications to an existing 1 million gallon storage tank, upgrade existing well houses to include chlorination and SCADA, and installed a portable generator at one of the wells. Stormwater System A project to construct a storm water system (as opposed to the existing ditches) in a 3-4 block was completed Fall 2012. This was an area experiencing storm water problems; the area includes the Finke Theater, which is on the National Register of Historic Places (see Figure 2.10.12). The project was funded through the city and CDBG (Community Development Block Grant) funds. The City of California would like to address more of their storm water issues, but funding continues to be an issue. An action regarding this mitigation activity (Action 3.1.1) is included in the mitigation strategy for the City of California in Section 4.4.2.

Electric System

The City of California’s electric system has five substations, four of which are on the same feeder circuit (the “high line”). If there is a problem somewhere in that part of the system, all four substations must be shut down for the repairs. This has occurred in the past and is of significant concern to the city.

Electricity transmitted through the high line substations powers a large part of the city including all city wells and the Cargill feed mill, hatchery and processing plant. The city would like to construct a loop feed to mitigate the potential disaster from a major electric shutdown; the proposed project has been estimated to cost $863,632. This is unaffordable for the city, but they would consider taking up the project again if funds became available. It will continue to be a need. A mitigation action (Action 2.1.4) regarding this potential mitigation project is included in the mitigation strategy in Section 4.4.2.

62

Figure 2.10.11

Property Count and Valuation - California


2010 Assessed Values - California


Commercial $9,170,796 Agricultural $198,780

Total $33,820,196 $12,610,892 Source: Moniteau County Assessor's Office (2010 Valuations)

City Owned Property

Property Number Replacement Cost Buildings 42 $7,305,094 Vehicles 47 $1,894,563 Total $9,199,657

(See Appendix D for a detailed listing of city owned buildings)

Sources: City Clerk; City of California Insurance Statement

Figure 2.10.12 National Register of Historic Places - California

Finke Opera House Gray-Wood Buildings Moniteau County Courthouse Square Old Barnhill Building Old California City Hall and Fire Station Source: https://dnr.mo.gov/shpo/moniteau.htm

63

Clarksburg

Figure 2.10.13 Clarksburg Profile

Classification City Fourth class Population 256 Median household income $31,875 Median owner-occupied housing value $48,000 Total housing units 147 Median gross rent $583 Water service City of Clarksburg Electric service Ameren Missouri Ambulance service Mid-MO Ambulance District Sewer service City of Clarksburg Fire service California Rural Fire Protection District Website No Master Plan No Emergency Operations Plan Yes Stormwater Plan No Building regulations No Zoning regulations No Subdivision regulations No Stormwater regulations No NFIP participation No Floodplain regulations No Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2011-2015 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates; local officials

The City of Clarksburg is governed by a Mayor and Board of Aldermen. The City employs a part time City Clerk, Treasurer, Collector and Court Clerk; an attorney is on retainer. Moniteau County associate circuit court hears cases of Clarksburg in California, MO, and Moniteau County Sheriff Department provides security service in Clarksburg. Future Development Plans The City of Clarksburg needs assistance with funding to obtain a tornado warning system to address the issue of no storm shelter inside the city. Currently there are approximately 35 mobile homes with residents and there is no backup generator for water and sewer.

64

Figure 2.10.14

Property Count and Valuation - Clarksburg


2010 Assessed Values - Clarksburg

Real Estate Personal Property Residential $690,340

Commercial $441,091 Agricultural $12,000

Total $1,143,431 $477,457 Source: Moniteau County Assessor's Office

City Owned Property

Property Number Replacement Cost City Hall* $75,000 Public Works building* 3 $200,000 Water lift pumps 3 $240,000 Total Buildings/Equipment $515,000 Vehicles 1 $5,000 Total $520,000 * Replacement cost includes personal property Sources: City Clerk; City of Clarksburg Insurance Statement

65

Jamestown

Figure 2.10.15 Jamestown Profile

Classification City Fourth class Population 351 Median household income $38,438 Median owner-occupied housing value $92,000 Total housing units 177 Median gross rent $575 Water service City of Jamestown Electric service Ameren Missouri Ambulance service Mid-MO Ambulance District Sewer service City of Jamestown Fire service Jamestown Fire Protection District Website Currently in development (2011) Master Plan No Emergency Operations Plan Yes Stormwater Plan No Building regulations No Zoning regulations No Subdivision regulations No Stormwater regulations No NFIP participation Yes Floodplain regulations Yes Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2011-2015 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates; local officials

The City of Jamestown is governed by a Mayor and City Council.

Future Development Plans

The main economic development issue facing Jamestown is the distance from major highways and railways. It is expected that the upgrade of the wastewater treatment system with additional lines will help bring small businesses to the city.

In 2014, Jamestown was given a loan from the USDA Water and Waste Disposal Program so the city could build a new wastewater treatment plant. The new facility will consist of a “mechanically cleaned screen, two biological treatment basins, a secondary clarifier, effluent flow measurements, ultraviolent disinfection, two aerobic digesters and blowers required for biological and aerobic digestion processes” (California Democrat. 30 April 2014. http://www.californiademocrat.com/news/story/story/2014/Apr/30/funding-announced-jamestown-wastewater-treatment-f/555185/) .

66

Figure 2.10.16 Property Count and Valuation - Jamestown


2010 Assessed Values - Jamestown



Total $2,359,866 $713,272 Source: Moniteau County Assessor's Office

City Owned Property

Property Insured Value Buildings

City Hall/Well #1 $210,258 Wellhouse/Well #2 $49,000 Water tower $318,000 Lift stations (2) $51,000

Vehicles and Equipment Police car $12,000-$14,000* Sewage jet machine $26,495

Total $666,753+ * Estimate of current value Sources: Mayor; City of Jamestown Insurance Statement

67

Lupus

Figure 2.10.17 Lupus Profile

Classification City Fourth class Population 30 Median household income $37,500 Median owner-occupied housing value $63,300 Total housing units 22 Median gross rent NA Water service City of Lupus Electric service Co-Mo Electric Cooperative Ambulance service Mid-MO Ambulance District Sewer service Private septic Fire service Moniteau County Fire Protection District Website No Master plan No Emergency Operations Plan Yes Stormwater Plan No Building regulations No Zoning regulations No Subdivision regulations No Stormwater regulations No NFIP participation Yes Floodplain regulations Yes Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2011-2015 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates; local officials

Development Trends Lupus is a very small town without any businesses. There is not currently any development taking place nor any foreseeable development in the future.

68

Figure 2.10.18

Property Count and Valuation - Lupus


2010 Assessed Values - Lupus

Real Estate Personal Property Residential $101,060


Total $193,544 $71,545 Source: Moniteau County Assessor's Office

City Owned Property

Property Number Replacement Cost Buildings 1 $30,000 City Hall Vehicles 0 Total $30,000 Sources: Mayor of Lupus

The one building owned by the City of Lupus is the Town Hall which is cinderblock construction on a concrete pad. Though not shown in the HAZUS data, there is one church in Lupus.

69

Tipton

Figure 2.10.19 Tipton Profile

Classification City Fourth class Population 3,303 Median household income $47,981 Median owner-occupied housing value $87,300 Total housing units 1021 Median gross rent $479 Water service City of Tipton Electric service Ameren UE Ambulance service Mid-MO Ambulance District Sewer service City of Tipton Fire service Tipton Fire Department Website www.tiptonmo.com 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 Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2011-2015 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates; local officials

There are 2 warning sirens located in Tipton. The back-up siren is located at City Hall and is activated by the City Marshal or a Police Officer; it is tested daily. The other is located at the Fire Station and is activated by Moniteau County Emergency Dispatch (MCED); it is tested monthly.

The Public Works Department oversees the water and sewer systems and the streets. The waste water treatment plant has a generator for backup power.

Public Land The City of Tipton owns and maintains Tipton Park Lake in the southern part of the city. This 6 acre reservoir is on the site of an old lagoon and is not very deep. The lake is populated with bass, sunfish, and catfish. The City also maintains a paved walking trail, restrooms, pavilions, playground, basketball court, horseshoe pits, baseball field, parking lots, barbecue pits and picnic tables.

70

Figure 2.10.20

Property Count and Valuation - Tipton


2010 Assessed Values - Tipton


Commercial $5,358,602 Agricultural $49,180

Total $17,823,462 $5,298,209 Source: Moniteau County Assessor's Office

City Owned Property

Property Number Replacement Cost Buildings 49 $7,383,231 Vehicles and Heavy Equipment 45 $824,163 Total $8,207,394

(See Appendix D for a detailed listing of Tipton Property and Values)

Sources: City Clerk; Tipton Insurance Statement

Historic Places in Tipton

Figure 2.10.21 National Register of Historic Places - Tipton

Maclay Mansion Source: https://dnr.mo.gov/shpo/moniteau.htm

71

Development Trends The city is considering expanding the Park and Recreation Department. There has been discussion regarding building a swimming pool and recreation center. The MO Department of Transportation (MoDOT) has considered an expansion of U.S. Highway 50 (which runs directly through Tipton) from a 2-lane to 4-lane road between California to the east and Sedalia to the west. This potential project has been put on hold indefinitely due to economic conditions. Should this project be revived, the City of Tipton would probably annex more land to the south of the current city limits. Faster commute times would be likely to bring more residents to the city. Annexation to the south city limits is currently being discussed. Tipton plans on building another water tower to keep up with demand. Improvements to the waste water treatment plant are being discussed and include installing a sludge basin and peak flow detention basin. The main economic development issue facing the City of Tipton is the lack of retail businesses.

72

School Districts The following six public school districts are located in the Planning Area: Clarksburg C-2, High Point R-III, Jamestown C-1, Moniteau Co. R-I, Moniteau Co. R-V, and Tipton R-VI. Each district has an elected Superintendent and School Board along with several administrative staff. During the 2016-2017 school year, the combined school districts educated approximately 2402 students in ten schools with a total staff of 255. Clarksburg C-II School District

Clarksburg C-II School District has one school in the City of Clarksburg: Clarksburg Elementary (KG-8). The district served a student population of 65 students in the 2016-2017 school year with a total district staff of 11. Property values are shown in Figure 2.10.22.

Figure 2.10.22 Clarksburg C-II School District Property Valuation

Building Count 1 Replacement Value - Buildings and Contents $2,868,504 Vehicle Count 0 Insured Value NA Source: School District personnel, Insurance Statement


The school district would like to build a tornado saferoom if funding would become available.

73

High Point R-III School District

High Point R-III School District has one school in the unincorporated town of High Point in Moniteau County: High Point Elementary (KG-8). The district served a student population of 81 in the 2016-2017 school year with a total district staff of 12. Property values are shown in Figure 2.10.23.

Figure 2.10.23 High Point R-III School District Property Valuation

Building Count 3 Replacement Value - Buildings and Contents $2,984,734 Vehicle Count 3 Insured Value $30,000 Source: School District personnel, Insurance Statement

Future Development Plans There are currently plans to put a new roof on the school. If funding could be secured for a tornado safe room, this would be of interest to the school district.

74

Jamestown C-I School District

Jamestown C-I School District has two schools in the City of Jamestown: Jamestown Elementary School (PK-6) and Jamestown High School (7-12).

During the 2016-2017 school year, the district served a student population of 220 with a total staff of 37.

Property values are shown in Figure 2.10.24.

Figure 2.10.24 Jamestown C-I School District Property Valuation

Building Count 1 Replacement Value - Buildings and Contents $7,617,332 Vehicle Count 5 Source: School District personnel, Insurance Statement

Future Development Plans The installation of an elevator, making all levels of the building ADA accessible, is projected to be completed by November 2017. A new set of stairs leading to the basement level classrooms will be constructed by November 2017 and increases the means of egress.

The school district is interested in building a tornado safe room if funds were to become available.

75

Moniteau Co. R-I School District

Moniteau Co. R-I School District has three schools in the City of California: California Elementary School (PK-5), California Middle School (6-8), and California High School (9-12). During the 2016-2017 school year, the district served 1,369 students with a total district staff of 178. Property values are shown in Figure 2.10.25.

Figure 2.10.25 Moniteau Co. R-I School District Property Valuation


Future Development Plans In the next few years, the district will begin planning for a future bond issue for facility improvements. During that process, the district will research and evaluate the need and feasibility of building a FEMA tornado safe room/building.

76

Moniteau Co. R-V School District Moniteau Co. R-V School District has one school in the unincorporated town of Latham in Moniteau County: Latham Elementary School (K-8). A fire destroyed the Latham Elementary School building in December 2010. After two years of construction, in September 2012, students started their new semester in the new school building. A saferoom was added to the elementary school during the rebuilding process. The district served a student population of 68 in the 2016-2017 school year with a total district staff of 12. Property values are shown in Figure 2.10.26.

Figure 2.10.26 Moniteau Co. R-V School District Property Valuation



The current school building, which is a single-story structure, is a Red Cross certified shelter.

77

Tipton R-VI School District

Tipton R-VI School District has two schools in the City of Tipton: Tipton Elementary School (PK-6) and Tipton High School (7-12).

The district served a student population of 637 in the 2016-2017 school year with a total district staff of 57. Property values are shown in Figure 2.10.27.

Figure 2.10.27 Tipton R-VI School District Property Valuation



The school district has no specific plans for future development at this time. However, there is interest in building a tornado safe room if a funding route could be secured.

75

Section 3: Risk Assessment

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

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

Identification of Hazards

Requirement §201.6(c)(2)(i): [The risk assessment shall include a] description of the type…of all

natural hazards than can affect the jurisdiction.

The following natural hazards have been identified as posing potential risk in the Planning Area:

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

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 Moniteau County Plan. Other notable hazards covered in the Missouri State Hazard Mitigation Plan (2013) but left out of the Moniteau County plan due to the unlikelihood of occurring include attack, cyber disruption, hazardous materials release, and public health emergencies. In the case of public health emergencies, the Moniteau County Department of Health and the

76

Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services (DHSS) have detailed response plans and conduct ongoing mitigation activities to reduce the impact of a public health outbreak. 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 been included in this plan as they do not pose a threat due to Moniteau 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: Measure of 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).

Measure of Severity – The deaths, injuries, or damage (property or environmental) that could result from the hazard.

• Low – Few or minor damage or injuries are likely.

77

• Moderate – Injuries to personnel and damage to property and the environment is expected.

• High – Deaths/major injuries and/or major damage will likely occur.

78

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

Figure 3.1.1 Measures of Probability and Severity

Probability Severity

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

Low Less than 1% Few or minor damage/injuries likely

Moderate Between 1% and 10% Injuries, property damage, and environmental damage

expected

High Greater than 10% Deaths/major injuries and/or

major damage will likely occur.

Assessment of Vulnerability

Requirement §201.6(c)(2)(ii):

[The risk assessment shall include a] description of the jurisdiction's vulnerability to the hazards described in paragraph (c)(2)(i) of this section. This description shall include an overall summary of each hazard and its impact on the community.

Requirement §201.6(c)(2)(iii):

For multi-jurisdictional plans, the risk assessment must assess each jurisdiction's risks where they vary from the risks facing the entire planning area.

A community’s vulnerability to a hazard is linked to the probability that a hazard event will occur (Measure of Probability) and to the extent of that event (Measure of Severity). For each identified hazard, a vulnerability rating was determined for each participating jurisdiction and for the Planning Area as a whole. This was done by considering the geographic location, historical record, and Measures of Probability and Severity for each hazard in relation to the particulars of each jurisdiction. In many cases, the potential severity of the hazard event contributes the greatest weight to the Vulnerability Rating. In some cases, however, a low severity event with high frequency can cause economic strain which translates into a higher vulnerability. A Vulnerability Overview follows each hazard profile in Section 3.2. The overview includes the Vulnerability Ratings for the hazard and the rationale behind the ratings. Also included are brief descriptions of any mitigation strategies currently in place for the hazard under discussion.

79

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. The hazards have been arranged in order of the evaluated vulnerability of the Planning Area to each. They will be discussed in this same order in the plan. 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

Plan

ning

Are

a

Mon

iteau

Co.

(u

ninc

orpo

rate

d)

Cal

iforn

ia

Cla

rksb

urg

Jam

esto

wn

Lupu

s

Tipt

on

Cla

rksb

urg

C-II

Hig

h Po

int R

-III

Jam

esto

wn

C-I

Mon

iteau

Co.

R-I

Mon

iteau

Co.

R-V

Tipt

on R

-VI

Windstorm H H H H H H H H H H H H H

Tornado H H H H H H H H H H H H H

Hailstorm H H H H H H H H H H H H H

Severe Winter Weather H H H H H H H H H H H H H

Extreme Heat M M M M M M M M M M M M M

Earthquake M M M M M M M M M M M M M

Drought M M L L L L L L L L L L L

Land Subsidence/Sinkhole L L L L L L L L L L L L L

Wildfire L L L L L L L L L L L L L

Flood L M L na L L L na na L na na na

Dam Failure L L L na na na na na na na na na na

Levee Failure L L na na na na na na na na na na na

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

80

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. Impact on future development is not addressed with every hazard because of the unpredictable nature of some hazards.

81

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. The hazards posing the highest risk to the Planning Area will be presented initially followed by those posing moderate and low risk. High Vulnerability Hazards – Windstorm, Tornado, Hailstorm, Severe Winter Weather The Planning Area and all participating jurisdictions received high vulnerability ratings for windstorm, tornado, hailstorm and severe winter weather. 3.2.1 Windstorm, Tornado, 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 thunderstorms 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 for mitigation purposes; therefore, it is not profiled in this plan. 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 well aware of the 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 on flood (see Section 3.2.8). 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. Moniteau 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 3.2.1A). Thunderstorms can occur during any season in Missouri but they are more frequent in the spring and summer. Many of these thunderstorms are severe.

82

Figure 3.2.1A Average Number of Thunderstorm Days Annually in U.S.

Source: http://www.srh.noaa.gov/jetstream/tstorms/tstorms_intro.htm Existing mitigation strategies 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.

The Moniteau County Emergency Dispatch (MCED) has well established notification and warning systems in place throughout the Planning Area (see Section 2.9 Planning Area Capabilities – Communications and Media). These include:

• Sirens located in California and Tipton (primary) activated by Moniteau County 911 • Mobile public address operations • Broadcasts over radio and television • Procedures for notification of special facilities

Additional warning is available from: • A siren located in Jamestown activated by the Jamestown Rural Fire Protection District • A backup siren located in Tipton activated by either the City Marshal or a Police Officer • Text message alerts from weather broadcasters to citizens signed up for the service • Personal NOAA radios

83

Shelters There are numerous shelters Red Cross Certified Shelters in the Planning Area should sheltering become necessary (see Figure 2.9.10). Other locations in the community not Red Cross Certified Shelters such as churches are available to residents in need as well. Based on feedback from the planning committee during the 2017 update process, it is more likely for citizens in Moniteau County to shelter in place during severe weather or seek shelter with a close friend or family member nearby. The mitigation actions in Section 4 have been updated to reflect this information.

84

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 the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (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; however, in the spring of 2009, a massive derecho almost as large as the state of Missouri caused extensive damage in southern Missouri and Illinois. 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 can also sustain massive and costly damage from windstorms. Previous occurrences According to NOAA, there have been 97 reported windstorm events in Moniteau County between 7/18/1961 and 6/20/2017 (see Figure 3.2.1B). Only 2 of these windstorm events were not associated with thunderstorms. All of the documented wind events in Moniteau County in the previous five years are associated with thunderstorm wind.

85

No injuries were reported from these windstorms but the windstorms resulted in at least $66,300 in property damage; no crop damage was reported. Property damage in the Planning Area from windstorms since 1950 has undoubtedly been higher than the NOAA data indicates. The thunderstorm winds on April 18, 1995 were responsible for $700,000 property damage in 23 Missouri counties, including Moniteau, and the City of St. Louis; some of that recorded damage may have occurred in the Planning Area. Members of the planning committee for the 2017 update reported that recent windstorms during May 2017 not included in the NOAA data below did significant damage within the Planning Area including tree and roof damage. They believe there are more windstorms that have occurred within the Planning Area than on the list. There was a consensus that the damage is underreported as well. Figure 3.2.1B

Windstorm Events in Moniteau County 7/18/1961 - 6/20/2017 General Location Date Magnitude

(mph) Property Damage Damage Details

County 07/18/61 0 0 County 06/16/73 0 0 County 07/27/73 0 0 County 06/11/77 0 0 County 04/07/78 0 0 County 07/24/81 60 0 County 07/25/81 62 0 County 07/25/81 62 0 County 03/15/82 0 0 County 04/02/82 0 0 County 05/30/82 0 0 County 06/08/82 60 0 County 09/13/82 60 0 County 04/27/83 0 0 County 08/07/84 60 0 County 06/16/85 0 0 County 06/21/85 60 0 County 06/16/87 60 0 County 06/16/87 60 0 County 05/08/88 0 0 County 10/17/88 77 0 County 11/15/88 60 0 County 06/07/90 0 0 County 07/03/91 60 0 County 07/03/91 79 0 County 07/11/91 0 0 County 11/29/91 0 0 County 07/10/92 60 0

86

California 04/19/93 58 0.5K California 04/15/94 0 50K Pieces of a tin roof torn off several barns; several

large trees and power lines down.

California 06/20/94 79 5K Numerous trees down and shingles blown off roofs on west side of California.

California 07/06/94 79 5K 10-inch-diameter tree limbs broken. California 05/16/95 0 0.6K Trees and power lines down. Jamestown 07/08/95 0 0.2K Power lines and poles were blown down. McGirk 07/08/95 60 0 Tipton 05/27/96 63 0 Trees down.

California 11/10/98 64 0 Thunderstorm wind gusts blew shingles off a roof, downed some trees, power lines and utility poles.

McGirk 11/10/98 64 0

Fortuna 05/08/00 63 0 The roof of a school in Fortuna was damaged. Trees and power lines were also downed in the area

California 07/02/00 62 0 A machine shed and green house were damaged just south of town. Trees and power lines were downed in town.

California 07/02/00 62 0 California 07/02/00 63 0 Moniteau

County 02/25/01 46 0 Minor tree, power line, and roof damage.

Moniteau County 03/13/01 52 0

Tree, roof shingle and sign damage. Tipton 04/10/01 63 0 Trees down. Jamestown 04/10/01 59 0

Jamestown 04/10/01 61 0 Several large trees and power lines down.

California 07/10/02 69 0

Thunderstorm winds downed trees and power lines and caused some structural damage. A grocery store, the newspaper office, a fire station and California City Hall all suffered roof damage from the wind gusts. A 20 foot section of the City Hall roof was blown off resulting in considerable water damage inside.

Tipton 07/10/02 63 0

Trees down. The roof of a historic building in town was also blown off. The stone cornice of the building fell off at a later date because of the damage.

California 07/22/02 60 0 Several trees and power lines down

California 10/06/02 59 0 Nickel size hail dropped and a few power lines down.

California 03/12/03 70 0 Some trees and power lines were downed. Tipton 05/06/03 63 0 The roof of a barn was blown off near Tipton. Enon 05/06/03 63 0 A barn was damaged near Enon. Clarksburg 06/25/03 63 0 Several trees and power lines down. About half

87

of the town lost power during the storm. The roof of the concession stand at a baseball field was also blown off.

Tipton 09/26/03 69 0 Some traffic lights and wires down. Clarksburg 09/26/03 63 0 A power pole was broken. Tipton 05/30/04 63 0 Trees down. Tipton 07/05/04 63 0 Trees down. California 09/13/05 66 0 Trees down. California 09/13/05 66 0 Trees down.

Tipton 09/19/05 69 0

Trees down, A couple of mobile homes were also damaged with one having its metal roof peeled off. Several outbuildings on farms on the edge of town were also damaged.

California 09/19/05 69 0 Trees and power lines down. California 09/19/05 63 0

Jamestown 03/11/06 60 0 California 03/30/06 60 0

California 04/02/06 63 0 Some roof shingles blown off and large tree limbs down

Jamestown 08/18/06 60 0 Some large tree limbs down. Jamestown 05/06/07 63 5K Power pole and several trees down. California 09/30/07 60 0 A power pole was blown down. Clarksburg 10/17/07 64 0 Several large trees were blown down. California 06/04/08 60 0 California 05/07/09 64 0 Several trees were blown over.

Tipton 06/15/09 64 0 The roof of two barns were blown off, one barn was blown completely over, and numerous trees and power lines were blown down.

California 07/28/09 60 0 The tops of a few large trees were snapped off. And some siding was blown off of a house.

California 06/19/10 52 0 Roofs blown off a couple of houses, barns, and power poles.

Jamestown 07/18/10 52 0 Two power poles were snapped.

Jamestown 07/30/10 52 0 A large tree blew down and block one lane of highway.

High Point 10/26/10 52 0 A power line blew down. California Phllps Ar 04/03/11 52 kts. 0 Thunderstorm winds blew over two large trees.

Clarksburg 05/12/11 56 kts. 0 Several large tree limbs down in town.

California 05/12/11 56 kts. 0 Large tree blown down on north side of town; tree took down several power lines.

Tipton 06/18/11 56 kts. 0 Winds blew down a large tree and took part of the roof off of a metal outbuilding.

Tipton 08/07/11 52 kts. 0

Thunderstorm winds blew down several large tree limbs around town. One large tree limb fell onto power lines attached to a house; this pulled the electric meter off the house.

88

California 08/07/11 52 kts. 0 Thunderstorm winds blew down numerous tree limbs and several power lines.

Tipton 08/19/11 52 kts. 0 Thunderstorm winds blew down several large tree limbs. A couple of the limbs pulled down power lines causing power outages around town.

High Point 04/15/12 56 kts. 0 A large tree was blown onto a highway intersection.

California 05/20/13 56 kts. 0 Trees were blown over.

Tipton 05/31/13 56 kts. 0 Trees were blown over in Tipton and in California.

McGirk 04/27/14 52 kts. 0 An anchored aluminum carport was blown over and destroyed.

Tipton 07/14/14 52 kts. 0 Power lines were blown over within the town. Tipton 10/02/14 56 kts. 0 A billboard and trees were blown over.

High Point 07/01/15 56 kts. 0 Trees were blown onto power lines damaging them or knocking them down.

Latham 04/26/16 61 kts. 0 California 07/13/16 56 kts. 0 Trees and power lines were damaged or blown

down. California 03/06/17 56 kts. 0 TOTALS: 66.3K Sources: https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/stormevents/

Measures of Probability and Severity Probability: High Severity: Moderate

Windstorm Vulnerability Overview

Vulnerable Jurisdictions: Entire Planning Area

Vulnerability Rating: High It would be unusual to have a year without a windstorm somewhere in the Planning Area. All jurisdictions are vulnerable to windstorms. The general unpredictability of such storm systems combined with the high probability of occurrence and a moderate severity rating resulted in the Planning Committee assessing a High Vulnerability Rating for Windstorm. 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 Moniteau County was $3634.22. This is among the lowest in the state.

89

Potential Impact on Existing Structures There is a wide range of possible impact from windstorms. Non-permanent and wood framed structures are very vulnerable to destruction. While high winds are the force behind damage, it is the windblown debris that causes the most damage. Reported property damage in the NOAA database for windstorms between April 1993 and May 2007 was $66,300. This is approximately $4,736 in annualized property damage due to high winds in that period. (Assuming the NOAA database is lacking some damage data, the fewest possible years have been used in which damage data was available to make this calculation.) This is a very low level of damage when compared to the entire building stock of the Planning Area. However, as previously discussed, there is good reason to believe that the damage data in the NOAA database does not give an accurate representation of actual damage costs for all events. (This is true for many hazards besides windstorm.) Windstorm will continue to cause damage to structures in the Planning Area; that much be said. It is not possible to make any meaningful 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 historical damage listed in this plan is that which has been reported. It is possible that damage has occurred and was not reported so the damage could be much greater.

Potential Impact of Future Development The entire Planning Area is vulnerable to windstorms. Census figures indicate a 2.3% population growth in Moniteau County between 2010 and 2015. If this trend continues, the structural assets vulnerable to tornadoes will 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.

90

Tornado Description of Hazard A tornado is a violently rotating column of air which is usually generated by a supercell thunderstorm. The potential destruction posed by a tornado touching ground is well known. The destructive effects of a tornado depend on the strength of the winds, proximity to people and structures, the strength of structures, and how well a person is sheltered. Tornadoes occur most frequently in late afternoon and early evening, but can occur at any time. The seasonal, temporal, and spatial uncertainties surrounding thunderstorms and tornadoes make widespread and year round preparedness essential. Tornadoes can move in any direction, but often move from southwest to northeast. According to NOAA's National Severe Storms Laboratory, “Movement can range from almost stationary to more than 60 mph. A typical tornado travels at around 10-20 miles per hour.” It is currently impossible to measure ground-level wind speeds in strong tornadoes because the winds destroy the instruments needed for measurement. Doppler radar recorded a wind speed of 302 mph above ground level associated with a 1999 tornado in Oklahoma; this is the highest wind speed ever recorded near the earth’s surface. Tornadoes tend to dissipate as fast as they form. Unlike a hurricane, which can last for multiple hours, tornadoes are often in one place for no more than a few minutes. Technological advances such as Doppler radar, computer modeling, and Emergency Warning Systems, have increased the amount of time the general public has to respond to a tornado. Despite these advances, tornadoes can still strike an area with little warning. Often people have no more than a few minutes to get to safety. Being able to quickly get to a safe place is absolutely imperative in order to prevent loss of life. Categorizing Tornadoes The Fujita Scale (F-Scale) was developed in 1971 by Dr. T. Theodore Fujita. The scale classified tornados into six categories (F0-F5) according to the damage sustained by structures and/or trees. Since wind speed at ground level cannot be directly measured in very high winds, the Fujita Scale estimated wind speeds from the ensuing damage. The Fujita Scale had certain weaknesses: it could not be used if a tornado touched down in an area without structures or trees; it did not take into account differences in construction when assessing damage; it allowed for too much subjectivity in assessing damage; and it overestimated wind speeds in stronger tornadoes. To address some of these concerns, Dr. Fujita suggested modification guidelines for the Fujita Scale in his Memoirs of an Effort to Unlock the Mystery of Severe Storms. This aptly named memoir was published in 1992. An Enhanced Fujita Scale (EF-Scale) was subsequently developed by meteorologists and civil engineers in the years 2000-2004 based on engineering studies of wind effects on 28 different

91

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 3.2.1C).

Figure 3.2.1C 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.

92

Previous Occurrences Moniteau County has experienced eighteen (18) tornadoes between 5/26/1955 and 6/20/2017, as officially reported to and recorded by NOAA (see Figure 3.2.1D). There have not been any injuries or deaths recorded in association with these tornadoes but they did result in over $25 million in property damage. Four F2 (“significant tornado”) tornadoes are included in these statistics. It should be noted that, due to the inherent difficulties in estimating wind speeds, the Fujita ratings in the NOAA charts should be viewed more as estimated guesses and not as hard and fast data. Hundreds of people, with varying qualifications, rated tornadoes during the F-Scale period and the F-Scale left a great amount up to interpretation. Many historical tornadoes may have been stronger than the data indicates. According to the NOAA website1, “…because the only way we can compare all tornadoes is by whatever damage they caused, and EF5/F5 damage is only possible when tornadoes hit well-built structures, the true ‘violence’ of most historical tornadoes is unknown—especially before the middle to late 20th century.”

Figure 3.2.1D Tornado Events in Moniteau County 5/26/1955 - 6/20/2017

General Location Date Time

Magnitude(Fujita rating)

Property Damage

Crop Damage Description of Event

County 05/26/55 9:45 F1 2.5K 0

County 03/05/61 22:45 F1 2.5K 0 Several homes and outbuildings damaged S of California.

County 05/04/63 21:00 F1 25K 0

Shed destroyed, roof of substantial brick building twisted and partially destroyed, and trees broken off at Tipton.

County 10/14/66 15:25 F2 25K 0

A tornado moving NE touched down 1 mile S and 0.5 mile E of Latham, destroying all buildings except the house on one farm and causing lesser damage on 3 other farms. It then moved NE causing little damage for 5 miles until it unroofed and destroyed a bowling alley on U.S. Highway 50 on the W and N sides of California.

1 http://www.spc.noaa.gov/faq/tornado/

93

County 10/24/67 7:55 F2 2.5K 0

A small tornado touched down briefly over California, causing moderate damage to roofs and windows at the Moniteau Mills. Although the storm path was only 30 to 50 yards wide, it was strong enough to pick up 6 concrete firewall slabs weighing close to 300 pounds each.

County 09/07/72 14:40 F0 2.5K 0

A tornado touched down briefly on a farm 0.25 mile E of the County Route T and Highway 87 intersection 4 miles S of California. Moving NE, it damaged a chicken house, a large equipment shed and some trees.

County 08/13/74 16:50 F0 25K 0 A tornado was spotted by police a few miles SE of Tipton.

County 08/13/74 16:55 F0 25K 0

A second tornado spotted E of Tipton moving E. Confirmed later by the Delta Flight Sight Manager at Whiteman AFB.

County 05/12/80 17:12 F2 25K 0 Tornado damage reported at Fortuna, Latham, and California.

County 03/15/82 22:45 F1 250K 0

Tornado followed intermittent path from S of California to just W of McGirk. Damage was scattered and confined to small buildings and sheds. A barn was destroyed 1 mile SW of Highway K.

County 05/14/82 18:49 F1 0.03K 0 Tornado reported by Civil Defense 3 miles SW of Tipton.

County 04/03/84 16:50 F0 0 0 Tornado touched down briefly 3 times near Tipton.

County 06/07/90 19:40 F1 0 0 A brief touch down reported near Fortuna but no damage was reported.

County 06/07/90 19:50 F1 0 0 A tornado touching down briefly 2 miles N of High Point but no damage was reported.

County 06/07/90 20:10 F1 25K 0 Brief touch down 2 miles S of High Point.

County 06/07/90 20:20 F2 25.0M 0

2 houses totally destroyed and 5 other houses extensively damaged. One home minor damaged. Numerous trees and lines downed.

County 11/27/90 10:43 F1 25K 0 Several outbuildings, grain bins, and a barn destroyed.

94

California 04/10/01 17:47 F0 0 0

A small, brief tornado formed near California over open farmland, kicked up some dirt and dissipated. This was the first of 6 tornadoes that a High Precipitation Supercell produced in the National Weather Service St. Louis County Warning Area.

TOTALS 25.44 M 0 Source: https://www.weather.gov/lsx/moniteau_tor; https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/stormevents/

95

Figure 3.2.1E – Historical Tornado Data With Present Day Population Density

96

Figure 3.2.1F – Historical Tornado Data With Present Day Structures

97

Measure of Probability and Severity

Probability: High Severity: High Tornado Vulnerability Overview Vulnerable Jurisdictions: Entire Planning Area Vulnerability Rating: High All jurisdictions in the Planning Area are vulnerable to tornadoes; a wide range of impact is possible. High winds affect all structure types differently; non-permanent and wood framed structures are very vulnerable to destruction. In addition to a direct hit on a building by a tornado, damage to trees poses a serious threat. People, buildings, power lines, and vehicles are all at risk from falling branches, uprooted trees and windblown debris. Potential Impact on Existing Structures The historical record of tornadoes in the Planning Area over a 60-year period shows five (5) F0 tornadoes, nine (9) F1 tornadoes and four (4) F2 tornadoes. 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 3.2.1E).

98

Figure 3.2.1G

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

Source: Benefit-Cost Analysis Tornado Safe Room Course, 06/09 Version 4.5

The estimates of housing structure damage for Moniteau County and its incorporated communities are shown in Figure 3.2.1F. Figure 3.2.1H

Tornado Vulnerability Analysis

Jurisdictional Data Estimated Housing Damage (25% damage factor assumed)

Jurisdiction Area

(square miles)

Total Housing Units*

Median Owner-Occupied

Housing Value*

Total Housing Value

(Estimate) EF0 EF1 EF2

Moniteau County 418.871 6,144 $116,500 $715,776,000 $8,544 $51,265 $226,419

California 3.362 1,977 $98,500 $194,734,500 $289,611 $1,737,667 $7,674,694

Clarksburg 0.580 147 $48,000 $7,056,000 $60,828 $364,966 $1,611,931

Jamestown 1.006 177 $92,000 $16,284,000 $80,934 $485,606 $2,144,761

Lupus 0.185 22 $63,300 $1,392,600 $37,638 $225,827 $348,150

Tipton 2.108 1,021 $87,300 $89,133,300 $211,417 $1,268,500 $5,602,544

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

There are some obvious limitations to this assessment. Some of these are:

• The analysis is based on numerous assumptions and estimates. • The analysis does not take into account the type of construction; this is a major factor

in structure vulnerability. • Housing is not distributed evenly in jurisdictions.

99

• 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.

Potential Impact of Future Development The entire Planning Area is vulnerable to tornadoes. Census figures indicate a 2.3% growth in Moniteau County between 2010 and 2015. If this trend continues, the structural assets vulnerable to tornadoes will 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.

100

Hailstorm Description of Hazard Hail is formed when updrafts in thunderstorms carry raindrops up to very high and cold areas where they freeze into ice. Hail, especially large sized hail, can cause severe damage and presents a threat to automobiles, airplanes, roofs, crops, livestock, and even humans. Geographic Location The entire Planning Area is at risk from Hailstorm. While hail can strike anywhere, population centers are more at risk for injury and/or property damage from hail. Previous Occurrences NOAA lists 86 separate reports of hail (of at least 0.75 inch in diameter) in Moniteau County between 2/1/1955 and 6/20/2017 (see Figure 3.2.1G). These reports were associated with at least 57 different storm systems. The largest hail reported, from a storm system in 1971, was 4 inches in diameter; there were numerous storm systems which spawned hail of 1.5 inch diameter or larger. While the NOAA data indicates only $10,000 in property damage from these hailstorm events, common knowledge would suggest that this figure may be too low. There was a huge storm in the spring of 2006 which caused massive hail damage across the mid-Missouri region. Information from neighboring Boone County indicates that there was over $1million in hail damage incurred by county-owned buildings for the year 2006; this damage did not show up in the NOAA data for Boone County but was found in county records. Many private homes throughout the region received new roofs because of hailstorm damage that year. It is very likely that Moniteau County suffered at least some property damage from hail in 2006 (and very possibly other years) which is not captured in the NOAA data. Figure 3.2.1I

Hailstorm Events in Moniteau County 2/01/1955 - 6/20/2017 General Location Date Time Magnitude

(inch in diameter) Deaths Injuries Property Damage

Crop Damage

County 02/01/55 10:30 0.75 0 0 0 0 County 05/08/68 17:37 1.75 0 0 0 0 County 05/06/71 13:30 4 0 0 0 0 County 04/24/75 17:15 1.75 0 0 0 0 County 09/18/75 18:30 1 0 0 0 0 County 05/12/80 17:05 1.75 0 0 0 0 County 05/12/80 17:45 1.75 0 0 0 0 County 04/16/82 16:15 1.75 0 0 0 0 County 04/16/82 16:55 1.75 0 0 0 0

101

County 04/29/83 21:55 1.75 0 0 0 0 County 06/18/83 21:15 2 0 0 0 0 County 05/08/88 13:40 1 0 0 0 0 County 06/07/90 12:25 0.75 0 0 0 0 County 06/07/90 12:45 2 0 0 0 0 County 06/15/91 16:40 0.75 0 0 0 0 County 10/03/91 17:55 2 0 0 0 0 County 09/07/92 19:34 1 0 0 0 0 County 09/07/92 19:36 0.75 0 0 0 0 County 09/09/92 17:30 0.75 0 0 0 0 California 04/19/93 1:55 0.75 0 0 0 0 Fortuna 04/15/94 1:50 1.25 0 0 5K 0 Clarksburg 04/15/94 2:00 2 0 0 5K 0 California 04/27/94 17:30 1 0 0 0 0 California 06/06/94 17:05 1.25 0 0 0 0 California 06/06/94 17:15 1.25 0 0 0 0 Latham 04/10/95 15:59 1.75 0 0 0 0 California 04/10/95 16:05 1 0 0 0 0 Tipton 04/16/95 12:05 0.75 0 0 0 0 Ellington 07/08/95 19:45 0.75 0 0 0 0 Clarksburg 04/14/96 16:40 0.88 0 0 0 0 Tipton 05/05/96 7:26 0.75 0 0 0 0 Clarksburg 01/21/99 11:05 1 0 0 0 0 California 05/08/00 19:17 0.75 0 0 0 0 Mc Girk 05/08/00 19:40 0.75 0 0 0 0 Jamestown 08/17/00 18:39 0.75 0 0 0 0 Jamestown 04/10/01 17:45 1.75 0 0 0 0 California 10/06/02 5:30 0.88 0 0 0 0 Mc Girk 12/18/02 2:15 0.75 0 0 0 0 California 12/18/02 12:55 0.75 0 0 0 0 Clarksburg 04/24/03 19:27 0.88 0 0 0 0 California 05/04/03 22:35 0.75 0 0 0 0 Latham 05/06/03 15:10 1 0 0 0 0 High Pt 05/06/03 15:15 1 0 0 0 0 California 05/06/03 15:20 1.75 0 0 0 0 Enon 05/06/03 15:30 1.75 0 0 0 0 California 05/06/03 15:35 0.88 0 0 0 0 California 05/06/03 16:40 1.75 0 0 0 0 Latham 07/18/03 21:30 0.75 0 0 0 0 California 04/21/05 14:30 0.88 0 0 0 0 Jamestown 04/21/05 15:00 1.25 0 0 0 0 Jamestown 04/21/05 15:10 1 0 0 0 0

102

California 05/11/05 14:25 0.75 0 0 0 0 Tipton 06/05/05 2:07 0.75 0 0 0 0 Tipton 09/19/05 17:40 0.75 0 0 0 0 Jamestown 03/11/06 15:50 1 0 0 0 0 Jamestown 03/13/06 0:10 0.75 0 0 0 0 California 03/30/06 22:15 0.75 0 0 0 0 Latham 04/02/06 14:20 0.88 0 0 0 0 California 04/02/06 14:35 0.75 0 0 0 0 California 04/19/06 19:35 0.88 0 0 0 0 Jamestown 04/19/06 19:37 1 0 0 0 0 California 04/19/06 19:38 1.75 0 0 0 0 Jamestown 04/23/06 19:31 1 0 0 0 0 Tipton 04/23/06 8:40 1 0 0 0 0 California 05/06/07 14:18 2 0 0 0 0 Jamestown 05/06/07 14:20 1 0 0 0 0 California 05/06/07 14:45 1.75 0 0 0 0 California 05/06/07 14:55 0.75 0 0 0 0 California 04/23/08 16:44 0.75 0 0 0 0 Jamestown 04/23/08 17:11 0.75 0 0 0 0 Jamestown 04/23/08 17:14 1 0 0 0 0 McGirk 07/25/08 17:43 1 0 0 0 0 California 05/07/09 22:30 0.88 0 0 0 0 Clarksburg 07/18/10 7:15 0.75 0 0 0 0 California 04/19/11 2:18 0.75 0 0 0 0 California 04/22/11 7:59 0.75 0 0 0 0 Kliever 04/22/11 16:00 2.5 0 0 0 0 Latham 07/22/11 16:25 1 0 0 0 0 Latham 03/17/12 15:24 0.88 0 0 0 0 Fortuna 03/17/12 16:05 0.88 0 0 0 0 Clarksburg 04/17/13 16:06 1.75 0 0 0 0 Jamestown 04/17/13 16:22 1.75 0 0 0 0 California 07/14/14 11:55 1 0 0 0 0 Jamestown 04/26/16 10:12 1.25 0 0 0 0 Latham 04/26/16 10:26 1 0 0 0 0 Enon 03/21/17 11:20 1.5 0 0 0 0 TOTALS: 0 0 10K 0 Source: https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/stormevents/

103

Measures of Probability and Severity Probability: High Severity: Moderate

Hailstorm Vulnerability Vulnerable Jurisdictions: Entire Planning Area Vulnerability Rating: High The only reported damage data due to hailstorms in the NOAA database is $10,000 in property damage from one hailstorm in April 1994. This reported damage was in two communities; the level of damage would perhaps represent the replacement of 2-4 home roofs at most. There is no crop damage by hail from listed in the NOAA database or crop insurance claims for hail in the years 1998-2016 in data from the Risk Management Agency (RMA) of the USDA2. Using data from both these sources, the Missouri State Hazard Mitigation Plan (2013) calculated the annualized property loss and crop claims from hail to be $526.32. This is very low, and according to the Planning Committee, not reflective of the actual damage caused by hail in the Planning Area. It is highly likely that the damages in the NOAA database are significantly under reported. While the April 1994 storm generated large size hail, there have been many storms with similar sized hail and no reported damage. In addition, local knowledge, reported damages from other sources in surrounding counties, and general data on the level of damage caused by hail in the Midwest would indicate much higher levels of damage in the Planning Area than the record indicates. The Planning Committee in 2012 assessed the vulnerability rating for hailstorm to be high due to the high probability of occurrence and the known, albeit not officially recorded, damages sustained by property and crops. During the most recent update of the hazard mitigation plan, this was still the consensus. The Planning Committee expressed frustration with what they believe is underreporting of hail damage and agreed the vulnerability rating should be left high. Potential Impact on Existing Structures Hailstorm will continue to cause damage to structures in the Planning Area. Due to the lack of reliable historical data and unpredictable nature of this hazard, it is not possible to make any meaningful quantifiable assessment of the probable number of buildings affected or level/cost of damage which can be expected in the future.

Potential Impact on Future Development The entire Planning Area is vulnerable to hailstorms. Census figures indicate a 2.3% growth in Moniteau County between 2010 and 2015. If this trend continues, the structural assets

2 https://www.rma.usda.gov/data/cause.html

104

vulnerable to tornadoes will 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). Agricultural development or an increase in crop farming or a change in types of crops could leave the planning area more susceptible to agricultural damage from hailstorm.

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 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.

105

3.2.2 Severe Winter Weather

Description of Hazard Moniteau County experiences at least one winter storm almost every 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 a 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. During the 2017 update process it was identified that individuals in homes with vital health devices such as oxygen are at a particularly high vulnerability due to the need for power and the unavailability of a list of those using critical devices due to HIPPA restrictions. 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. Geographic Location The entire Planning Area is at risk from Severe Winter Weather. Previous Occurrences Moniteau County experienced 48 officially recorded winter storms or periods of extreme cold in the period Jan. 14, 1993 – Jun. 20, 2017, according to data from NOAA. Figure 3.2.2A summarizes available data for these storms. Severe Winter Weather typically moves through a large area. The number of counties affected by a storm is indicated in Figure 3.2.2A for those storms 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. None of the deaths associated with these Severe Winter Weather events occurred in Moniteau County; information on the locations of the injuries was not available. While it can be seen from the data that Severe Winter Weather can incur great financial cost, the exact cost of these storms to Moniteau 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

106

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:

• 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 indicated that three turkey barns in Moniteau County

collapsed; no power outages were reported in Moniteau County.

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

Presidential Disaster Declaration #1736 – Public Assistance (PA) from FEMA in the total amount of $153,047 was made available to local governments in Moniteau County for expenses incurred during this storm. Of this total sum, Moniteau County Government received $134,892; $113, 247 of this was for debris removal (Category A) and $21,645 was for Emergency Protective Measures (Category B).

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

SEMA Situation Reports indicate that most of the City of California lost power

during these storms; two nursing homes reported power issues. A warming center was opened in California and shelters were put on standby. Most of the power had been restored to California within about 3 days; there continued to be sporadic outages in unincorporated parts of the county. According to city officials, the city incurred labor expenses of $1.1 Million for water and electric crews during this storm.

• January 26, 2009 winter storm:

Presidential Emergency Declaration #3303 included the 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

107

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.)

The total cost to Moniteau County for clearing the county roads after this winter

storm was $32,800. The County received $24,600 in PA from the Disaster Declaration to help offset these costs.

The City of California was totally shut down for a day due to this storm. Twenty-four

(24) trucks worked around the clock for 3-4 days to clear the streets. The biggest issue, according to Public Works officials was where to put all the snow. Some of it was hauled to the County Fairgrounds. Everybody in California was “dug out” within 2 to 3 days.

• February-March 2013- During this period there were three winter storms with heavy

snow that produced anywhere from 6-11 inches of snow throughout Moniteau County. These storms included sleet and freezing rain. In these three storms, thunderstorms accompanied the snow producing an increased amount of snow in the area. Power outages occurred across the Mid-Missouri Region and school closings occurred.

• Dec. 22, 2015 – Jan. 9, 2016 severe storms:

Emergency Declaration (EM-3374) was signed by the President to make federal aid available to 74 counties in south, east, and mid Missouri, including Moniteau County. Categories A and B, was provided under the Public Assistance Program at 75 percent Federal funding.

Figure 3.2.2A

Severe Winter Weather - Moniteau County (1/14/1994-6/20/2017)

Date Storm Type Deaths* Injuries* Estimated

Cost* (Million $)

Presidential Disaster or Emergency Declaration

#

# of Counties Assistance in Moniteau

County (IA or PA)

01/14/94 Extreme Cold 0 15 5.0 51 plus City of St. Louis

04/05/94 Winter Storm 0 0 0.5 31 plus City of St. Louis

01/03/95 Cold 2 6 0 29 plus City of St. Louis

01/06/95 Ice Storm 0 0 0

108

01/18/95 Heavy Snow 0 0 2.4 22 01/02/96 Winter Storm 0 0 0 11/25/96 Ice Storm 0 0 0 01/08/97 Winter Storm 0 0 0 01/15/97 Winter Storm 0 0 0 01/27/97 Winter Storm 0 0 0 04/10/97 Winter Storm 0 0 0 12/08/97 Winter Storm 0 0 0 01/12/98 Winter Storm 0 0 0 03/08/98 Winter Storm 0 0 0 12/21/98 Winter Storm 0 0 0 01/01/99 Winter Storm 0 0 0 01/27/00 Winter Storm 0 0 0 12/13/00 Heavy Snow 0 0 0

12/16/00 Extreme Windchill 0 0 0

01/29/02 Ice Storm 0 0 0 03/02/02 Winter Storm 0 0 0 12/04/02 Winter Storm 0 0 0 12/24/02 Winter Storm 0 0 0 01/01/03 Winter Storm 0 0 0 02/23/03 Winter Storm 0 0 0 12/13/03 Winter Storm 0 0 0 01/25/04 Winter Storm 0 0 0 11/24/04 Winter Storm 0 0 0

12/08/05 Winter Storm 2 0 0 28 plus City of St. Louis

11/29/06 Winter Storm 0 0 0 12/01/06 Winter Storm 0 0 0 01/12/07 Ice Storm 0 0 0 12/6 - 12/15/07

Severe Winter Storm 4 NA 34.8** 1736 42 PA

12/08/07 Ice Storm 0 0 NA 3281 entire state PA (A,B) 02/11/08 Winter Weather 0 0 0 02/23/08 Winter Weather 0 0 0 01/26/09 Winter Storm NA NA NA 3303 entire state PA (B) 01/06/10 Winter Weather 0 0 0 01/19/11 Heavy Snow 0 0 0 7 01/31/11 Winter Storm 0 0 12.8** 1961 62 PA (A-G) 02/21/13 Heavy Snow 0 0 0 02/25/13 Heavy Snow 0 0 0 03/24/13 Heavy Snow 0 0 0 12/21/13 Winter Storm 0 0 0 01/05/14 Winter Storm 0 0 0

109

01/06/14 Cold/Wind Chill 0 0 0 02/04/14 Winter Storm 0 0 0 12/22/15 - 01/09/16 Winter Storm NA NA NA 3374 74 PA (A,B)

TOTAL 8 21 67.1 * Data is total for all counties 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; http://sema.dps.mo.gov/maps_and_disasters/disasters/

Measure of Probability and Severity Probability: High Severity: Moderate

Severe Winter Weather Vulnerability Overview Vulnerable Jurisdictions: Entire Planning Area Vulnerability Rating: High 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, #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 Moniteau County and its communities as a whole (the Planning Area) are shown in Figure 3.2.2B.

110

Figure 3.2.2B Impact Assessment - Severe Winter Weather

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 38 39.5 $1,315,933,000 $3,172,933 $17,069,000 $172,195

3 Medium Vulnerability Rating 3 1 2 2 2 4

* The 2012 USDA data was not available when the 2013 MO State Hazard Mitigation Plan was published.

Source: Missouri State Hazard Mitigation Plan (2013)

The Planning Committee identified economic damage as the largest problem resulting from Severe Winter Weather in the Planning Area. It is not uncommon to have extended closures of businesses and schools, sometimes for 3 to 4 days. In addition, the cost of snow removal and cleanup strains budgets of municipalities, school districts, other special districts, and businesses. Severe winter storms also pose a 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 multiple car involvement. Response times for emergency vehicles may also be slowed by poor road conditions. In the following map, the incident of accidents due to winter weather conditions is displayed. This information is based on accident reports. The dataset was retrieved from Missouri Department of Transportation (MODOT). Discussing this map with the Planning Committee, they were unsure why certain areas had a higher incidence of accidents. A likely reason is population concentrations and the number of cars traveling on each road. Most accidents occur on Highway 50 and Highway 87. Highway 50 has a high number of daily travelers and Highway 87 is known for its high number of curves. The Planning Committee raised concerns with the response time of state managed roads during inclement weather. There is concern with the reduction in the number of MODOT truck dispatch sheds throughout the county and the effect it is having on state roads being cleared in a timely manner. They counted five sheds they are aware of closing in the last few years.

111

Moniteau County Inclement Winter Weather Traffic Accident Incidence Figure 3.2.2 C

112

Figure 3.2.2D

Winter Weather Related Traffic Accidents in Moniteau County (2011-2015) Year Number of Traffic Incidents 2011 34 2012 17 2013 23 2014 33 2015 (First half) 13 Total 120 There are specific sections of the community which are more vulnerable to complications caused by Severe Winter Weather. Elderly are the most susceptible to complications from excessive and/or prolonged cold or heat. According to the 2011-2015 ACS 5-Year Estimate, the Planning Area has 2,260 citizens who are 65 years and older (14.3% of total population). So, while the Vulnerability Rating in the State Plan was assessed as Medium, for all of the reasons stated above, the Planning Committee rated vulnerability as High. Potential Impact on Existing Structures The Missouri State Hazard Mitigation Plan (2013) analysis determined a Medium-Low Building Exposure Vulnerability Rating ($1,315,933,000 in total building exposure) and a Low Total Property Loss Vulnerability Rating ($3,172,933 in total property loss). This property loss figure represents FEMA PA (Public Assistance) damage in the Planning Area since there are no specific damage losses for Moniteau 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. 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.

113

Currently, there is not a reliable or accurate way to estimate all potential costs associated with Severe Winter Weather. Too many variables exist to accurately portray how much damage would be incurred by a winter storm. The type of precipitation (snow versus ice), time of day, and other characteristics all play a role in determining the cost of a winter storm. Potential Impact of Future Development According to the Missouri State Hazard Mitigation Plan (2013), “…future development could potentially increase vulnerability to this hazard by increasing demand on the utilities and increasing the exposure of infrastructure networks.” While this is true, there is currently not a great amount of development occurring in the Planning Area. However, as annexation takes place in jurisdictions such as California, a part of the financial burden of responding to severe winter storms may shift between the County and incorporated communities. Existing Mitigation Activities Emergency Shelters The Planning Area is well prepared with Red Cross certified shelters (see Figure 3.2.2D).

Figure 3.2.2E Red Cross Certified Shelters in Moniteau County

Location Shelter Name Shelter Address Capacity California High Point Baptist Church 40314 Church Road - California Main Street Baptist Church 303 West Main 224 California First Baptist Church 208 S. Oak St. 500 High Point High Point R-III School 60909 Highway C - Latham Latham Christian Church Hwy E - Latham Moniteau County RV School 156 School St. - Tipton Tipton United Methodist Church 204 E. Hwy 50 - Source: Mass Care Coordinator, Region F Regional Homeland Security Oversight Committee (RHSOC)

Utility Companies Consistent maintenance of trees and brush around utility lines limits the possibility of power outages during a severe winter storm. Such maintenance is expensive but also makes good business sense because repairing fallen utility lines and poles is both costly and dangerous. Utility companies in Moniteau County have policies regarding tree trimming and brush removal around power lines; this important mitigation activity is carried out responsibly and effectively by the companies in the Planning Area. National Weather Service and Local Media

114

The St. Louis Office of the National Weather Service 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 severity3. These stages are shown in Figure 3.2.2F.

Figure 3.2.2F 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.

3 http://www.skyviewweather.com/learning/winter-weather-definitions/

115

Moderate Vulnerability Hazards – Extreme Heat, Drought, Earthquake

The Planning Area and all participating jurisdictions received a Moderate Vulnerability Rating for Extreme Heat. The Planning Area as a whole received a Moderate Vulnerability Rating for Drought and Earthquake but the Vulnerability Ratings were different for these hazards in some jurisdictions. This variability will be discussed under each hazard. 3.2.3 Extreme Heat Description of Hazard Extreme Heat is one of the top weather-related killer in the United States, according to National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration4. 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 States5. 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 3.2.3A). 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 3.2.3 A

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

4 NOAA. http://www.nws.noaa.gov/os/heat/ 5 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

116

The NWS has put together information that correlates heat index temperatures with the effects on the human body (see Figure 3.2.3B). These effects are based on the interaction of both heat and humidity levels.

Figure 3.2.3B 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

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 shade • Substance abuse • Lack 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), approximately 14.3% of the population, which is 2,260 citizens, in the Planning Area are 65 years and older. Geographic Location The entire Planning Area is at risk from Extreme Heat events. Previous Occurrences Moniteau County has had many periods of Extreme Heat in the last two decades (see Figure 3.2.3C). The data indicates that Extreme Heat usually occurs in July and August. When examining the data in Figure 3.2.3 C, 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 Moniteau 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.

117

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 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 areas6.

Figure 3.2.3C

Periods of Extreme Heat in Moniteau County (6/12/94 - 6/20/2017)

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

Damage* Crop

Damage* 06/12/94 100+ 12 4 55 0 50K 07/17/95 120 6 20 225 75K 400K 07/28/95 110+ 4 0 120 15K 25K 08/01/95 110-120 most of August 9 230 0 400K 07/18/99 105-115 14 42 397 0 0 07/07/01 105-110 4 5 61 0 0 07/17/01 110-115 1 0 19 0 0 07/21/01 105-115 4 3 71 0 0 07/29/01 105-115 3 0 4 0 0 08/01/01 105 2 0 34 0 0 08/07/01 102-110 3 1 10 0 0 08/21/01 105-110 2 0 14 0 0 07/08/02 105-110 2 1 26 0 0 07/20/02 105-115 3 0 47 0 0 07/26/02 105-115 6 0 185 0 0 08/01/02 100+ 6 1 59 0 0 08/15/03 105+ 7 2 54 0 0 08/24/03 105-110 5 0 0 0 0 07/20/04 105-110 3 0 25 0 0 07/20/05 105-120 7 4 65 0 0 07/17/06 105-110 4 0 12 0 0 07/29/06 105-110 3 0 0 0 0 08/01/06 NA 2 0 59 0 0 08/05/07 105-110 12 0 0 0 0 06/21/09 100-107 7 0 0 0 0 06/18/10 100-105 6 0 0 0 0 07/14/10 105-110 1 0 0 0 0

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

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

118

07/17/10 105 1 0 0 0 0 07/22/10 105-110 3 0 0 0 0 08/02/10 110 3 1 13 0 0 08/08/10 110-115 7 2 85 0 0 07/01/11 105 3 0 22 0 0 07/10/11 NA 3 1 0 0 0 07/17/11 105-110 15 8 100+ 0 0 08/01/11 105-115 3 0 0 0 0 08/06/11 105-110 2 0 0 0 0 08/31/11 105-110 1 0 2 0 0 09/01/11 105 3 1 0 0 0 06/27/12 105 4 2 20 0 0 07/01/12 NA 8 17 172 0 0 07/16/12 102-108 4 1 53 0 0 07/22/12 110 6 0 75 0 0 07/31/12 105-110 2 0 6 0 0 08/01/12 105-110 2 0 6 0 0 08/31/13 105-110 1 0 0 0 0 09/01/13 105-110 1 0 0 0 0 08/20/14 105-110 8 0 56 0 0 07/12/15 110 3 0 0 0 0 07/17/15 105-110 3 0 0 0 0 07/25/15 110 5 0 0 0 0 06/15/16 105 2 0 0 0 0 06/22/16 105 1 0 9 0 0 07/18/16 110 7 1 70 0 0

TOTALS 126 2461 90K 875K * Data are total for all affected counties by the Extreme Heat event.

Source: https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/stormevents/

Measures of Probability and Severity Probability: High Severity: Low

Extreme Heat Vulnerability Overview Vulnerable Jurisdictions: Entire Planning Area Vulnerability Rating: Moderate All jurisdictions are vulnerable to the effects of Extreme Heat. 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.

119

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. According to the American Community Survey (2011-2015), an estimated 14.3% of the population in the Planning Area are 65 years and older. 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 businesses7. Drought in conjunction with Extreme Heat exacerbates the situation. Crop claims totaling $1,237,278 were paid in Moniteau County in the period 1998-2016 for losses due to heat, according to data from the USDA Risk Management Agency8. This is separate from the $12,071,017 paid in that period for losses due to drought. Specifically, from 2009 to 2016, the years when crops were hit by the severest heat or drought (highest loss in value) were 2011, 2012, and 2013. Potential Impact on Existing Structures While illness and loss of life are of the most concern with Extreme Heat, structural impacts may also occur. Structural impacts depend on the length of the period of Extreme Heat and exacerbating factors such as concurrent Drought. Road damage and electrical infrastructure damage may occur with intense and prolonged heat. Potential Impact of Future Development Thoughtful future development has the potential to include mitigation for Extreme Heat into its design. This is true on all levels ranging from actions by individual homeowners to larger redevelopment projects planned by cities. Properly placed shade trees can contribute greatly 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 are not only pleasurable but contribute to mitigation for both Extreme Heat and stormwater problems.

7 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. 8 https://www.rma.usda.gov/data/cause.html

120

Existing Mitigation Activities

Cooling Centers The following locations serve as cooling centers in the Planning Area:

• California Nutrition Center, 107 W. Versailles Ave., California • Wood Place Library, 501 South Oak, California • Moniteau Nutrition Center, 421 Independence Ave., Tipton • Tipton City Hall, 101 E. Moniteau St., Tipton

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# An action (#1.2.3) focused on increasing the number of cooling centers in the Planning Area has been included in the mitigation strategy in this plan. This is an ongoing action, but the participating jurisdictions have made significant progress in the last five years to identify more cooling centers within their communities. There are communities that do not have a cooling center on the DHSS list, but are understood within the community as somewhere to go if air condition is necessary. Hyperthermia Surveillance Program Missouri has an on-going statewide surveillance for illnesses and death connected to Extreme Heat, according to the Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services (DHSS). Health care workers are required to report cases of hyperthermia to 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 The following departments, agencies, and organizations all are involved in educating the public about the dangers of extremely hot weather 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 (MO 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.

121

• 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 heat9. The Moniteau County Department of Health notifies local communication networks including radio stations and the emergency services dispatchers when a heat advisory is issued. They also post the information on social media. The National Weather Service (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 Radio10:

• 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.

Weather Forecast Offices of the National Weather Service (NWS) can issue the following warnings about excessive heat11:

• 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.

9 http://www.mshsaa.org/resources/pdf/2010-11SportsMedicineManual.pdf 10 https://www.weather.gov/media/owlie/heatwave.pdf 11 http://www.nws.noaa.gov/om/heat/ww.shtml

122

• 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.

A mitigation action has been added to the 2017 update that covers heat advisory notifications throughout the county. This action was added to encourage Moniteau County to create a solidified heat advisory system throughout the county. Schools receive information from one source, radio stations from the Moniteau County Health Department, and the Moniteau County Health Department from the Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services. Discussions during the planning update included a solution as simple as creating an email list-serve to provide notifications throughout the county when provided to the Moniteau County Department of Health. The current system works, but it could reach more individuals within the County faster.

123

3.2.4 Drought Description of Hazard The National Weather Service defines a drought as “a period of abnormally dry weather which persists long enough to produce a serious hydrologic imbalance (for example crop damage, water supply shortage, etc.) The severity of the drought depends upon the degree of moisture deficiency, and the duration and the size of the affected area.” Droughts occur either through a lack of precipitation (supply droughts) or overuse of water (water use droughts). Supply droughts are natural phenomenon associated with lower than normal precipitation. Water use droughts are when the uses of water by humans outpace what the surrounding environment can naturally support. Water use droughts can theoretically happen anywhere but are generally seen in arid climates, not humid places such as Missouri. At the present time, Missouri is most vulnerable to supply droughts brought on by a lack of precipitation. The period of lack of precipitation needed to produce a supply drought will vary between regions and the particular manifestations of a drought are influenced by many factors. As an aid to analysis and discussion, the research literature has defined different categories of drought (see Figure 3.2.4 A). These are also the types of drought addressed by the Missouri Dought Plan.

Figure 3.2.4 A 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 Agency12. 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.

12 https://www.rma.usda.gov/data/cause.html

124

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 3.2.4 B), 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 3.2.4B 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; Moniteau County is located in the West Central Region. 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.

125

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 is the unincorporated area of Moniteau 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 3.2.6. Previous Occurrences Even though Moniteau County averages about 38” of precipitation per year, it has been subject to numerous droughts. 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 - The 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 (2010). 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.

126

• 2002-2004 - Another drought hit western and northwestern Missouri; Moniteau County

was on the eastern edge of the serious drought but was put in a Phase 1 Drought Advisory in the summer of 2003.

• 2005-2006 - Moniteau 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 again in Phase 3 Conservation which persisted through most of November. In October, Moniteau County was one of 85 Missouri counties designated by the USDA as primary natural disaster areas due to losses from the drought conditions of 2006. Conditions began to improve with a large snowstorm in late November/early December.

• 2007-2009 - No serious droughts were reported in the three years.

• 2010-2013 - severe drought hit Missouri. The drought was upgraded to Extreme (D3) or

Exceptional (D4) condition in each summer during the drought period. All counties in Missouri were declared disaster areas in 2013. Moniteau County was ranked with Severe (D2) Drought in 2013 based on PDSI.

127

Measure of Probability and Severity Probability: Moderate - unincorporated Moniteau Co., Low - other participating jurisdictions Severity: Moderate - unincorporated Moniteau Co., Low - other participating jurisdictions 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 3.2.4C.

Figure 3.2.4C

Most of Moniteau County lies in Region B which is defined as having “…moderate drought susceptibility. Groundwater resources are adequate to meet domestic and municipal water needs, but due to required well depths, irrigation wells are very expensive. The topography generally is unsuitable for row-crop irrigation.” The northern strip of the county, 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.”

128

Drought Vulnerability Overview

Vulnerable Jurisdictions: Entire Planning Area; greater vulnerability in Moniteau County (unincorp.)

Vulnerability Rating: Moderate - Moniteau Co. (unincorp.) Low - other participating jurisdictions 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. While all jurisdictions in the Planning Area are potentially vulnerable to the cascading economic effects of 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. According to the Missouri State Hazard Mitigation Plan (2013), Moniteau County has medium vulnerability to crop loss from drought. The annual crop claims ratio is 4-6% with annualized claims paid being 1.5-2.5M. Information on claims paid for crop damage to drought is shown in Figure 3.2.4D.

Figure 3.2.4D

Crops and Drought Insurance - Moniteau 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

$11,534,745 $768,983 $17,069,000 4.51%

Source: Missouri State Hazard Mitigation Plan (2013)

The Planning Committee’s assessment was that Drought should have a Vulnerability Rating of Moderate for the County (unincorporated) and Low for all other jurisdictions. In the 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. Potential Impact on Existing Structures Structural impact in regard to this hazard is minimal. Drought can play a role in road and street damage when periods of drought are followed by heavy rains.

129

Potential Impact of Future Development Drought is primarily an issue of water supply for the rural and agricultural parts of the Planning Area. Over 88.6% of the land in Moniteau County is agricultural and agriculture plays an important role in the life and economy of the area. This makes drought mitigation an especially important concern as population increases. Moniteau County and its jurisdictions experienced approximately 2.3% population growth between 2010 and 2015, according to the U.S. Census. This growth rate is slightly higher than the Missouri state average (1.6%). However, data indicates that approximately two-thirds of the growth occurred in the unincorporated, rural areas of Moniteau County (Esri 2012 Updated Demographics). Any growth in population increases demand for water and this impact will show up most strikingly in times of drought, especially in the rural areas. The interconnection of water supplies and good land management techniques would be helpful in mitigating impacts of drought in the future, especially as population increases in the rural areas. Existing Mitigation Strategies Local Drought Insurance Data from the USDA Risk Management Agency indicates that 81.2% of crops in Missouri were insured for drought damage in 2011 (Missouri State Hazard Mitigation Plan (2013)). An assumption could be made that the percentage of insured crops in the Planning Area is at least that high, if not higher, due to the importance of agriculture in the Planning Area. Data from the same agency indicates that $11,534,745 was paid in Moniteau County on claims for crop losses due to drought in the period 1998-2012. 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,

http://www.dnr.mo.gov/env/wrc/drought/nationalcondition.htm

130

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 website13: “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 site14; 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.”

13 http://drought.unl.edu/AboutUs/MissionandHistory.aspx 14 http://droughtmonitor.unl.edu

131

3.2.5 Earthquake

Hazard Description

The United States Geological Survey (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.

132

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

Measure of Probability and Severity How likely are earthquakes along the New Madrid Seismic Zone? In 2002, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) released the following expectations for earthquakes in the zone in the following 50 years15:

• 25 - 40% 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 3.2.5B), as measured by the Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale (see Figure 3.2.5C). The pertinent information for Moniteau County is summarized in Figure 3.2.5A

Figure 3.2.5A Projected Earthquake Hazard for Moniteau County

Magnitude at NMSZ

Probability of Occurrence (2002 - 2052)

Intensity in Moniteau County (MMI) Expected Damage

6.7 25-40% V Minimal to none 7.6 7-10% VI Slight

Source: http://dnr.mo.gov/geology/geosrv/geores/techbulletin1.htm, http://sema.dps.mo.gov/docs/EQ_Map.pdf Other more recent modeling, which will be discussed in the Vulnerability Overview, has estimated potentially greater damage in the Planning Area than the Modified Mercalli Map of Missouri would suggest. For that reason, the Severity is rated as Moderate. Measure of Probability: Low to Moderate Measure of Severity: Moderate 15 https://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs-131-02/

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

133

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

Figure 3.2.5B Highest Projected Modified Mercalli Intensities by County

134

Figure 3.2.5C

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

135

Recent Earthquakes in the Region

Figure 3.2.5D

Source: http://arcg.is/1m1y58 There have been two earthquakes near Moniteau 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. Earthquake Vulnerability Overview

Vulnerable Jurisdictions: Entire Planning Area

Vulnerability Rating: Moderate – Entire Planning Area

http://arcg.is/1m1y58

136

Specific modeling of damage and loss from earthquake scenarios was conducted for the Missouri State Hazard Mitigation Plan (2013) using Hazus 2.1 Level 2 hazard modeling to calculate the loss estimation in an average annualized loss scenario, and an event with a 2% probability of exceedances in 50 years (which is 7.7 magnitude in HAZUS-MH) to model the worst case scenario. This software is used by FEMA to compare relative risk from earthquakes andother natural hazards. Both models produce a similar result as the Modified Mercalli map of Missouri suggests. In the annualized loss scenario, Moniteau ranked 66 in loss ratio of all 115 Missouri counties and the City of St. Louis (the absolute building loss ratio is 0.00%). In the 2% probability of exceedance in 50 years earthquake scenario, Moniteau ranked 58 in loss ratio with its absolute loss ratio of 1.9% (MO Hazard Mitigation Plan 2013). The Planning Committee reviewed the Modified Mercalli map of Missouri and the models of potential earthquake damage in the Planning Area. A Moderate Vulnerability rating was assessed for the entire planning area. There is the increased issue for Moniteau County (unincorporated) and Lupus due to the potential of soil liquefaction along the Missouri River in the event of an earthquake. Even a significant earthquake event in the NMSZ which does not cause great damage in Moniteau County could still very possibly cause cascading economic losses in the county. There is the very real potential for disruption of road and rail traffic to the eastern part of the state, including the metropolitan area of St. Louis. Regions of the state outside of the severely damaged areas 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.

137

Potential Impact on Existing Structures

The earthquake vulnerability analysis in the MO State Hazard Mitigation Plan (2013) 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 Exceedances in 50 Years Scenario.

Annualized Loss Scenario

The MO 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 exceedances probabilities from the eight return periods. (Editor’s 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 Moniteau County are shown in Figure 3.2.5E.

Figure 3.2.5E HAZUS-MH Earthquake Loss Estimation

Annualized Loss Scenario for Moniteau County

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

$43,000 0.00 $11,000 $54,000 66

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

** Out of 115 (114 counties and the City of St. Louis)

Source: MO State Hazard Mitigation Plan (2013)

The loss ratio gives an indication of the potential economic impacts of an earthquake and the difficulty of recovery in the county. To put the estimated loss ratio for Moniteau County in perspective, the highest loss ratio in Missouri was 0.13% in Pemiscot County which lies directly over the New Madrid Fault. Over 70 counties have the lowest loss ratio of 0.00%, but Worth County in northwest Missouri has the lowest total loss. In the map created from this Annualized Loss Scenario data, Moniteau County lies adjacent to, but outside of, the delineation of “critical counties”.

138

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 MO 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. 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 Moniteau County are shown in Figure 3.2.5F.

Figure 3.2.5F HAZUS-MH Earthquake Loss Estimation

2% Probability of Exceedance in 50 Years Scenario for Moniteau County

Structural Damage

Non-Structural Damage

Contents Damage and

Inventory Loss Loss Ratio*

Income Loss

Total Economic

Loss**

Loss Ratio

Rank***

$6,251,000 $18,764,000 $6,803,000 1.90 $7,129,000 $38,947,000 59

* Loss ratio equals the sum of structural and nonstructural damage divided by the entire building inventory value within the county. ** Total economic loss includes inventory loss, relocation loss, capital-related loss, wages loss, and rental income loss

*** Out of 115 (114 counties and the City of St. Louis)

Source: MO State Hazard Mitigation Plan (2013) To put the estimated loss ratio for Moniteau 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. 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.

139

The data in Figure 3.2.5G shows the estimated social impact in Moniteau County of an earthquake occurring at 2 a.m. when most people would be in their homes.

Figure 3.2.5G Social Impact Estimates (HAZUS-MH Modeling)

2% Probability of Exceedance in 50 Years Scenario for Moniteau County 2 a.m. Time of Occurrence

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

10 2 0 0 12 8

Source: MO State Hazard Mitigation Plan (2013)

Potential Impact of Future Development The standards followed in new construction will impact vulnerability to earthquake damage. Building new structures according to more stringent earthquake resistant codes will lessen the potential damage should an earthquake occur, just as poor construction will increase vulnerability. There are no building codes in Planning Area except the City of California, so the standards of construction will be a matter of choice in Clarksburg, Jamestown, Lupus, and Tipton when new development occurs. Existing Mitigation Strategies School Districts The Missouri Revised Statutes of MO, Section 160.451.1 require that:

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.

The school districts in Moniteau County fall below the standard to which this statute applies. (The Planning Area has an expected Modified Mercalli of VI from a 7.6 quake along the NMSZ). However, all school districts in the Planning Area do conduct emergency earthquake exercises during each school year. Public Information The Moniteau County EOP includes sample news releases in Appendix 6 to Annex C. One of the samples included is entitled “Sample Radio Message – No Information Available – Earthquake”.

140

Low Vulnerability Hazards – Wildfire, Land Subsidence/Sinkhole, Flood, Levee Failure, Dam Failure The Planning Area and all participating jurisdictions received a Low Vulnerability Rating for Wildfire and Land Subsidence/Sinkhole. The Planning Area as a whole received a Low Vulnerability Rating for Flood, Levee Failure, and Dam Failure but the Vulnerability Ratings were different for these hazards in some jurisdictions. This variability will be discussed under each hazard. 3.2.6 Wildfire

Description of Hazard Wildfire is defined as an uncontrolled fire that destroys forests and many other types of vegetation, as well as animal species. Forest, grassland, and natural cover fires can and have occurred at any time throughout the year in Missouri. According to statistics from the Missouri Department of Conservation (MDC), the major causes of wildfires in Missouri are various human activities, according to statistics from the Missouri Department of Conservation (see Figure 3.2.6A). 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.

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

141

In Moniteau County 2016, the majority of the fires and the greatest acreage loss occur during the spring fire season (Feb. 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. 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 burning out of control. Geographic Location Data provided by the University of Wisconsin-Madison has been used to map the WUI for the Planning Area (see Figure 3.2.6B). Wildland Urban Interfaces (WUI) 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.

While the mapping data would indicate that the City of California is more at risk from Wildfire than the other incorporated communities, personnel at the planning meetings did not accept this assessment. Their local knowledge gives the perspective that there is wildland/urban interface equal to that of California’s in the other incorporated communities and California is no more at risk than any of the other communities.

142

Figure 3.2.6 B

143

Previous Occurrences The Missouri Department of Conservation database of wildfires indicates 436 wildfire events in Moniteau County between February 2003 and June 2017. That is close to an average of 31 wildfires per year in the Planning Area, although some years are much worse for Wildfire due to the weather conditions. An inspection of the data for Moniteau County indicates that the largest reported burnt acreage was 140 acres (March 2012). There were a total of 22 fires which burned 40 acres or more. The fires destroyed 10 outbuildings and damaged five others; 101 homes, 91 outbuildings, and two commercial buildings were threatened by the fires (see Figure 3.2.6C).

Figure 3.2.6C

Reported Wildfires in Moniteau County (2003-2017) by Fire District/Dept.

Fire District/ Department Acres Burnt

Damaged Threatened Destroyed R O C R O C R O C

California RFA 994.5 0 0 0 30 39 0 0 3 0 Jamestown RFPD 978.91 0 5 0 32 40 0 0 5 0 Fortuna RFA 392 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Moreau FPD 324.6 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 Tipton RFA 208.1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 Latham Fire Dept 145 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 Prairie Home RFD 99 0 0 0 4 6 2 0 0 0 Versailles FPD 82 0 0 0 32 1 0 0 1 0 Russellville RFD 76.85 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Tipton CFD 8.2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Regional West FPD 3.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

TOTAL 3312.66 0 5 0 101 91 2 0 10 0 Key: R = Residential Buildings, O = Outbuildings, C = Commercial Buildings

Source: MO Department of Conservation: http://mdc7.mdc.mo.gov/applications/FireReporting/Report.aspx

While the data seems to indicate that Wildfire is a significant hazard in the Planning Area, this assessment was not supported by the experience of local fire personnel. Participants in the planning process thought that the database gave an excessive view of what are often small fires that are easily extinguished. This is not to say that Wildfire is not potentially hazardous in the Planning Area but just that the perceived threat is not as great as the database might lead one to believe. Participants in the planning meetings (2013) also noted that natural cover fires in the Planning Area have decreased in recent years since Union Pacific Railroad installed spark arrestors on their engines. The Planning Area is transected by the railway which passes directly through the two largest cities, California and Tipton, and also through the smaller town of Clarksburg. Fires started by sparks from trains were formerly an issue for the area; local negotiation with Union Pacific resulted in the installation of the spark arrestors.

144

There was agreement that many fires were due to individuals starting a fire during conditions that are not ideal and the fire grew out of hand. In some jurisdictions there is not a system to warn individuals of days with burn advisories and citizens either do not know where to seek information or know about burn advisories. Measure of Probability and Severity Measure of Probability:

High – Moniteau County (unincorp.) Low – all other participating jurisdictions

Measure of Severity: Low The Missouri State Hazard Mitigation Plan (2013) points out that the probability of wildfires may increase during conditions of excessive heat, dryness, and drought. The probability is also higher in spring and late fall. Wildfire Vulnerability Overview

Vulnerable Jurisdictions: Planning Area Vulnerability Rating: Low While wildfires can be expected to occur almost every year in the Planning Area, the evaluation of the Planning Committee was that these fires do not pose significant threat. The Vulnerability Rating for Wildfire was assessed to be Low for all jurisdictions in the Planning Area. Potential Impact on Existing Structures Data from the MCD would indicate that the potential impact of Wildfire on existing structures in the Planning Area is small. In 14 years, there were only 10 outbuildings destroyed and 5 damaged in fires that burned an estimated 3313 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 burn themselves out, resulting in minimal cost for suppression. Potential Impact of Future Development Moniteau County and its jurisdictions experienced approximately 2.3% population growth between 2010 and 2015, according to the U.S. Census. The data indicates that approximately

145

two-thirds of this growth occurred in the unincorporated, rural areas of Moniteau County where there is the greatest risk of Wildfire. As more people move into rural areas and build structures, 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 as the population grows; if this does occur, the potential for wildfire will also increase. Existing Mitigation Activities State Missouri Division of Fire Safety (MDFS) coordinates a statewide Fire/Rescue Mutual Aid System; the Planning Area is in Region F of the Mutual Aid System. All of the Fire Departments/Districts in Moniteau Co. belong to this Mutual Aid System. 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 A Firewise Communities program has been implemented in Missouri to teach people how to minimize the threat of wildfire, but Moniteau Co. hasn’t participated in the program yet. The Missouri Department of Conservation does regular trainings within Moniteau County regarding fire safety and wildfires. This is an ongoing action.

146

3.2.7 Land Subsidence/Sinkhole Description of Hazard The Missouri State Hazard Mitigation Plan (2013) gives the following information about Land Subsidence and Sinkholes:

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… In the case of sinkholes, the rock below the surface is limestone, carbonate rock, salt beds, or some other rock that can be naturally dissolved by circulating groundwater. As the rock dissolves, spaces and caverns form, and ultimately the land above the spaces collapse.

The formation of a sinkhole is shown in Figure 3.2.7A. Figure 3.2.7 A

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.

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

147

Geographic Location There are both sinkholes and abandoned underground mines in the Planning Area. Sinkholes All of the “known or probable” sinkholes are located in the northern part of unincorporated Moniteau County and in the City of Jamestown (see Figure 3.2.7B). This data was compiled by the Missouri Department of Natural Resources (MoDNR), Division of Geology and Land Survey, Geological Survey Program, Environmental Geology Section. Aerial photography was used to identify locations of obvious or probable sinkholes that had not already been reported to the department. Underground Mines

The Planning Area has a long history of both surface and underground mining; the area was being mined for its rich mineral deposits even before the arrival of settlers of European heritage.

Large scale commercial mining began in the mid-1800s. Large deposits of coal were discovered near Latham (southwest of California); at the time of discovery, the deposits were among the largest known. Mining continued in this area until 1945.

Extremely high quality lead was mined near High Point (south of California) prior to 1855. The largest lead deposits in the county were near Fortuna (south of Tipton); mines operated there from 1900-1903.

Barite (barium sulfate), referred to as tiff by the miners in MO, was mined in the Planning Area from 1930 through 1942.

The locations of historic underground mines are shown in Figure 3.2.7C. Mines designated as “Other” indicates mines where surface or underground designation is lacking in the data; these could possibly be underground mine locations.

SEMA also created a dataset for areas of elevated risk for ground collapse (see Figure 3.2.7D).

148

Figure 3.2.7B

149

Figure 3.2.7C

150

Figure 3.2.7D

151

Previous Occurrences According to the MO State Hazard Mitigation Plan (2013), “Sinkholes are a regular occurrence in Missouri, but rarely are the events of any significance.” The vast majority of sinkhole collapses which have caused some damage occurred in southern Missouri, the area of the state where sinkholes are the most numerous. There have also been mining-related collapses in various parts of the state, most notably in southeastern MO (lead and zinc mines), southwestern MO (lead mines), northern and western MO (coal mines), and throughout Missouri where underground limestone quarries occur. There are no recorded occurrences of land subsidence or sinkhole collapse in the Planning Area, but based on the known sinkhole map, there are a significant number of sinkholes around Jamestown. The Planning Committee also acknowledged a high number of sinkholes in northern Moniteau County. They were in consensus that sinkholes on the maps are under reported. Measure of Probability and Severity Measure of Probability: Low Measure of Severity: Low Land Subsidence/Sinkhole Vulnerability Overview

Vulnerable Jurisdictions: All participating jurisdictions It should be noted that due to the unpredictability of sinkhole formation and collapse in karst (limestone) topography such as that in the Planning Area, all jurisdictions are being assessed as vulnerable to the hazard. The known sinkhole areas are located in the northern part of the County and in Jamestown.

Vulnerability Rating: Low

While there are numerous known sinkholes in the northern part of Moniteau County and the City of Jamestown, and also numerous closed underground mines throughout the county, the members of the Planning Committee assessed a Low Vulnerability to this hazard. No member of the Committee could remember any instance of land subsidence or sinkhole collapse. Some members of the Committee are lifelong residents of the County and come from families with generational roots in the County. It was pointed out that the extensive curves in Highway 179 in the northern part of the county are due to the routing of the road around the sinkholes in that area. Some of these are located quite close to the highway but there was no knowledge of any problem associated with the sinkholes in that area. The City of Jamestown and California have know of sinkholes inside their city limits, but the sinkholes have never caused a problem for housing or businesses. Their residents are well aware of the sinkholes and build around them. The school in Jamestown filled one of the sinkholes and paved over it for a parking lot; there has never been a structural problem with the lot.

152

The Mayor did indicate that the presence of sinkholes is impacting the location of the city’s new wastewater treatment system. MoDNR would not allow the city to rehabilitate the two lagoons located in town because of the nearby sinkholes. The City of Jamestown is located on a hill. DNR has required location of the new wastewater treatment facility at an elevation below where a discharge or leak might enter into a “losing stream” associated with sinkholes. For this reason, the proposed site for the new treatment plant is at a lower elevation to the east of the city. The relocation of the treatment plant, as opposed to the rehabilitation of the existing lagoons, will result in a much more expensive project for the city. Additional information on this project can be found under Jamestown in Sections 2.10 and 3.2.8. Potential Impact on Existing Structures It is difficult to determine the potential impact of land subsidence and sinkholes on existing structures for a number of reasons:

• There is a lack of data on historic damages caused by land subsidence and sinkhole collapse in Missouri.

• Even with the mapping of known and possible sinkhole locations, it is difficult to predict where a sinkhole will collapse and if the collapse will be significant enough to damage any structures in the vicinity.

According to the MO State Hazard Mitigation Plan (2013), the MO DNR examined more than 160 sinkhole collapses reported by the public between 1970 and 2007. The vast majority of the collapses were small, less than 10 feet in diameter and 10 feet deep. While larger collapses are rare than bowl-shaped sinkholes in Missouri, they are not uncommon events. And the vulnerability will increase when development occurs on unmapped land subsidence area. Potential Impact of Future Development It could be generally supposed that greater development in areas where sinkholes are known or presumed to occur would increase the probability of damages from sinkhole collapse. However, sinkhole collapse is very hard to predict so it is difficult to predict the impact on future development. To err on the side of caution, development which avoids known and probable sinkhole areas would be the wise course of action.

153

3.2.8 Flood Description of Hazard Flooding is defined as partial or complete inundation of usually dry areas. Riverine flooding refers to a river or creek overflowing its normal boundaries. 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. 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 just a matter of hours and are responsible for more flood related deaths than any other type of flooding. In some cases, 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. 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. Geographic Location The northern border of Moniteau County is defined by the Missouri River, the longest river in the United States. This 2,540 mile river drains approximately one-sixth of the area of the continental United States, according to the USGS. Moniteau County is located less than 200 miles upstream from the mouth of the river at St. Louis. The North Moreau, South Moreau, and Moniteau Creeks, which flow through Moniteau County, all drain into the Missouri River.

Historically, riverine flooding has been more of a concern in the Planning Area than it is at the present time. The only population center along the Missouri River is the city of Lupus. Lupus suffered devastating losses from major floods in 1993 and 1995. After the damage wrought by these floods, a decision was made to elevate homes in the town; this was carried out in 1997-98. (A summary article published about this elevation project is included in Appendix F.)

The elevation of Lupus leaves primarily agricultural land in the Planning Area that will be adversely affected by riverine flooding. Mapped data from the current Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) for Moniteau County clearly shows that, with the exception of Lupus, the incorporated communities are only minimally affected by the 100-year floodplain (see Figure 3.2.8A, F-K). The City of Clarksburg does not have any area within the 100-year floodplain.

154

For these reasons, flood elevations (Zone AE) have only been determined for Lupus and parts of unincorporated Moniteau County. The primary flooding concern in the Planning Area at the current time is flash flooding and storm water flooding (especially low water crossing). There is also the potential of flooding from Levee Failure (discussed in Section 3.2.9) and Dam Failure (discussed in Section 3.2.10). Low-water crossings are of significant concern in Moniteau County with roughly 60 low-water crossings, if not more. The Mid-Missouri Regional Planning Commission is currently undergoing a mapping project to provide a database of these low water crossings. The severity of these range from car tires getting wet as they drive through the crossing to the possibility of a vehicle losing control and being swept into a body of water. During periods of flooding these crossings become exponentially more dangerous, if not impassable. At the current time, there is not signage of these crossings. At the time the picture below was taken, there was not any flooding.

155

Figure 3.2.8 A

156

Low Water Crossings and Flash Floods Low-water crossings are of significant concern in Moniteau County with roughly 60 low-water crossings, if not more. The Mid-Missouri Regional Planning Commission is currently undergoing a mapping project to provide a database of these low water crossings. The severity of these range from car tires getting wet as they drive through the crossing to the possibility of a vehicle losing control and being swept into a body of water. During periods of flooding these crossings become exponentially more dangerous, if not impassable. At the current time, there is not signage of these crossings. At the time the picture below was taken, there was not any flooding. There are numerous low water crossings throughout the unincorporated area of Moniteau County which are subject to high water and flash flooding.

Figure 3.2.8 B- Example of Unmarked Low-Water Crossing in Moniteau County

Source: Mid-Missouri Regional Planning Commission

157

Figure 3.2.8 C-Low-Water Crossings in Moniteau County

158

• Road and Bridge District No. 1 has 43 concrete crossings and 21 gravel crossings. • Road and Bridge District No. 2 has an estimated 30 concrete crossings and 20 gravel

crossings. A map of the road districts is shown in Figure 3.2.8D. Figure 3.2.8D


159

Previous Occurrences The floods of 1993 (see Figure 3.2.8 E) and 1995 were the worst repetitive flood events in Missouri history, according to the Missouri State Hazard Mitigation Plan (2013). There was also severe flooding in the state in 1994. Figure 3.2.8E

.

160

Lupus and the unincorporated areas near the Missouri River experienced extensive losses during the Missouri River floods of 1993 and 1995. The devastating losses in those floods led the citizens of Lupus to apply for and receive mitigation funds to elevate homes in the town in 1997 and 1998. A total of $233,035 was spent on the project which elevated 11 structures. The project was funded by grants from FEMA’s Flood Mitigation Assistance (FMA) program, the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program and Interfaith and from private funds from several property owners. More information on this successful mitigation project can be found in Appendix F. Both levees along the Missouri River in Moniteau County were breached during the Flood of 1993. Specific information on the levees is discussed in Section 3.2.9 (Levee Failure). Moniteau County was included in Presidential Disaster Declarations for both the 1993 and 1995 floods: #995 (July 9, 1993) and #1054 (June 2, 1995). Moniteau 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 indicates numerous other flooding events in Moniteau County since 1994 (see Figure 3.2.8D). 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 Moniteau County is not indicated in the NOAA data. However, the data indicates that flash flooding during this period caused $500,000 in property damage, including $60,000 damage to county roads. For some unknown reason, the Missouri River flood of 1995 is not included in the NOAA data. High water levels in the Missouri River in the summer of 2011 resulted in MO Highway 179 at Sandy Hook being closed for most of the summer. It is important to note that the total losses shown in the chart include the statewide losses from the events listed. The data does indicate, however, that there was at least $506,000 in property damage and $5,000 in crop damage in Moniteau County itself from the events listed.

Figure 3.2.8F Flood Events - Moniteau County (4/10/1994-6/20/2017)

Location Date Type Deaths*

Injuries*

Property Damage*

Crop Damage*

Sandy Hook area (Highway 170 closed) 4/10-4/12/1994 Flash 0 0 500K** 0

79 counties and City of St. Louis 4/11- 4/19/1994 River 0 0 5.0M 5.0M County (several low bridges on Highway 161; Co. Rds. J, K, CC) 4/11-4/12/1994 Flash 0 0 0 0

County (numerous roads) 5/17/1995 Flash 0 0 0 0 20 counties and the City of St. Louis 5/1- 5/31/1996 Flood 0 0 0 0

Countywide (most roads in Tipton area covered by 1-2 feet of water) 5/6/1996 Flash 0 0 0 0

161

Countywide (Highway PP and other county roads) 7/1/1996 Flash 0 0 0 0

Eastern Portion 7/4/1998 Flash 0 0 0 0 Countywide 7/26/1998 Flash 0 0 NA NA Countywide 7/29/1998 Flash 0 0 0 0 Countywide (Highway 50 east of California) 10/5-10/6/1998 Flood 0 0 0 0

Countywide (Highway 50 E of California and Tipton, Highway 87 S of California, Rte. D N of California; low water crossings impassable throughout county)

10/5-10/6/1999 Flood/ Flash 0 0 0 0

11 counties (Missouri River) 10/6-10/12/1998 Flood 0 0 0 0 Countywide (Highways 179, 87, 50) 5/27/2000 Flash 0 0 0 0

Northern Portion 8/7-8/8/2000 Flash 0 0 0 0 11 counties 6/4-6/13/2001 Flood 0 0 0 0 Northern portion (Sandy Hook area - Highway 179) 6/6/2001 Flood 0 0 0 0

Countywide 5/9/2002 Flash 0 0 0 0 Countywide 5/12-5/13/2002 Flash 0 0 0 0 Countywide 7/18-7/19/2003 Flash 0 0 0 0 Countywide 1/12-1/13/2005 Flash 0 0 0 0 California (Highway 50) 8/26/2005 Flash 0 0 0 0 Sandy Hook area (Highway 179) 5/6/2007 Flash 0 0 0 0 Lupus to Jamestown (Missouri River) 5/8-5/18/2007 Flood 0 0 5K 5K

Tipton to California 4/10/2008 Flash 0 0 1K 0 Bacon to California (Highway 50 and Route O N of California) 4/29-4/30/2009 Flash 0 0 0 0

McGirk/High Point/Enon area 7/28/2009 Flash 0 0 0 0 California area (U.S. Highway 50 W of California: Highway O N of California; Parkview Drive in California)

4/23-4/24/2010 Flash 0 0 0 0

NW of Lupus to ESE of Bacon (Missouri River) 6/9-6/30/2010 Flood 0 0 0 0

Lupus to ESE of Clarksburg (Highway 50 W of Tipton) 7/26/2010 Flash 0 0 0 0

Tipton 4/3/2014 Flash Flood 0 0 0 0

Lupus and Clarksburg in Moniteau County, Cole County, Boone County, and Callaway County

7/31-8/1/2016 Flash Flood 1 0 0 0

TOTALS: 5.506M 5.005M * Data is total for all counties in Missouri affected by the Flood event. ** Includes $60,000 damage to County roads

Source: https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/stormevents/

162

Measure of Probability and Severity Measure of Probability: High Measure of Severity: Low Flood Vulnerability Overview

Vulnerable Jurisdictions: Moniteau County (unincorporated), California, Jamestown, Lupus, Tipton, Jamestown C-I School District

Clarksburg C-II School District, High Point R-III School District, Moniteau Co. R-I School District, Moniteau Co. R-V School District and Tipton R-VI School District are not vulnerable to flooding. Vulnerability Rating:

Moderate: Moniteau County (unincorporated)

Low: California, Jamestown, Lupus, Tipton, Jamestown C-I School District While there is a High Probability of Flood in some jurisdictions of the Planning Area, for the most part the flooding is more of an inconvenience than a serious problem at this point. The successful elevation project in Lupus mitigated the most serious flooding in the Planning Area.

The one exception to this would be the toll that flooding takes on the County roads and bridges. For this reason, Moniteau County (unincorporated) has been assessed a Moderate Vulnerability rating for Flood while the other vulnerable jurisdictions have been assessed Low Vulnerability ratings.

163

Potential Impact on Existing Structures An estimate of the number of structures situated in the 100-year floodplain was developed from comparing aerial imagery with the flood map of the Planning Area. The estimates for each participating jurisdiction are shown in Figure 3.2.8G. For those jurisdictions where NFIP policies are in place, this information is included. An NFIP policy does not necessarily equate to location in the 100-year floodplain. However, most of the City of Lupus is located in the 100-year floodplain and, in that case, the figures may give some rough idea of level of concern regarding property and flooding.

Figure 3.2.8G

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)

Moniteau County (unincorporated) 168 7 $840,700 California 5 1 $140,000 Clarksburg 0 na na Jamestown 0 0 0 Lupus 78** 6 $643,600 Tipton 6 0 0 Clarksburg C-II School District 0 na na High Point R-III School District 0 na na Jamestown C-I School District 0 na na Moniteau Co. R-I School District 0 na na Moniteau Co. R-V School District 0 na na Tipton R-VI School District 0 na na * Estimate developed from comparison of aerial imagery with floodplain map.

** All occupied residences, excepting one, have been elevated. The non-elevated structures that exist are mostly outbuildings, garages, etc.

na - Not applicable; Clarksburg is not a member of the NFIP.

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

Detailed maps showing the 100-year flood plain for each incorporated community are shown in Figures 3.2.8 F-K along with specific information about flooding in the vulnerable jurisdictions.

164

Moniteau County (unincorporated)

The greatest impact of flooding in the unincorporated areas of the County is the toll it takes on the County roads and bridges. There is a continual need for repair of roads and culverts due to flooding of the many branches and creeks throughout the County.

There are no people living in the unincorporated areas of the 100-year floodplain of the Missouri River, according to the Moniteau County Assessor’s Office. A few very old buildings still exist there.

While the estimate for structures in the 100-year floodplain for the County made from aerial imagery found the number of structures at 168, this reflects the floodplain along all branches and creeks in the County. The new floodplain maps issued in 2011 increased the designation of 100-year floodplain along many branches and creeks in the County. Discussion with personnel on the Planning Committee indicated that many areas now designated as 100-year floodplain have never been known to flood, not even in the very worst flooding years. For the extent of the 100-year floodplain, see Figure 3.2.8A.

California

The main flooding issue the City of California faces is flash flooding at about eight to ten areas of the city; the flooding usually lasts no more than an hour. These areas, for the most part, are not associated with the designated 100-year floodplain in the city.

California is in the process of addressing this issue through work on its storm water system. In 2009, the City had a Comprehensive Stormwater Management Plan developed by the Mid-MO Regional Planning Commission. The plan found that “…the flooding issues that are present in the City are due in large part to the age of the system and the reliance of ditches to move the storm water to the natural drainages.”

The Mid-Missouri Regional Planning commission completed this plan with an engineering firm to address the ongoing issue. Storm water will continue causing issues for California because of the rapid residential and commercial development in the area. As the Planning Committee agreed, “More concrete means more [storm water] problems.”

A storm water improvement plan was completed in 2012. This project addressed storm water problem within a 3-4 block area. Although this did solve some of the issue, storm water continues to present as a problem for California.

The primary obstacle to solving this problem is funding for storm water mitigation within California. Their annual storm water budget is roughly $24,000, which does not leave funding available to address long-term storm water problems within the city.

165

Figure 3.2.8H

166

Clarksburg

There is not any 100-year floodplain in the City of Clarksburg nor is there a problem with flooding. For these reasons, Clarksburg has chosen not to participate in the NFIP.

Figure 3.2.8 I

167

Jamestown

Jamestown is located on high ground and does not experience any significant flooding problems. While Jamestown has a small amount of 100-year floodplain at the edges of the city, these areas are undeveloped and unlikely to be developed. Originally a new wastewater treatment plant is projected to be located east of the vicinity of the 100-year floodplain associated with Haldiman Branch (see Figure 3.2.8J), but it was reported during the plan update that it would no longer be located there. In 2014, Jamestown was granted funding through the USDA Water and Waste Disposal Program.

Figure 3.2.8J

168

Lupus

According to the Village of Lupus Flood Mitigation Assistance Plan: “All buildings, with the exception of two households are located within a floodplain formed by the watersheds of Big and Little Splice Creeks; the town is also immediately adjacent to the Missouri River….As the river rises above flood stage, it causes the two Splice Creeks to back up into the town.”

The Mitigation Assistance Plan was written as a requirement for the elevation project which took place in Lupus in 1997 and 1998. As discussed previously, almost all the homes in the town were elevated to above the base flood elevation. Most of the homes were elevated on aboveground foundations of treated wood made specifically for this type of situation; one home was elevated on “stilts”. (More information on this successful mitigation project can be found in Appendix F.) While the estimate of structures in the floodplain of Lupus is 78, this is not reflective of the actual vulnerability of the town. The 2011-2015 ACS Estimate lists the number of housing units as 22. Most of the structures currently vulnerable to flooding are lower cost outbuildings and garages. The Town Hall, valued at $30,000, is built of cinderblocks on a concrete slab and is able to weather flooding.

According to the mayor, everything that will be elevated in the town has been elevated. There is currently only one occupied home which is below base flood elevation but it is not in a particularly low area and not at great risk for many of the floods. The last time this home flooded was in the massive flood of 1993. While the elevation project has put the homes of Lupus out of flooding danger, there is still the potential for the disruption of normal activity when flood threatens. Vehicles and other personal property must be moved to higher ground or higher locations within basements to avoid possible flooding; residents must access and leave their homes by boat.

The Mayor of Lupus estimates that the town has flooded 4 or 5 times since 1995. The main flooding scenarios are as follows:

• Heavy local rain will cause the Big and Little Splice Creeks fill up and overflow, causing flooding in the town.

• High river stages on the Missouri River will also cause the Big and Little Splice Creeks to fill up and flood. The residents of Lupus get serious about moving cars and personal property when the Missouri River stage reaches 29-30’ (Boonville gage.) If the creeks flood, a slough in the middle of town will fill and then a drainage ditch along the railroad tracks fills. The railroad tracks, which run between the town and the river, function somewhat as a levee to protect the town at certain river stages. Water will start coming over the tracks at about river stage 34’ (Boonville gage).

169

The Mayor in 2012 noted that changes in the management of the Missouri River, such as the removal of levees and more land dedicated to conservation and wetlands, have made it more difficult to know at what stages flooding will occur. According to the mayor, the river “…fills up slower but empties slower too.”

Figure 3.2.8L- Elevated Lupus Structure

Source: Mid-Missouri Regional Planning Commission

170

Figure 3.2.8M

171

Tipton

The City of Tipton has some small problems with flash flooding in the areas of West Morgan Street (located west of Route B) and Claremont Avenue/Meadow Lane area (east side of town). The flash flood water recedes fairly quickly. Neither of these flash flooding areas are in the 100-year floodplain. There are very few structures located in the 100-year flood plain in the city.

Figure 3.2.8N

172


The Jamestown C-I School District is vulnerable to flooding due to a bus route which travels on Highway 179. When the highway is closed at Sandy Hook due to flooding of the Missouri River, the bus must be rerouted. This is the district’s longest bus route even before rerouting; it transports students from neighboring Cole County attending school in the district.

National Flood Insurance Program Repetitive Loss Properties


[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.” A repetitive loss property may or may not currently be insured by the NFIP. There are no Repetitive Loss Properties in Moniteau County, according to the Missouri State Hazard Mitigation Plan (2013). 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. Multiple losses at the same location within 10 days of each other are counted as 1 loss, with the payment amounts added together16. There are no Severe Repetitive Loss Properties in Moniteau County, according to the Missouri State Hazard Mitigation Plan (2013).

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

173

Potential Impact on Future Development Impact on future development is directly related to floodplain management and regulations set forth by the county and individual communities. Only the City of Clarksburg does not have floodplain regulations or participate in the NFIP; Clarksburg also does not have any 100-year floodplain within its boundaries nor problems with flooding. Any future development in the Planning Area should thus be subject to compliance with the floodplain regulations of one of the jurisdictions. Existing Mitigation Activities National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) The U.S. Congress established the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) with the passage of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968. The NFIP is a Federal program enabling property owners in participating communities to purchase insurance as a protection against flood losses in exchange for State and community floodplain management regulations that reduce future flood damages. Participation in the NFIP is based on an agreement between communities and the Federal Government. If a community adopts and enforces a floodplain management ordinance to reduce future flood risk to new construction in floodplains, the Federal Government will make flood insurance available within the community as a financial protection against flood losses. This insurance is designed to provide an insurance alternative to disaster assistance to reduce the escalating costs of repairing damage to buildings and their contents caused by floods. Participation in the National Flood Insurance Program is a critical aspect of hazard mitigation planning for it provides communities with direct resources that can be used for controlling the potentially devastating impacts of floods. Furthermore, participation in the program helps communities more easily recover from flood impacts. The following Moniteau County jurisdictions participate in the NFIP: Moniteau County, California, Jamestown, Lupus, and Tipton. Detailed information on NFIP participation is shown in Figure 3.2.8N. Figure 3.2.8N

Moniteau County Jurisdictions Participating in NFIP Jurisdiction Entry into Program Date of Current FIRM Moniteau County 10/17/1986 3/3/2011 California 8/24/1984 3/3/2011 (M) Jamestown 8/24/1984 3/3/2011 (M) Lupus 1/3/1986 3/3/2011 Tipton 3/3/2011 3/3/2011 (M) (M) = No Elevation Determined - All Zone A, C and X Source: https://www.fema.gov/cis/MO.pdf

174

Clarksburg has chosen not to participate in the NFIP because it does not have any 100-year floodplain within its boundaries nor any problems with flooding. A summary of the NFIP insurance policies in the county is shown in Figure 3.2.8O.

Figure 3.2.8O NFIP Policies in Moniteau County as of 3/31/2017

Community Number

of Policies

Amount Insured ($) Total Premium ($)

Moniteau County 7 840,700 8,719 California 1 140,000 316 Jamestown 0 0 0 Lupus 6 643,600 2,383 Tipton 0 0 0 Source: https://bsa.nfipstat.fema.gov/reports/1011.htm

County The Moniteau County EOP (Appendix 7 to Annex J) discusses steps to be taken if a flood evacuation is necessary and includes a sample news release for an ordered evacuation (Appendix 6 to Annex C). Communities A full description of the successful elevation project in Lupus can be found in Appendix F. Other The National Weather Service issues flooding hazard alerts according to three response levels (See Figure 3.2.8O). These alerts are broadcast through local media.

Figure 3.2.8O Flood Response Levels Response level Description Flood Watch Flash flooding or flooding is possible within a designated area Flood Warning Flash flooding or flooding has been reported or is imminent

Flood Advisory Flooding of small streams, streets, and low lying areas, such as railroad underpasses and some urban drains is occurring

Source: MO Hazard Mitigation Plan (2013)

175

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

• Overtopping-When a large flood occurs, water can flow over a levee. Called overtopping, the stress exerted by flowing water 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. 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 Corps of Engineers has specific and limited responsibilities for approximately 2,000 levees nationwide through their Levee Program. 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 Corps of Engineers rehabilitation assistance funding.

176

Geographic Location There are two major levees in the Planning Area (see Figure 3.2.9A):

• The Plowboy Bend Levee is located south of Lupus.

• The Overton-Wooldridge Levee is located primarily in Cooper County to the north of the Planning Area; approximately one-third of the levee is located in the Planning Area. The Overton-Wooldridge Levee District is a participating jurisdiction in the Cooper County Hazard Mitigation Plan. Some general information on the levee district and mitigation actions from that plan are included in this plan.

Figure 3.2.9A

Source: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers National Levee Database

177

Other privately owned levees exist in the Planning Area along Moniteau and Moreau Creeks 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

Both of 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 receive damage during a flood event. Previous Occurrences Both levees in the Planning Area failed during the flood of 1993. The 1993 breach of the Plowboy Bend Levee resulted in a lot of property damage to buildings and irrigation systems. The buildings have been taken down since that time and the irrigations systems are no longer in use. Plowboy Bend Levee had never failed previous to the flood of 1993 nor has it failed since. During the extended flooding of the Missouri River in 2011, there was seepage under the levee which resulted in a loss of the majority of crops in the protected area. (The levee district does not have a pumping station.) There was minimal damage to the levee structure itself; some of the sod will need to be reseeded. During the Missouri River flooding in 2011, the Overton-Wooldridge Levee also experienced seepage under the levee which resulted in both agricultural losses and pumping expenses. (For more information, see the Cooper County, Mo Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan.) Measure of Probability and Severity Measure of Probability: Low Measure of Severity: Moderate

178

Levee Failure Vulnerability Overview Jurisdictions: Moniteau County (unincorp.) None of the schools in the Planning Area are vulnerable to Levee Failure. Vulnerability Rating: Low

The failure of the levees along the Missouri River in the Planning Area would put agricultural fields, county roads (less than 5 miles), secondary roads, and one office/shop at risk. The greatest consequence would be damage to agricultural fields and subsequent crop losses. The total agricultural acres in the areas protected by two levees is estimated at less than 2,000 acres.

Given that the probability of Levee Failure in the Planning Area was assessed to be Low with Low Severity if failure did occur, the Vulnerability Rating was assessed as Low.

Plowboy Bend Levee

The Plowboy Bend Levee has an interesting structure; it almost entirely surrounds the area of land which it protects. The west side of the levee runs on the river side of the railroad tracks. This effectively forms a chute which channels hill water coming down a drainage ditch from the higher topography to the north; the hill water discharges into the river at the southernmost end of the levee. Without this part of the levee, the hill water would flood the protected area in the bend of the river. It should be noted that in addition to the protected area inside the levee, this levee also protects part of Missouri Highland Farm, a blueberry picking outlet located to the north. Should the levee breach, part of the farm would be at risk from water backing up the drainage ditch. The area at risk includes the office/shop of the farm. The levee at its northern end crosses the railroad tracks. When the river reaches 31 feet at the Boonville Gage, the Levee District sandbags across the railroad tracks. At this river stage, the tracks are underwater in other areas so rail traffic has already been stopped. This sandbagging does not need to take place very often, according to the Levee District Board President.

179

A close-up view of the Plowboy Bend Levee is shown in Figure 3.2.9B.

Figure 3.2.9B

Source: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers National Levee Database

180

Specific information about the levee district levees is shown in Figures 3.2.9C-D.

Figure 3.2.9C Plowboy Bend Levee District Overview

Embankment Data Levee designed gage function reading/station: 32.5 Boonville Gage Level of protection provided: Exceeds 10-year flood event Average height of levee: approx. 12 ft. Average crown width: approx. 12 ft. Average side slope: 4:1 Annual maintenance costs: $4000 Protected features Total acres protected: 2,469 Agricultural production acres protected: 1,000 (approx. 400-420 of this is privately owned, the rest is MDC cropland Businesses: 1 Residences: 0 Roads: About 4 miles of county road, several secondary roads Utilities: 0 Other facilities: 0 Sponsorship and Inspection Sponsor: Plowboy Bend Levee Association Contact for information on levee: John Clay, Board President, 660-849-2233 Other officers of Levee District: J.P. Cassil, Board Treasurer Last inspection date: April 14, 2010 Sources: Plowboy Bend Levee District Association President, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Levee Database (http://nld.usace.army.mil)

Information on this Levee District can be obtained by contacting John Clay at 660-849-2233.

181

Figure 3.2.9D

Plowboy Bend Levee - USACE National Levee Database

Initial Eligibility Inspection Date 10/16/1991 Length (miles) 8.78 Inspection Rating Minimally acceptable Leveed Area Acreage 2472.85

Authorization Type Locally constructed, locally operated and maintained

Standard Project Flood Authorized Level 10 Min Overtopping Event* 5 Flood of Record** 755000 Flood of Record Date July 29, 1993 Egress Locations No Leveed Area Source Other Levee Centerlines 2 Gravity Drain Lines 6 Pump Stations Points 0 Levee Relief Wells Points 0 Toe Drain Lines 0 Piezometer Points 0 Boreholes 0 Cross Section Lines 24 Levee Crossings Points 12 Floodwall Lines 0 Closure Structure Lines 1 * Min Overtopping Event given as the percent annual change exceedance event (e.g. 1% ACE), derived from the minimum overtopping event.

** Flood of Record - The flood of record flow for the levee system. Source: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Levee Database (http://nld.usace.army.mil)

182

Overton-Wooldridge Levee The extent of the Overton-Wooldridge Levee located in Moniteau County is shown in Figure 3.2.9 E. An overview of the entire levee and its protected area is shown in Figure 3.2.9F. Figure 3.2.9 E

183

Figure 3.2.9F Overton-Wooldridge Levee Overview

Embankment Data Levee designed gage function reading/station: 32.0 Boonville Gage Level of protection provided: Exceeds 10-year flood event Average height of levee: Varies from a low of 8’ to a high of 14’ above the landside natural ground surface. Average crown width: Varies from 10’ to 12’ Average side slope: L/S: 1 on 3 R/S: 1 on 3 Annual maintenance costs: Approximately $2,500.00 Protected features Total acres protected: Approximately 3,500 (Approx. 1,435 acres of MO River Mitigation Project lands – known as Overton Bottoms Conservation Area South.) Agricultural production acres protected: Approximately 3,400 (Note: MO River Mitigation Project lands are agriculturally leased on a year-to-year basis.) Towns: 0 Businesses: 0 Residences: 0 Roads: Approximately 5.20 miles of gravel surfaced County roads and approximately 5.00 miles of non-surface farm service roads. Utilities: Approximately 4.50 miles of overhead power lines. Barns: 5 Machine Sheds: 0 Outbuildings: 3 Irrigation Systems: 0 Grain Bins: 1 Other Facilities: Limited protection afforded to approximately 6.00 miles of railroad embankment.

Some of the land in the Planning Area protected by the Overton-Wooldridge Levee is part of the Overton Bottoms Conservation Area South of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). According to John Clay, Board President of the Overton-Wooldridge Levee District, the other levee-protected assets located in Moniteau County are farmland, the railroad, and (at most) a mile of county road. A rather rough estimate of the protected acreage, using Google maps, was in the range of 900-1,000 acres for the area protected in Moniteau County.

This levee is sponsored by the Cooper County Commission and was last inspected in 2015. Information on this Levee District can be obtained by contacting Robert Alpers at 660-621-2006. As a participating jurisdiction in the Cooper County, Mo Hazard Mitigation Plan (2017), the Overton-Wooldridge Levee District developed the following mitigation actions:

1) Continue the practice of levee inspection and making repairs and upgrades as needed.

2) Continue to participate with Copper Co. EMA in mutual aid agreements.

184

3) Thicken levee base over the entirety of the levee from a slope of 1 to 2 to a slope of 1

to 3 where needed (for every 1 foot of rise there would be 3 feet of run). In some areas a slope of 1 to 5 may be necessary.

More information on the Overton-Wooldridge Levee and the proposed Implementation and Administration of these actions is contained in the Cooper County, Mo. Hazard Mitigation Plan (2017). Potential Impact on Existing Structures The main impact of Levee Failure in the Planning Area would be the flooding of agricultural fields and subsequent crop losses. In the areas protected by the Plowboy Bend Levee and the Overton-Wooldridge Levee in the Planning Area, the only structures at risk are approximately 5 miles of county roads, some secondary roads, 2+ miles of railroad tracks, and the office/shop of Missouri Highland Farm. There are no houses at risk. Potential Impact on Future Development It is unlikely that the areas protected by the two levees in the Planning Area would see much development in the future. Much of the area protected by the Plowboy Levee is a conservation area owned by the Missouri Department of Conservation. The private owners of land protected by the levees are well aware of the potential for flooding and the risks involved in development. Many of the landowners are already subject to crop losses from flooding, such as those resulting from seepage water in 2011. In addition, some of the area protected by the Plowboy Bend Levee and the Overton-Wooldridge Levee is in the 100-year floodplain. Any potential development in that area would be regulated by the floodplain ordinance of Moniteau County which is a member of the NFIP. Existing Mitigation Strategies Both levees in the Planning Area are part of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Levee Program and are inspected regularly by the USACE. In order to stay in compliance with the USACE Levee Program and remain eligible for assistance with rehabilitation, the levees must be maintained to standards set by the USACE. Both levee districts have maintenance plans in place.

185

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

• 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 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 regulate dams. 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

186

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 3.2.10A.

187

Figure 3.2.10A 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 Moniteau County.

188

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 19 dams listed for Moniteau County in the DNR database (see Figure 3.2.10B). Only 2 of these are regulated. It should be noted that 4 of the 6 dams classified as High Hazard (probable loss of human life were a failure to occur) are under 35 feet in height and thus not regulated by the State. These four 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 3.2.10B

Hazard Categories of Moniteau County Dams

Federal Hazard Category

Total Dams

Percentage of Total Dams

State Regulated Unregulated

High 6 32% 2 4

Significant 13 68% 0 13

Low

Total 19 100% 2 17 Source: http://dnr.mo.gov/geology/wrc/dam-safety/statemap.htm?/env/wrc/dam-safety/statemap.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.)

189

Geographic Location The locations of the dams in Moniteau County are shown in Figure 3.2.10C. Specific information for the two regulated dams and the seventeen unregulated dams is shown in the accompanying map key (Figure 3.2.10D). 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 3.2.10C

190

Figure 3.2.10D

REGULATED Moniteau County Dams

ID # Name Year Built

Ht (feet)

Reservoir Area

(Acres)

Drainage Area

(Acres) Federal Class

State Class

MO31556 MANITO DAM 1984 43 77 1480 H 1

MO31909 LAKE IMHOFF DAM 1988 45 26 358 H 1

NON REGULATED Moniteau County Dams

MO11544 ZIMMERMAN LAKE DAM 1976 20 7 103 L 3

MO20105 MONONAME 576 1973 20 4 142 L 3 MO20106 MONONAME 577 na 20 3 57 L 3

MO30034 RICHWARD W COOK JR. 1961 20 6 115 L 3

MO30093 PROCTOR PARK LAKE DAM 1900 20 8 315 L 3

MO30145 ELLIOTT LAKE DAM 1965 25 7 282 L 3

MO30233 VEULEMANS LAKE DAM 1963 25 5 160 L 3

MO30235 CREWS LAKE DAM 1975 20 19 240 L 3

MO30236 KNIPP LAKE DAM 1968 18 11 300 H 2

MO30238 PORTER LAKE DAM 1972 25 6 115 L 3

MO30240 LONGAN LAKE DAM 1971 33 5 25 L 3

MO31339 BOND LAKE DAM 1977 25 8 185 H 2

MO31556 MCMENAMY LAKE DAM 1930 25 5 130 L 3

MO31691 WASHBURN LAKE DAM 1970 18 2 75 H 2

MO31693 JENKINS LAKE DAM 1977 30 4 30 L 3

MO31694 MAYHUGH LAKE DAM 1977 30 2 25 L 3

MO31763 KEANE LAKE DAM 1976 25 4 190 H 2 Source: http://dnr.mo.gov/geology/wrc/dam-safety/Crystal_Reports/moniteau_dams.pdf

Previous Occurrences While there have been no dam failures in Moniteau 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.

191

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 (since the database isn’t updated since 2001). More recently, there was a huge 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 swept 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. All of 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 continue to age and deteriorate. While hundreds of them need to be rehabilitated, lack of available funding and often questions of ownership loom as obstacles difficult to overcome. Measure of Probability and Severity Measure of Probability: Low Measure of Severity: Low There are currently six dams in Moniteau County classified as high hazard; only two of these are regulated by the state. These classifications may not accurately reflect current conditions as discussed previously.

192

Dam Failure Vulnerability Overview

Vulnerable Jurisdictions: Moniteau County (unincorporated), California

None of the school districts are vulnerable to the hazard of Dam Failure Vulnerability Rating: Low Most of the dams in the Planning Area are located in unincorporated Moniteau County. The cities of California and Tipton have hazard dams classified as low hazard inside, or within a mile of, their city limits. Tipton was not included in the list of jurisdictions vulnerable to Dam Failure because water from the reservoir behind Veulemans Lake Dam (see Figures 3.2.10C and D) would flow into unincorporated Moniteau County should there be a failure at the dam. Given the location of the dams in the Planning Area, the most predictable effect of a dam failure is the flooding of agricultural fields. This could result in varying levels of economic loss depending on the time of year of the failure. Six dams in the Planning Area are federally classified as high hazard (see Figures 3.2.10E-G). By definition, a federally classified high hazard dam has some permanent structure(s) beneath it. This remains true for some of the dams originally classified as high hazard; it is not true for others. Structures indicate the regular or intermittent presence of people, so injury or death is in the realm of possibility. However, barring a sudden break, sufficient warning would enable evacuation of people in a threatened area. It was the assessment of the members of the Planning Committee that given the Low Probability of dam failure, the low number of structures beneath dams, and the likely probability of advance warning of problems at a dam that the Vulnerability Rating for this hazard is Low. Potential Impact on Existing Structures Inundation information is not available for any of the dams in the Planning Area at the present time, so it is not possible to know the exact extent of the area that would be impacted by dam failure. The inundation studies currently being conducted in the State will provide better information in the future for the two state regulated dams (Manito Dam and Lake Imhoff Dam). Without inundation studies, the main predictable impact of failure at a dam in the Planning Area would appear to be the flooding of agricultural fields. In the case of a few of the high hazard dams, there is the possibility of flooding of one or two structures and/or roadways (see Figures 3.2.10 F-G). The downstream areas and parcels within a half mile of the two dams in or near the City of California are shown in Figure 3.2.10 H.

• Proctor Park Lake Dam, located in the southern part of California, is located in an open flat area. While there are houses within a half mile of the dam, it was the assessment of city personnel that a failure at the dam would not cause significant damage to any

193

existing structures. Due to the topography surrounding the lake, and the relative shallowness of the lake, a failure would most probably result in a wide area of very shallow water.

• Mononame 576 Dam, located northwest of the city limits, is a dam at a golf course lake. There is a ridge between the city and the dam and lake (which are located in a valley.) Therefore, a failure at the dam poses no threat to structures in the City of California.

Figure 3.2.10E Bond Lake Dam/Washburn Lake Dam

194

Figure 3.2.10F Lake Imhoff Dam/Manito Dam

195

Figure 3.2.10G Keane Lake Dam/Knipp Lake Dam

196

Figure 3.2.10H

Dams in or near the City of California

197

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 planning and zoning regulations in Moniteau County or its incorporated communities other than floodplain regulations; public sentiment indicates that this will be true for the foreseeable future. Therefore, there is no legal means to control development to lessen the threat of flooding from Dam Failure.

Lacking legal power, 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 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.

There are at least 17 unregulated dams in the Planning Area without required inundation studies or EAPs. While many of these dams probably pose little threat to life or livelihood, developers and buyers would be wise to look upstream before development or purchase.

Existing Mitigation Strategies State regulated dams are inspected, according to classification, through the Dam Safety Program of the DNR. Inundation Maps and Emergency Action Plans (EAPs)_

(While these inundation maps and EAPs have not yet been completed for Moniteau 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.

198

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.

177

Section 4: Mitigation Strategy 4.1 Hazard Mitigation Goals


[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 and objectives were developed during the planning process for the original Moniteau County Hazard Mitigation Plan (2006). The Planning Committee reviewed these goals and objectives; no changes were made for the update. The goals and objectives for the Moniteau County Hazard Mitigation Plan (2017) are: Goal 1: Mitigate the effects of future natural hazards in the County.

1.1 Incorporate mitigation planning and procedures into the community. 1.2 Encourage private involvement in mitigation activities.

Goal 2: Ensure continued operation of government and emergency functions in a disaster.

2.1 Strengthen critical structures and infrastructures. 2.2 Strengthen multi-jurisdictional cooperation among emergency services.

Goal 3: Protect the County’s most valuable assets and vulnerable populations through cost effective and feasible mitigation projects whenever financially possible.

3.1 Protect buildings and valuable assets. 3.2 Protect vulnerable populations.

Goal 4: Increase the public awareness of natural hazards in the County in order to make the public a partner in hazard mitigation.

4.1 Have educational materials for public on all hazards.

178

4.2 Update of Mitigation Actions


[The mitigation strategy shall include a] section that identifies and analyzes a comprehensive range of specific mitigation actions and 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 Moniteau County Hazard Mitigation Plan (2006) was charged with developing a comprehensive range of mitigation actions to promote the agreed upon mitigation goals. Objectives were defined under each goal and the 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.

No mitigation actions were eliminated from consideration when the original plan was written. The 2006 plan therefore contained a comprehensive list of mitigation actions which served as a starting point for update discussions.

179

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 most recent update (2017) reviewed and discussed all the mitigation actions from the 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 on the Planning Committee of representative from different jurisdictions, and departments within those jurisdictions, allowed for a thorough updating of the mitigation actions to make them appropriate for current conditions and capabilities in the Planning Area. 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 can be seen in Figure 4.2.1. A summary of the mitigation action updates is as follows:

• A few actions were removed from the mitigation actions plan for various reasons. • 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.

180

A list of new actions deemed important and appropriate for the updated plan follows Figure 4.2.1. Figure 4.2.1

2012 Plan Mitigation Actions Removed from 2017 Plan 2012 # Mitigation Action Jurisdiction Description of

Implementation 3.2.4 Acquire and maintain an

integrated system of 2-way radios/scanners for all public schools in Moniteau County.

All participating schools Was either already done by the schools or they did not have interest in pursuing this for the update

3.2.8 Continue to meet Revised Statutes of Missouri concerning earthquake emergency system and earthquake safety in schools.

All participating schools Redundant to state statute

181

Figure 4.2.1 Assessment of Mitigation Actions in 2012 Plan

# in Original

Plan Mitigation Actions Assessment for Update

1.1 Encourage the County and all incorporated communities to participate in the NFIP.

Retained for update; this is an ongoing activity.

1.1 Encourage development of Storm Water Master Plan Retained for update.

1.1 Update staff knowledge of earthquake safety Retained for update; this is an ongoing activity.

1.1

Provide additional sources of drinking water in schools currently receiving water from minimal or substandard supplies.

Retained for update; this is still an ongoing activity for two of the participating jurisdictions.

1.1

Continue to enforce flood damage prevention/floodplain management ordinances in compliance with NFIP requirements.


1.2 Identify and establish alternative fueling locations for emergency vehicles.

Retained for update; this will be addressed in response to the plan update process.

1.2 Encourage each community to have at least one designated cooling station.

Retained for update. There has been progress, but it is not completed.

2.1 Review emergency access /evacuation routes and mitigate any problem areas. Retained for update; this is an ongoing activity.

2.1 Construct loop feed in electrical distribution system to mitigate extent of outages.

Modified to read: "Consider loop feed in electrical distribution." Construction was found to be costly, but it is still desired.

2.2

Identify, review, and implement mechanisms to foster collaboration among jurisdictions, agencies and special districts.


3.1 Evaluate access problems to critical infrastructure Retained for update; this is an ongoing activity.

3.1 Encourage back-up power for all critical infrastructure. Retained for update; this is an ongoing activity.

3.1 Remove vegetation and combustible material from critical infrastructure Retained for update; this is an ongoing activity.

3.1 Mitigate the effects of flooding on public infrastructure. Retained for update; this is an ongoing activity.

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


3.2 Build tornado safe rooms. Retained for update. Participating jurisdictions are still pursuing this activity.

182

3.2 Promote the use of NOAA radios. Retained for update, but texting alerts have become the standard.

3.2

Continue to meet Revised Statutes of Missouri concerning earthquake emergency system and earthquake safety in schools.

Deleted; this is redundant to requirements by state statute.

3.2 Evaluate and maintain emergency preparedness plans. Retained for update; this is an ongoing activity.

3.2 Conduct emergency preparedness exercises periodically throughout the year.


3.2

Review and update school plans on an annual basis to ensure that they adequately address all potential threats from natural hazards.


3.2

Establish and maintain a system of temporary alternative placement sites ("safe houses") for emergency evacuation and shelter of school populations.


3.2 Acquire and maintain an integrated system of 2-way radios/scanners for all public schools in Moniteau County.


3.2 Recommend camping facilities and mobile home parks to have safe rooms on premises


3.2 Ensure evacuation routes are adequate with special consideration for schools and nursing homes


3.2 Develop agreements with local shelters and encourage Red Cross certification.

Modified to read: " Coordinate with Red Cross on local shelter location and citizen awareness of available shelters.”

3.2 Ensure school buses have two-way radios on board

Deleted. The schools in Moniteau currently have a system in place already or they have existing radios.

3.2 Encourage shelters to have alternative power sources.

Deleted. This is a responsibility of the American Red Cross, which creates the agreements with local shelters.

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


4.1 Develop public education hazard awareness program Retained for update; this is an ongoing activity.

4.1 Encourage safe driving through public education campaigns. Retained for update; this is an ongoing activity.

4.1

Provide educational materials for outdoor workers, school athletic organizations, and vulnerable populations on the dangers of excessive heat exposure.


183

Figure 4.2.1

New Actions for 2017 Mitigation Strategy 2017

# Mitigation Action

2.2.2 Create a communication plan for heat advisories to be spread throughout the community in the event of a heat warning.

3.2.13 Continue to maintain and upgrade early warning weather warning systems.

3.2.14 Promote the use of texting alerts for severe weather.

3.2.15 Post low-water crossing signs throughout the county for hazardous low-water crossings.

4.1.4 Address burn advisory notification issues in communities.

Integration of Hazard Mitigation into Other Planning Mechanisms Successful mitigation depends on the actual implementation of the mitigation actions arrived at through the planning process. The composition of the Technical Steering Committee for the update of the Moniteau County Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan shows a dynamic and involved community. This composition of leaders from the county, cities, towns, businesses, and individual citizens shows a vast interest and inclination to plan for natural hazards. This group provided valuable insight necessary to complete a feasible, working plan. The conversations about the hazards mentioned in this document were constructive and shed light on pertinent issues in Moniteau County. The Moniteau County Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 has the potential to be used as a working document and as a resource for policy decisions and disaster planning for the years to come. 4.3 Mitigation Goals, Objectives, and Actions A comprehensive list of the mitigation goals, objectives, and actions for the Moniteau County Hazard Mitigation Plan (2011) follows. The mitigation actions listed are for the entire Planning Area; participating jurisdictions will differ in the specific actions which apply to or are 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).

184

Goal 1 - Mitigate effects of future natural hazard in the county.

Objective 1.1 Incorporate mitigation planning and procedures into the community. 1.1.1 Encourage the County and all incorporated communities to participate in the NFIP.

(Both) 1.1.2 Continue to enforce flood damage prevention/floodplain management ordinances in

compliance with NFIP requirements. (Both) 1.1.3 Encourage development of Storm Water Master Plan. (Both) 1.1.4 Ensure evacuation routes are adequate with special consideration for schools and

nursing homes. 1.1.5 Update staff knowledge of earthquake safety. 1.1.6 Map all low water crossings using GPS and GIS technology.

Objective 1.2 Encourage private involvement in mitigation activities. 1.2.1 Identify and establish alternative fueling locations for emergency vehicles. 1.2.2 Coordinate with Red Cross on local shelter location and citizen awareness of

available shelters. 1.2.3 Encourage each community to have at least one designated cooling station.

Goal 2 - Ensure continued operation of Government and Emergency services in the event of a natural disaster.

Objective 2.1 Strengthen critical structures and infrastructures. 2.1.1 Encourage back-up power for all critical infrastructure. 2.1.2 Evaluate access problems to critical infrastructure. 2.1.3 Review emergency access /evacuation routes and mitigate any problem areas. 2.1.4 Consider loop feed in electrical distribution system to mitigate extent of outages.

Objective 2.2 Strengthen multi-jurisdictional cooperation among emergency services. 2.2.1 Identify, review, and implement mechanisms to foster collaboration among

jurisdictions, agencies and special districts. 2.2.2 Create a communication plan for heat advisories to be spread throughout the

community in the event of a heat warning.

185

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 Mitigate the effects of flooding on public infrastructure. (Both) 3.1.2 Remove vegetation and combustible material from critical infrastructure. (Both)

Objective 3.2 Protect vulnerable populations. 3.2.1 Encourage shelters to have alternative power sources. 3.2.2 Maintain file of Emergency Action Plans (EAPs) for state regulated high hazard dams. 3.2.3 Review and update school plans on an annual basis to ensure that they adequately

address all potential threats from natural hazards. 3.2.4 Acquire and maintain an integrated system of scanners for all public schools in Moniteau

County. 3.2.5 Evaluate and maintain emergency preparedness plans. 3.2.6 Conduct emergency preparedness exercises periodically throughout the year. 3.2.7 Establish and maintain a system of temporary alternative placement sites ("safe

houses") for emergency evacuation and shelter of school populations. 3.2.8 Provide additional sources of drinking water in schools currently receiving water from

minimal or substandard supplies. 3.2.9 Build tornado safe rooms. 3.2.10 Promote the use of NOAA radios. 3.2.11 Recommend camping facilities and mobile home parks to have safe rooms on

premises. 3.2.12 Encourage communities to install warning sirens. 3.2.13 Continue to maintain and upgrade early warning weather warning systems. 3.2.14 Promote the use of texting alerts for severe weather. 3.2.15 Post low-water crossing signs throughout the county for hazardous low-water crossings.

Goal 4 - Increase the public awareness of natural hazards in the County in order to make the public a partner in hazard mitigation.

Objective 4.1 Have educational materials for public on all hazards. 4.1.1 Develop public education hazard awareness program. 4.1.2 Provide educational materials for outdoor workers, school athletic organizations, and

vulnerable populations on the dangers of excessive heat exposure. 4.1.3 Encourage safe driving through public education campaigns. 4.1.4 Address burn advisory notification issues in communities.

186

Figure 4.3.1

Act

ion

#

Mitigation Action

Dam

Fai

lure

Dro

ught

Eart

hqua

keEx

trem

e H

eat

Floo

dLS

/Sin

khol

eLe

vee

Failu

reSe

v. W

inte

r Wea

ther

Win

dsto

rmTo

rnad

oH

ails

torm

Wild

fire

Cou

nty

Cal

iforn

iaC

lark

sbur

gJa

mes

tow

nLu

pus

Tipt

onC

lark

sbur

g C

-IIH

igh

Poin

t R-II

IJa

mes

tow

n C

-IM

onite

au C

o. R

-IM

onite

au C

o. R

-VTi

pton

R-V

I

1.1.1 Encourage the County and all incorporated communities to participate in the NFIP.

x x x x x x x x x

1.1.2Continue to enforce flood damage prevention/floodplain management ordinances in compliance with NFIP requirements.

x x x x x x

1.1.3 Encourage development of Storm Water Master Plan. x x x

1.1.4 Ensure evacuation routes are adequate with special consideration for schools and nursing homes.

x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x

1.1.5 Update staff knowledge of earthquake safety. x x x x x x x x

1.1.6 Map all low water crossings using GPS and GIS technology. x x x x

1.2.1 Identify and establish alternative fueling locations for emergency vehicles.

x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x

1.2.2 Coordinate with Red Cross on local shelter location and citizen awareness of available shelters.

x x x x x x x x x x x

1.2.3 Encourage each community to have at least one designated cooling station.

x x x x x x

2.1.1 Encourage back-up power for all critical infrastructure. x x x x x x x x x x x

2.1.2 Evaluate access problems to critical infrastructure. x x x x x x x x x

Mitigation Actions - Hazards Addressed and Applicable JurisdictionsHazards Jurisdictions

187

Figure 4.3.1 (cont.)

Act

ion

#

Mitigation Action

Dam

Fai

lure

Dro

ught

Eart

hqua

keEx

trem

e H

eat

Floo

dLS

/Sin

khol

eLe

vee

Failu

reSe

v. W

inte

r Wea

ther

Win

dsto

rmTo

rnad

oH

ails

torm

Wild

fire

Cou

nty

Cal

iforn

iaC

lark

sbur

gJa

mes

tow

nLu

pus

Tipt

onC

lark

sbur

g C

-IIH

igh

Poin

t R-II

IJa

mes

tow

n C

-IM

onite

au C

o. R

-IM

onite

au C

o. R

-VTi

pton

R-V

I

2.1.3 Review emergency access /evacuation routes and mitigate any problem areas.

x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x

2.1.4 Consider loop feed in electrical distribution system to mitigate extent of outages.

x x x x x

2.2.1Identify, review, and implement mechanisms to foster collaboration among jurisdictions, agencies and special districts.

x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x

2.2.2 Create a communication plan for heat advisories to be spread throughout the community in the event of a heat warning. x x x x x x x

3.1.1 Mitigate the effects of flooding on public infrastructure. x x x x x x

3.1.2 Remove vegetation and combustible material from critical infrastructure.

x x x x x x x x x x

3.2.1 Encourage shelters to have alternative power sources. x x x x x x x x x x x

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

x x x

3.2.3Review and update school plans on an annual basis to ensure that they adequately address all potential threats from natural hazards.

x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x

3.2.4 Acquire and maintain an integrated system of scanners for all public schools in Moniteau County.

x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x

3.2.5 Evaluate and maintain emergency preparedness plans. x x x x x x x x x x x x x


188

Figure 4.3.1 (cont.)A

ctio

n #

Mitigation Action

Dam

Fai

lure

Dro

ught

Eart

hqua

keEx

trem

e H

eat

Floo

dLS

/Sin

khol

eLe

vee

Failu

reSe

v. W

inte

r Wea

ther

Win

dsto

rmTo

rnad

oH

ails

torm

Wild

fire

Cou

nty

Cal

iforn

iaC

lark

sbur

gJa

mes

tow

nLu

pus

Tipt

onC

lark

sbur

g C

-IIH

igh

Poin

t R-II

IJa

mes

tow

n C

-IM

onite

au C

o. R

-IM

onite

au C

o. R

-VTi

pton

R-V

I

3.2.6 Conduct emergency preparedness exercises periodically throughout the year.

x x x x x x x x x

3.2.7Establish and maintain a system of temporary alternative placement sites ("safe houses") for emergency evacuation and shelter of school populations.

x x x x x x x x x x

3.2.8Provide additional sources of drinking water in schools currently receiving water from minimal or substandard supplies.

x x x

3.2.9 Build tornado safe rooms. x x x x x x x x x x

3.2.10 Promote the use of NOAA radios. x x x x x x

3.2.11 Recommend camping facilities and mobile home parks to have safe rooms on premises.

x x x x x

3.2.12 Encourage communities to install warning sirens. x x x x

3.2.15 Post low-water crossing signs throughout the county for hazardous low-water crossings.

x x

3.2.14 Promote the use of available texting alerts for severe weather. x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x

4.1.3 Encourage safe driving through public education campaigns. x x x x x x x x x x x

4.1.3 Encourage safe driving through public education campaigns. x x x x x x x x x x x

4.1.4Address burn advisory notification issues in communities.

x x x x x x x x


184


[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 3.2.5G). The NFIP participation statuses of jurisdictions is shown again in Figure 4.3.2.

Figure 4.3.2 Jurisdictions Participating in NFIP

Moniteau County California Jamestown

Lupus Tipton

Jurisdictions Not Participating in NFIP Clarksburg Clarksburg has neither 100-year floodplain nor flooding problems. Sources: Community Status Book; City of Clarksburg personnel

The jurisdictions of Moniteau County, California, Jamestown, Lupus and Tipton participate in the NFIP. The following mitigation action pertains to continued compliance with the NFIP for those jurisdictions:

1.1.1 Encourage the County and all incorporated communities to participate in the NFIP. 1.1.2 Continue to enforce flood damage prevention/floodplain management ordinances in compliance with NFIP requirements.

185

4.4 Prioritization, Implementation, and Administration


[The mitigation strategy section shall include] an action plan describing how the actions identified in section (c) (3) (ii) will be 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.


[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?

186

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 G). 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

187

After applying the priority scale to the Total Scores derived from STAPLEE and the Benefit: Cost Review, the committee once again reviewed the actions with their resultant priorities and agreed that they reflected an appropriate prioritization of the actions. It should be noted that most of the actions attained a High 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

Costs

Minimal - little cost to the jurisdiction involved Moderate - definite cost involved but could likely be worked into operating budget Significant - cost above and beyond most operating budgets; would require extra

appropriations to finance or to meet matching funds for a grant

188

Figure 4.4.1

xx3=Def YES 1=Prob NO

xx2=Maybe YES 0=Def NO

Act

ion

#

MITIGATION ACTIONS S T A P L E E

STA

PLEE

Tot

al

Loss

es A

void

ed

(2

pts

eac

h)

Bene

fit

Cost

B/C

Tota

l

TOTA

L

PRIO

RITY

1.1.1 Encourage the County and all incorporated communities to participate in the NFIP. 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 20 EMCC 2 -1 1 21 H

1.1.2Continue to enforce flood damage prevention/floodplain management ordinances in compliance with NFIP requirements.

3 3 3 3 3 2 3 20 EMCC 2 -1 1 21 H

1.1.3 Encourage development of Storm Water Master Plan. 2 3 3 2 3 2 3 18I/C, PD,

LF, EMCC

8 -5 3 21 H

1.1.4Ensure evacuation routes are adequate with special consideration for schools and nursing homes.

3 2 3 3 3 2 3 19I/C,

EMCC4 -1 3 22 H

1.1.5 Update staff knowledge of earthquake safety. 2 3 2 3 3 2 3 18I/C,

EMCC4 -1 3 21 H

1.1.6 Map all low water crossings using GPS and GIS technology. 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 20I/C,

EMCC4 -1 3 23 H

1.2.1 Identify and establish alternative fueling locations for emergency vehicles. 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 20I/C, PD,

LF, EMCC

8 -3 5 25 H

1.2.2Coordinate with Red Cross on local shelter location and citizen awareness of available shelters.

3 3 3 3 3 2 3 20I/C,

EMCC4 -1 3 23 H

1.2.3 Encourage each community to have at least one designated cooling station. 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 20I/C,

EMCC4 -1 3 23 H

2.1.1 Encourage back-up power for all critical infrastructure. 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 20I/C, PD,

LF, EMCC

8 -5 3 23 H

2.1.2 Evaluate access problems to critical infrastructure. 2 2 2 2 3 2 3 16LF,

EMCC4 -3 1 17 M

2.1.3 Review emergency access /evacuation routes and mitigate any problem areas. 2 2 2 2 3 2 3 16I/C, PD,

LF, EMCC

8 -5 3 19 M

2.1.4 Consider loop feed in electrical distribution system to mitigate extent of outages. 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 21I/C, PD,

LF, EMCC

8 -5 3 24 H

Prioritization of Mitigation Actions

189




Act

ion

#


STA

PLEE

Tot

al

Loss

es A

void

ed

(2

pts

eac

h)

Bene

fit

Cost

B/C

Tota

l

TOTA

L

PRIO

RITY

2.1.4 Consider loop feed in electrical distribution system to mitigate extent of outages. 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 21I/C, PD,

LF, EMCC

8 -5 3 24 H

2.2.1 Identify, review, and implement mechanisms to foster collaboration among jurisdictions, agencies and special districts.

2 2 2 2 3 1 3 15 EMCC 2 -3 -1 14 M

2.2.2Create a communication plan for heat advisories to be spread throughout the community in the event of a heat warning.

3 2 2 2 3 2 3 17I/C,

EMCC4 -3 1 18 M

3.1.1 Mitigate the effects of flooding on public infrastructure. 3 2 3 3 2 2 3 18I/C, PD,

LF, EMCC

8 -5 3 21 H

3.1.2 Remove vegetation and combustible material from critical infrastructure. 2 2 2 2 3 2 3 16I/C, PD,

LF, EMCC

8 -3 5 21 H

3.2.1 Encourage shelters to have alternative power sources. 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 20I/C, PD,

LF, EMCC

8 -5 3 23 H

3.2.2Maintain file of Emergency Action Plans (EAPs) for state regulated high hazard dams.

2 2 3 3 3 2 3 18I/C, PD,

LF, EMCC

8 -1 7 25 H

3.2.3Review and update school plans on an annual basis to ensure that they adequately address all potential threats from natural hazards.

3 3 3 3 3 3 3 21I/C, PD,

LF, EMCC

8 -1 7 28 H

3.2.4Acquire and maintain an integrated system of scanners for all public schools in Moniteau County.

3 3 3 3 3 2 3 20I/C, LF, EMCC

6 -3 3 23 H

3.2.5 Evaluate and maintain emergency preparedness plans. 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 21I/C, PD,

LF, EMCC

8 -1 7 28 H


190




Act

ion

#


STA

PLEE

Tot

al

Loss

es A

void

ed

(2

pts

eac

h)

Bene

fit

Cost

B/C

Tota

l

TOTA

L

PRIO

RITY

3.2.6 Conduct emergency preparedness exercises periodically throughout the year. 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 20I/C, PD,

LF, EMCC

8 -3 5 25 H

3.2.7Establish and maintain a system of temporary alternative placement sites ("safe houses") for emergency evacuation and shelter of school populations.

3 3 3 3 3 3 3 21I/C, LF, EMCC

6 -1 5 26 H

3.2.8Provide additional sources of drinking water in schools currently receiving water from minimal or substandard supplies.

3 3 3 3 3 2 3 20I/C, LF, EMCC

6 -3 3 23 H

3.2.9 Build tornado safe rooms. 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 21I/C,

EMCC4 -5 -1 20 H

3.2.10 Promote the use of NOAA radios. 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 21I/C,

EMCC4 -3 1 22 H

3.2.11Recommend camping facilities and mobile home parks to have safe rooms on premises.

2 2 1 2 3 3 3 16I/C,

EMCC4 -5 -1 15 M

3.2.12 Encourage communities to install warning sirens. 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 21I/C, LF, EMCC

6 -5 1 22 H

3.2.13 Continue to maintain and upgrade early warning weather warning systems. 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 21I/C, LF, EMCC

6 -3 3 24 H

3.2.14 Promote the use of texting alerts for severe weather. 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 21I/C, LF, EMCC

6 -3 3 24 H

3.2.15Post low-water crossing signs throughout the county for hazardous low-water crossings

2 3 3 2 3 3 3 19I/C, PD,

LF, EMCC

8 -5 3 22 H

4.1.2Provide educational materials for outdoor workers, school athletic organizations, and vulnerable populations on the dangers of excessive heat exposure.

2 2 3 2 3 2 3 17I/C,

EMCC4 -1 3 20 H

4.1.3 Encourage safe driving through public education campaigns. 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 20I/C, PD, EMCC

6 -1 5 25 H

4.1.4 Address burn advisory notification issues in communities. 3 3 2 2 3 2 3 18I/C, PD,

LF, EMCC

8 -3 5 23 H


191

4.4.2 Implementation and Administration in Participating Jurisdictions After the Planning Committee had finished the STAPLEE and Benefit/Cost Reviews and prioritization of the mitigation actions, the representative(s) of each participating jurisdiction reviewed the actions specific to their jurisdiction and developed plans for their implementation and administration. 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.

192

Moniteau County

The following are mitigation actions for which Moniteau County is the lead organizer of a mitigation activity. It should be noted that the County is the lead for many actions which mitigate for hazards in multiple jurisdictions in the Planning Area.

The charts indicate the jurisdiction(s) for which the County is leading the action. Actions led by the County for 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.

New actions to the 2017 Hazard Mitigation Plan Update are designated with an asterisk (*).

Action 1.1.1 Encourage the County and all incorporated communities to participate in the NFIP.

Priority High Plan for Implementation & Administration Moniteau County participates in the NFIP.

Lead County Commission Partners SEMA, FEMA Projected Cost/Funding Minimal/operating budget Projected Completion Ongoing Progress Update (2017) Eligible jurisdictions are still participating in the NFIP Criterion for Completion Continuing participation in the NFIP Hazards Addressed Flood, Dam Failure, Levee Failure Applicable Jurisdictions Moniteau County (unincorp.) Benefits (Losses Avoided) PD, EMCC

Action 1.1.2 Continue to enforce flood damage prevention/floodplain management

ordinances in compliance with NFIP requirements. Priority High

Plan for Implementation & Administration

An engineering report showing compliance with floodplain regulations must be submitted before a building permit is issued for any construction in the floodplain.

Lead County Assessor Projected Cost/Funding Minimal/operating budget Projected Completion Ongoing Progress Update (2017) Ordinances are continuously enforced by the participating jurisdictions. Criterion for Completion Ordinances are enforced.

193

Hazards Addressed Flood, Dam Failure, Levee Failure Applicable Jurisdictions Moniteau County (unincorp.) Benefits (Losses Avoided) PD, EMCC

Action 1.1.4 Ensure evacuation routes are adequate with special consideration for

schools and nursing homes. Priority High Plan for Implementation & Administration Review LEOP (Local Emergency Operations Plan) with facilities.

Lead Emergency Management Director Partners Local governments, School District personnel Projected Cost/Funding Minimal/operating budget Projected Completion Ongoing

Progress Update (2017) This is required by state statute and there is continuous compliance by the participating jurisdictions.

Criterion for Completion Evacuation routes in LEOP are reviewed and meetings held with facilities.

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

Applicable Jurisdictions All participating jurisdictions Benefits (Losses Avoided) I/C, EMCC

Action 1.1.5 Update staff knowledge of earthquake safety. Priority High Plan for Implementation & Administration Prepare and distribute safety information.

Lead Emergency Management Director Partners County Commission Projected Cost/Funding Minimal/operating budget Projected Completion Ongoing Progress Update (2017) This is done on an ongoing basis and will continue to occur. Criterion for Completion Staff is updated. Hazards Addressed Earthquake Applicable Jurisdictions Moniteau County (unincorp.) Benefits (Losses Avoided) I/C, EMCC

Action 1.1.6 Map all low water crossings using GPS and GIS technology. Priority High

194


Provide the Mid-MO RPC with locations of all low water crossings; GIS specialist at Mid-MO RPC will create map.

Lead County Commission - District #1 and #2 Commissioners Partners Mid-MO RPC, County Assessor Projected Cost/Funding Minimal/operating budget Projected Completion 2017

Progress Update (2017): The Mid-Missouri Regional Planning Commission is completing this activity for Moniteau County as of July 2017.

Criterion for Completion A map of all low water crossings in the County is available in digital form.

Hazards Addressed Flood, Dam Failure, Levee Failure Applicable Jurisdictions Moniteau County (unincorp.) Benefits (Losses Avoided) I/C, EMCC

Action 1.2.1 Identify and establish alternative fueling locations for emergency vehicles.

Priority High Plan for Implementation & Administration Work with agencies and their fuel supplies.

Lead Emergency Management Director Partners City of California Projected Cost/Funding Moderate/operating budget Projected Completion Ongoing

Progress Update (2017) An official agreement between Moniteau County and SEMA will be completed by the Moniteau County Emergency Management Director in coordination with the SEMA Regional Administrator.

Criterion for Completion Agreements are drafted and in place. Hazards Addressed Earthquake, Flood, Severe Winter Weather, Windstorm, Tornado Applicable Jurisdictions All participating jurisdictions Benefits (Losses Avoided) I/C, PD, LF, EMCC

Action 1.2.2 Encourage Red Cross certification. Priority High Plan for Implementation & Administration Continue to work with Red Cross and shelters to update agreements.

Lead Emergency Management Director Partners Local shelters Projected Cost/Funding Minimal/operating budget Projected Completion Ongoing

195

Progress Update (2017)

Modified. This action was duplicative of what is done by the Red Cross and it is not feasible or time conscious for the Emergency Management Director to duplicate work done by the Red Cross. This topic has been modified to be more feasible.

Criterion for Completion Agreements are in place for at least one shelter in each community. Hazards Addressed Earthquake, Flood, Severe Winter Weather, Windstorm, Tornado

Applicable Jurisdictions Moniteau County (unincorporated), California, Clarksburg, Jamestown, Lupus, Tipton

Benefits (Losses Avoided) I/C, EMCC

Action 1.2.3 Encourage each community to have at least one designated cooling

station. Priority High Plan for Implementation & Administration

Each community will be contacted to determine if there is a cooling station. If not, we will work the community to create one.

Lead County Health Dept. Partners Local City Councils, libraries, community centers Projected Cost/Funding Minimal/operating budget Projected Completion Spring 2012


Most of the communities have added official cooling stations found on the Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services website. Only Clarksburg, Jamestown, and Lupus do not have cooling stations, but their citizens know where to go if a air conditioned area is needed.

Criterion for Completion Meet with all communities at least once. Hazards Addressed Extreme Heat Applicable Jurisdictions California, Clarksburg, Jamestown, Lupus, Tipton Benefits (Losses Avoided) I/C, EMCC

Action 2.1.1 Encourage back-up power for all critical infrastructure. Priority High Plan for Implementation & Administration

Work to develop transfer switches or generator connections for all critical infrastructure.

Lead Emergency Management Director Partners Municipal governments Projected Cost/Funding Significant/Grants Projected Completion Ongoing

Progress Update (2017) This is completed on an ongoing basis. Not all critical infrastructure has back up power, but it is encouraged and completed as funds permit.

Criterion for Completion Draft and test backup generators.

196

Hazards Addressed Earthquake, Extreme Heat, Flood, Severe Winter Weather, Windstorm, Tornado

Applicable Jurisdictions Moniteau County (unincorporated), California, Clarksburg, Jamestown, Tipton

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

Action 2.1.2 Evaluate access problems to critical infrastructure. Priority Medium Plan for Implementation & Administration Review access to critical infrastructure.

Lead Emergency Management Director Partners Municipal governments Projected Cost/Funding Moderate/ Projected Completion Ongoing


This is an activity that is not vigilantly done, but it is addressed on an as needed basis. Moniteau County and participating jurisdictions are aware of access to critical infrastructure and address it. It is address on an ongoing activity.

Criterion for Completion Access problems are identified. Hazards Addressed Earthquake, Flood, Severe Winter Weather, Wildfire

Applicable Jurisdictions Moniteau County (unincorporated), California, Clarksburg, Jamestown, Tipton

Benefits (Losses Avoided) LF, EMCC

Action 2.1.3 Review emergency access /evacuation routes and mitigate any problem

areas. Priority Medium Plan for Implementation & Administration

Review LEOP (Local Emergency Operations Plan) sections regarding routes.

Lead Emergency Management Director Partners Municipal governments, School District personnel Projected Cost/Funding Minimal to Significant/Operating budget to grants Projected Completion Ongoing

Progress Update (2017) There is not a written plan for emergency access in the case of a disaster, but this is addressed by emergency management personnel in each municipality on an ongoing basis although not formalized.

Criterion for Completion Issues are identified and a plan developed for mitigation.

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

Applicable Jurisdictions All participating jurisdictions

197

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

Action 2.2.1 Identify, review, and implement mechanisms to foster collaboration

among jurisdictions, agencies and special districts. Priority Medium Plan for Implementation & Administration

Conduct collaboration meetings between jurisdictions, agencies and districts.

Lead Emergency Management Director Partners All jurisdictions, agencies and special districts Projected Cost/Funding Moderate/operating budget Projected Completion Ongoing


This was not done in the previous five years, but going forward there will be an attempt by the EMD to create a coalition of jurisdictions, agencies, and districts to address natural hazard plans, issues, and preparedness.

Criterion for Completion Meetings are conducted. Hazards Addressed All hazards Applicable Jurisdictions All participating jurisdictions Benefits (Losses Avoided) EMCC

2.2.2* Create a communication plan for heat advisories to be spread throughout

the community in the event of a heat warning. Priority Medium Plan for Implementation & Administration

Conduct collaboration meetings between jurisdictions, agencies and districts.

Lead Emergency Management Director, Moniteau County Health Department

Partners All jurisdictions, agencies and special districts, radio stations Projected Cost/Funding Moderate/operating budget Projected Completion New Criterion for Completion Meetings are conducted, plan is created Hazards Addressed Extreme heat Applicable Jurisdictions All participating jurisdictions Benefits (Losses Avoided) I/C, EMCC

Action 3.1.2 Remove vegetation and combustible material from critical

infrastructure. Priority High Plan for Implementation & Administration Cutters go through and cut brush along 510 miles of county roads.

198

Lead Road and Bridges Department Projected Cost/Funding Moderate/operating budget Projected Completion Ongoing Progress Update (2017) This is done as necessary. Criterion for Completion County road right-of-ways are kept clear of vegetation. Hazards Addressed Earthquake, Severe Winter Weather, Windstorm, Tornado, Wildfire Applicable Jurisdictions Moniteau County (unincorp.) Benefits (Losses Avoided) I/C, PD, LF, EMCC

Action 3.2.2 Maintain file of Emergency Action Plans (EAPs) for state regulated high

hazard dams. Priority High


Emergency Action Plans (EAPs) are being written for state regulated high hazard dams in conjunction with inundation studies being carried out; maintain a file of these EAPs in the Emergency Management Agency once they are completed.

Lead Emergency Management Director Partners Dam owners Projected Cost/Funding Minimal/operating budget Projected Completion Ongoing Progress Update 2017 This is continuously completed.

Criterion for Completion EAPs for state regulated high hazard dams are on file with the Emergency Management Agency.

Hazards Addressed Dam Failure, Flood Applicable Jurisdictions Moniteau County (unincorporated) Benefits (Losses Avoided) I/C, PD, LF, EMCC

Action 3.2.13* Promote the use of texting alerts for severe weather. Priority High Plan for Implementation & Administration

Identify ways to notify the public about local severe weather texting alerts offered by news services.

Lead Emergency Management Director Partners Communities within Moniteau, agencies Projected Cost/Funding Minimal/operating budget Projected Completion New Criterion for Completion Public education campaign is implemented. Hazards Addressed Severe Winter Weather, Windstorm, Tornado, and Hailstorm Applicable Jurisdictions All participating jurisdictions Benefits (Losses Avoided) I/C, LF, PD, EMCC

199

Action 3.2.14* Post low-water crossing sign throughout the county for hazardous low-water crossings.

Priority High Plan for Implementation & Administration Identify hazardous low-water crossings, pursue funding, and post signs.

Lead Moniteau County Commission Partners Moniteau County Roads Department

Projected Cost/Funding Significant/Additional grant funds or funding opportunities will need to be pursued

Projected Completion New Criterion for Completion Signs are posted Hazards Addressed Flood Applicable Jurisdictions Moniteau County Benefits (Losses Avoided) I/C, LF, PD, EMCC

Action 4.1.2 Provide educational materials for outdoor workers, school athletic organizations, and vulnerable populations on the dangers of excessive heat exposure.

Priority High


Contact DHSS (Department of Health and Senior Services) to obtain materials related to excess heat - provide info to schools and political subdivisions.

Lead County Health Dept.

Partners DHSS, MSHSAA (Mo. State High School Athletic Assoc.), School district personnel, county and city personnel

Projected Cost/Funding Minimal/operating budget Projected Completion Spring 2012 Progress Update (2017) This is done on an ongoing basis. Criterion for Completion Information is provided to all schools and political subdivisions. Hazards Addressed Extreme Heat Applicable Jurisdictions All participating jurisdictions Benefits (Losses Avoided) I/C, EMCC

Action 4.1.3 Encourage safe driving through public education campaigns. Priority High Plan for Implementation & Administration Develop and implement public education campaign.

Lead Emergency Management Director, School District Personnel Partners State Highway Patrol Projected Cost/Funding Minimal/operating budget

200

Projected Completion Ongoing Progress Update (2017) School districts host safe driving events throughout the year. Criterion for Completion Public education campaign is implemented. Hazards Addressed Flood, Severe Winter Weather

Applicable Jurisdictions Moniteau County (unincorporated), California, Clarksburg, Jamestown, Lupus, Tipton, Jamestown C-I School District, Moniteau Co. R-I School District, Tipton R-VI School District

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

Action 4.1.4* Address burn advisory notification issues in communities. Priority High Plan for Implementation & Administration

Create a plan for burn advisories then develop and implement public education campaign.

Lead Emergency Management Director Partners Fire Departments Within Moniteau Projected Cost/Funding Moderate/operating budget Projected Completion New Criterion for Completion Public education campaign is implemented. Hazards Addressed Flood, Severe Winter Weather

Applicable Jurisdictions Moniteau County, California, Clarksburg, Jamestown, Lupus, and Tipton

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

201

Integration of Hazard Mitigation Actions into Current Planning Processes: The mitigation actions in this plan will be integrated into the work plans of the departments leading the actions; many of the actions are already integrated into the activities of county personnel. Any funding required for mitigation will be considered during the annual budgeting process in the County or grant funding will be pursued.

The Emergency Operations Plan (EOP) covers all aspects of emergency preparedness in Moniteau County. The EOP is an inclusive document with a wealth of information concerning all facets of emergency management. The mitigation actions in the Hazard Mitigation Plan will be integrated into the EOP as warranted.

202

California Mitigation actions for California are shown in the following charts and subsequent list. The actions in the charts are those for which California 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 California. 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 Plan for Implementation & Administration California belongs to the NFIP.

Lead Board of Aldermen Partners SEMA/FEMA Projected Cost/Funding Minimal/operating budget Projected Completion Ongoing Criterion for Completion Continued participation in the NFIP Hazards Addressed Flood, Dam Failure, Levee Failure Benefits (Losses Avoided) PD, EMCC


ordinances in compliance with NFIP requirements. Priority High Plan for Implementation & Administration

Construction in the floodplain will be monitored for compliance with the floodplain ordinance.

Lead Building Inspector/Floodplain Manager Partners SEMA Projected Cost/Funding Minimal/operating budget Projected Completion Ongoing Criterion for Completion Floodplain ordinances are enforced. Hazards Addressed Flood, Dam Failure, Levee Failure Benefits (Losses Avoided) PD, EMCC

Action 1.1.3 Encourage development of Stormwater Master Plan. Priority High

203


California has a Comprehensive Stormwater Management Plan and is in the process of updating it.

Lead Street Supervisor Partners Mid-MO Regional Planning Commission Projected Cost/Funding Significant/operating budget

Progress Update (2017) Mid-MO Regional Planning Commission completed a storm water plan for California. There has not been movement on this issue other than regular maintenance due to funding restrictions.

Projected Completion Unknown Criterion for Completion Stormwater Master Plan is in place and maintained. Hazards Addressed Flood Benefits (Losses Avoided) I/C, PD, LF, EMCC

Action 2.1.4 Construct loop feed in electrical distribution system to mitigate extent of

outages. Priority High Plan for Implementation & Administration

A cost estimate for this project has been prepared; seek funding to carry out project.

Lead Electric Supervisor Partners Board of Aldermen, Ameren Missouri, Cargill Projected Cost/Funding $863,632/grants, matching funds (city funds, loans, contributions) Projected Completion Dependent on funding availability


This project was started by California, but after bidding out the construction, the city found the cost to exceed their available resources. This is continuously under consideration, but until there are funds, it is not a financial priority of the city.

Criterion for Completion Loop feed is in place. Hazards Addressed Earthquake, Severe Winter Weather, Windstorm, Tornado Benefits (Losses Avoided) I/C, PD, LF, EMCC

Action 3.1.1 Mitigate the effects of flooding on public infrastructure. Priority High


A project to construct an actual stormwater system (as opposed to the current ditches) in a 3-4 block area with stormwater problems is in the final engineering stages; construction is projected to begin in early 2012.

Lead Street Supervisor Partners City Council, Mo Dept. of Economic Development (DED)

Projected Cost/Funding Significant/city funds, CDBG (Community Development Block Grant) funds

Projected Completion May-June 2012

Progress Update (2017) The City is continuously addressing flooding issues throughout and has significant stormwater issues. Funding continues to be an issue.

204

Criterion for Completion Stormwater system is in place Hazards Addressed Flood Benefits (Losses Avoided) I/C, PD, LF, EMCC

Action 3.1.2 Remove vegetation and combustible material from critical infrastructure.

Priority High Plan for Implementation & Administration This is an ongoing process that is taken care of by city employees.

Lead Individual City Departments Partners Parks Department Projected Cost/Funding Moderate/operating budget Progress Update (2017) This is done on an ongoing basis. Projected Completion Ongoing

Criterion for Completion Area of critical infrastructure is free of vegetation and combustible material.

Hazards Addressed Earthquake, Severe Winter Weather, Windstorm, Tornado, Wildfire Benefits (Losses Avoided) I/C, PD, LF, EMCC

Action 3.2.12* Continue to maintain and upgrade early warning weather warning systems.

Priority High Plan for Implementation & Administration Perform routine maintenance and regularly test warning sirens.

Lead City Administration Partners City Council, Emergency services Projected Cost/Funding Negligible Projected Completion Ongoing Criterion for Completion Sirens tested and maintained on an ongoing basis Hazards Addressed Windstorm, Tornado Benefits (Losses Avoided) I/C, EMCC

205

In addition to the above mitigation actions for which the City of California is the lead, Moniteau County will be the lead on the following actions which also serve as mitigation actions for the City of California: 1.1.4 Ensure evacuation routes are adequate with special consideration for schools and nursing homes.


1.2.2 Coordinate with Red Cross on local shelter location and citizen awareness of available

shelters.


2.1.1 Encourage back-up power for all critical infrastructure.

2.1.2 Evaluate access problems to critical infrastructure.



2.2.2 Create a communication plan for heat advisories to be spread throughout the community in

the event of a heat warning.

3.2.1 Encourage shelters to have alternative power sources.


4.1.1 Develop public education hazard awareness program.

4.1.2 Provide educational materials for outdoor workers, school athletic organizations, and vulnerable populations on the dangers of excessive heat exposure.

4.1.3 Encourage safe driving through public education campaigns.

Information on the Implementation and Administration of these actions is described under Moniteau County in this section.

Integration of Hazard Mitigation Actions into Current Planning Processes Planning in the city is carried out by the City Council with recommendations from city departments. The hazard mitigation actions will be integrated into the work plans of the appropriate department. Any funding needed for mitigation will be considered by the City Council during the annual budgeting process.

206

Clarksburg Mitigation actions for Clarksburg are shown in the following charts and subsequent list. The actions in the charts are those for which Clarksburg 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 Clarksburg.

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 Plan for Implementation & Administration City Council members will remove on an ongoing basis.

Lead City Council Projected Cost/Funding Minimal/none - done on volunteer basis Progress Update (2017) This is done as necessary. Projected Completion Ongoing Criterion for Completion Critical infrastructure is clear of vegetation and combustible material. Hazards Addressed Earthquake, Severe Winter Weather, Windstorm, Tornado, Wildfire Benefits (Losses Avoided) I/C, PD, LF, EMCC

Action 3.2.8 Build tornado safe rooms. Priority High Plan for Implementation & Administration Discuss with City Council and look into grants available.

Lead Clarksburg Mayor and City Council Partners Moniteau County, City Council Projected Cost/Funding Significant/Grants, local matching funds Projected Completion Ongoing Criterion for Completion Safe room built Hazards Addressed Windstorm, Tornado Benefits (Losses Avoided) I/C, EMCC

Action 3.2.11 Encourage communities to install warning sirens. Priority High Plan for Implementation & Administration Discuss with City Council and look into grants available.

Lead Clarksburg Mayor and City Council

207

Partners Moniteau County, City Council Projected Cost/Funding Significant/Grants, local matching funds Projected Completion Ongoing Criterion for Completion Sirens installed Hazards Addressed Windstorm, Tornado Benefits (Losses Avoided) I/C, EMCC

In addition to the above mitigation action for which the City of Clarksburg is the lead, Moniteau County will be the lead on the following actions which also serve as mitigation actions for the City of Clarksburg: 1.1.4 Ensure evacuation routes are adequate with special consideration for schools and nursing homes.



shelters.














208

Integration of Hazard Mitigation Actions into Current Planning Processes

Clarksburg is a small city with minimal revenue with which to work; this does not allow for much long-range planning. Decisions on actions to be taken in Clarksburg are made by the City Council on an “as needed” basis.

As of 2017, Clarksburg is undergoing discussions regarding adding a warning siren to their town and building a tornado safe room. At the current time, Clarksburg does not have any basements or safe rooms in the community nor do they have a tornado warning siren. The mayor and city council are addressing concerns with this issue and are pursing added sirens and a safe room to the community.

209

Jamestown Mitigation actions for Jamestown are shown in the following charts and subsequent list. The actions in the charts are those for which Jamestown 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 Jamestown. The benefits (losses avoided) key for the charts below is:


Action 1.1.1 Encourage the County and all incorporated communities to participate in

the NFIP. Priority High Plan for Implementation & Administration

The City of Jamestown currently belongs to the NFIP and will continue to do so.

Lead Mayor Partners SEMA Projected Cost/Funding Minimal/internal funds Project Update (2017) This is done on an ongoing basis Projected Completion Ongoing Criterion for Completion Jamestown continues full participation in the NFIP. Hazards Addressed Flood, Dam Failure, Levee Failure Benefits (Losses Avoided) PD, EMCC



Monitor all development and construction to ensure that it complies with floodplain ordinances.

Lead Mayor Projected Cost/Funding Minimal/internal funds Project Update (2017) This is done on an ongoing basis Projected Completion Ongoing Criterion for Completion Ordinances are enforced Hazards Addressed Flood, Dam Failure, Levee Failure Benefits (Losses Avoided) PD, EMCC

210

Action 3.1.1 Mitigate the effects of flooding on public infrastructure. Priority High Plan for Implementation & Administration

Monitor all public infrastructure for flooding problems and mitigate as needed.

Lead Mayor Partners SEMA, FEMA Projected Cost/Funding Significant/grants, loans Project Update (2017) This is done on an ongoing basis Projected Completion Ongoing Criterion for Completion Public infrastructure is not threatened by flooding. Hazards Addressed Flood Benefits (Losses Avoided) I/C, PD, LF, EMCC




In addition to the above mitigation actions for which the City of Jamestown is the lead, Moniteau County will be the lead on the following actions which also serve as mitigation actions for the City of Jamestown: 1.1.4 Ensure evacuation routes are adequate with special consideration for schools and nursing homes.



shelters.





211










Integration of Hazard Mitigation Actions into Current Planning Processes The general planning process in Jamestown is discussion of issues at the monthly city council meetings with votes to approve actions. The city goes through an annual budget planning process. During this time, citizens bring up suggested improvements to infrastructure; if approved by the city council, the improvements will be included in the budget and implemented the next year. The hazard mitigation actions in this plan will be integrated into these city council discussions.

212

Lupus

Mitigation actions for Lupus are shown in the following charts and subsequent list. The actions in the charts are those for which Lupus 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 Lupus. The benefits (losses avoided) key for the charts below is:



Priority High Plan for Implementation & Administration

The City of Lupus belongs to the NFIP. Continued participation in the NFIP is a major priority.

Lead City Council/Mayor Partners SEMA Projected Cost/Funding Minimal/operating budget Progress Update (2017) This is done on an ongoing basis. Projected Completion Ongoing Criterion for Completion Lupus continues to participate in the NFIP. Hazards Addressed Flood, Dam Failure, Levee Failure Benefits (Losses Avoided) PD, EMCC


ordinances in compliance with NFIP requirements. Priority High


The current floodplain ordinance requires that new construction and substantial improvement of existing properties appropriately mitigate for flood damage.

Lead City Council/Mayor Projected Cost/Funding Minimal/operating budget Projected Completion Ongoing Progress Update (2017) This is done on an ongoing basis. Criterion for Completion Ongoing Hazards Addressed Flood, Dam Failure, Levee Failure Benefits (Losses Avoided) PD, EMCC Action 3.1.1 Mitigate the effects of flooding on public infrastructure.

213

Priority High


The only public infrastructure owned by the city is the City Hall which is cinderblock construction. Contents in the City Hall are kept to a minimum and are portable in times of flood.

Lead City Council/Mayor Projected Cost/Funding Minimal/no funds needed Progress Update (2017) This is done on an ongoing basis. Projected Completion Ongoing Criterion for Completion Contents of City Hall are moved when flooding threatens. Hazards Addressed Flood Benefits (Losses Avoided) I/C, PD, LF, EMCC


Priority High Plan for Implementation & Administration Grass around City Hall is mowed and trimmed on a regular basis.

Lead Mayor Projected Cost/Funding Minimal/private donation of funds Progress Update (2017) This is done on an ongoing basis. Projected Completion Ongoing Criterion for Completion City Hall is kept free of vegetation and combustible material. Hazards Addressed Earthquake, Severe Winter Weather, Windstorm, Tornado, Wildfire Benefits (Losses Avoided) I/C, PD, LF, EMCC




214

In addition to the above mitigation actions for which the City of Lupus is the lead, Moniteau County will be the lead on the following actions which also serve as mitigation actions for the City of Lupus:




shelters.














215

Integration of Hazard Mitigation Actions into Current Planning Processes

Since Lupus is a very small town (population of 33), it has worked with officials of Moniteau County for its overall planning. The mayor of Lupus was a very active presence in the planning meetings for the update of the Moniteau Co. Hazard Mitigation Plan.

Flooding has been the major natural hazard concern in Lupus. After the devastation wrought by the Missouri River floods of 1993 and 1995, the village wrote and adopted a Flood Mitigation Assistance Plan which was approved by both SEMA and FEMA in 1997. This paved the way for an elevation project funded by various agencies and local property owners (see Appendix F).

Two of the mitigation actions for Lupus concern its participation in the NFIP; continuing participation in the NFIP is a major priority for the town. The other two concern maintenance of its one city building, the Town Hall. The mitigation actions in this plan are woven into the yearly cycle of town governance and concerns due to the proximity to the Missouri River and its tributaries.

216

Tipton Mitigation actions for Tipton are shown in the following charts and subsequent list. The actions in the charts are those for which Tipton 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 Tipton. The benefits (losses avoided) key for the charts below is:



Priority High Plan for Implementation & Administration The City of Tipton participates in the NFIP.

Lead City Clerk/City Council Partners SEMA Projected Cost/Funding Minimal/operating budget Projected Completion Ongoing (joined Nov.2, 2010) Progress Update (2017) This is done on an ongoing basis. Criterion for Completion The city continues to participate in the NFIP. Hazards Addressed Flood, Dam Failure, Levee Failure Benefits (Losses Avoided) PD, EMCC



Continue monitoring community growth to ensure compliance with floodplain regulations; update floodplain ordinance as required.

Lead City Clerk Partners Public Works, SEMA Projected Cost/Funding Minimal/operating budget Projected Completion Ongoing Progress Update (2017) This is done on an ongoing basis. Criterion for Completion Floodplain ordinance is updated as required and enforced appropriately. Hazards Addressed Flood, Dam Failure, Levee Failure Benefits (Losses Avoided) PD, EMCC

217

Action 1.1.3 Encourage development of Storm Water Master Plan. Priority High Plan for Implementation & Administration

Review areas known to have flooding and secure funds to implement plan.

Lead Public Works Director Partners City Council Projected Cost/Funding Significant/grant Projected Completion 2 years Progress Update (2017) This is done on an ongoing basis. Criterion for Completion Engineering report, budget funds Hazards Addressed Flood Benefits (Losses Avoided) I/C, PD, LF, EMCC

Action 3.1.1 Mitigate the effects of flooding on public infrastructure. Priority High


Tipton's main area of concern at the present time is the Wastewater Treatment Plant. To lessen the effects of flooding, the property would need to be diked, but it is unlikely to flood.

Lead Wastewater treatment plant manager Partners City Council Projected Cost/Funding Significant/grants, loans Projected Completion Ongoing Progress Update (2017) This is done on an ongoing basis. Criterion for Completion Public infrastructure is protected from flooding Hazards Addressed Flood Benefits (Losses Avoided) I/C, PD, LF, EMCC

Action 3.1.2 Remove vegetation and combustible material from critical

infrastructure. Priority High Plan for Implementation & Administration The City monitors infrastructure and removes debris as needed.

Lead Public Works Projected Cost/Funding Minimal/internal funds Projected Completion Ongoing Progress Update (2017) This is done on an ongoing basis. Criterion for Completion Critical infrastructure is free from vegetation and combustible material. Hazards Addressed Earthquake, Severe Winter Weather, Windstorm, Tornado, Wildfire Benefits (Losses Avoided) I/C, PD, LF, EMCC

218

In addition to the above mitigation actions for which the City of Tipton is the lead, Moniteau County will be the lead on the following actions which also serve as mitigation actions for the City of Tipton:




shelters.














Integration of Hazard Mitigation Actions into Current Planning Processes There are no formal planning processes in the City. Mitigation actions in this plan will be integrated into the work programs of the departments taking the lead on the actions.

There is an annual budgeting process which begins in the summer for the upcoming fiscal year (October 1). The Mayor and City Clerk put together a proposed budget which is sent to the Budget Committee of the City Council. Any necessary funding required for mitigation actions will be considered at this time.

219

Clarksburg C-II School District Mitigation actions for Clarksburg C-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 Clarksburg C-II School District. The benefits (losses avoided) key for the charts below is:


Action 1.1.5 Update staff knowledge of earthquake safety. Priority High Plan for Implementation & Administration

During staff meetings, plans are discussed with all staff. Process is reviewed and drills are completed.

Lead Superintendent/Administrator Partners School district staff Projected Cost/Funding Minimal/Program Funds Project Update (2017) This is done on an ongoing basis. Projected Completion Ongoing Criterion for Completion Staff meetings attended Hazards Addressed Earthquake Benefits (Losses Avoided) I/C, EMCC

Action 3.2.3 Review and update school plans on an annual basis to ensure that they

adequately address all potential threats from natural hazards. Priority High Plan for Implementation & Administration Committee to meet and review plan. Approval by board.

Lead School district staff Partners School Board Projected Cost/Funding Minimal/Program Funds Projected Completion Ongoing Project Update (2017) This is done on an ongoing basis. Criterion for Completion Plans are reviewed regularly.

Hazards Addressed Earthquake, Extreme Heat, Flood, Severe Winter Weather, Windstorm, Tornado, Hailstorm


220

Action 3.2.4 Acquire and maintain an integrated system of 2-way radios/scanners for all public schools in Moniteau County.


Form working group to explore possibility of purchasing radios/scanner that would communicate throughout the County.

Lead School district personnel Partners EMD Projected Cost/Funding Moderate to Significant/ Grant and/or District Funds Projected Completion Ongoing

Project Update (2017)

This was left in the plan for the 2017 update because it is still of value to the schools within Moniteau County. There is already a system in place for notifications that schools believe suits their needs. They currently have communication channels with emergency dispatch and emergency services in the cases of severe weather.

Criterion for Completion System in place Hazards Addressed All hazards with the exception of Drought Benefits (Losses Avoided) I/C, EMCC

Action 3.2.5 Evaluate and maintain emergency preparedness plans. Priority High Plan for Implementation & Administration

Plans and process are reviewed. During staff meetings, plans are discussed with all staff.

Lead Superintendent/Administrator Partners School district staff Projected Cost/Funding Minimal/Program Funds Projected Completion Ongoing Project Update (2017) This is done on an ongoing basis. Criterion for Completion Plans are regularly evaluated.



Action 3.2.6 Conduct emergency preparedness exercises periodically throughout the

year. Priority High Plan for Implementation & Administration Drill/practice and education for students and staff.

Lead School district staff Projected Cost/Funding Minimal/Program Funds Projected Completion Ongoing Project Update (2017) This is done on an ongoing basis. Criterion for Completion Drills and education take place.

221

Hazards Addressed Earthquake, Windstorm, Tornado Benefits (Losses Avoided) I/C, EMCC

Action 3.2.7 Establish and maintain a system of temporary alternative placement sites ("safe houses") for emergency evacuation and shelter of school populations.


This is already included in school plans. Contact area churches to ensure they are still available and willing to participate.

Lead School district staff Partners Local churches Projected Cost/Funding Minimal/Program Funds Projected Completion Ongoing Project Update (2017) This is done on an ongoing basis. Criterion for Completion List of available "safe houses" is current. Hazards Addressed Earthquake, Severe Winter Weather, Windstorm, Tornado Benefits (Losses Avoided) I/C, EMCC

Action 3.2.9 Build tornado safe rooms. Priority High Plan for Implementation & Administration

Discuss with Board and look into grants available. Committee to evaluate cost effect.

Lead School district personnel Partners County and municipal government Projected Cost/Funding Significant/Grants, local matching funds Projected Completion Ongoing Project Update (2017) Safe rooms are an ongoing consideration Criterion for Completion Safe room built Hazards Addressed Windstorm, Tornado Benefits (Losses Avoided) I/C, EMCC

In addition to the above mitigation actions for which Clarksburg C-II School District is the lead, Moniteau County will be the lead on the following actions which also serve as mitigation actions for the school district:





222




Integration of Actions into Current Planning Processes

Current facility needs and safety plans are reviewed and revised annually.

The school district will work to assure that these local plans reflect the mitigation actions in the Hazard Mitigation Plan. The school district will continue to work with county officials to assure communication between groups.

223

High Point R-III School District

Mitigation actions for High Point 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 or for which it is a partner. Those listed at the end of the charts are mitigation actions which the County will lead on behalf of numerous jurisdictions, including the High Point R-III School District. The benefits (losses avoided) key for the charts below is:


Action 1.1.5 Update staff knowledge of earthquake safety. Priority High Plan for Implementation & Administration This will be done at the beginning of the school year.

Lead School district personnel Partners MSBA (Missouri School Board Association) Projected Cost/Funding Minimal/Internal Funds Projected Completion Ongoing Project Update (2017) This is done on an ongoing basis. Criterion for Completion Staff is updated on latest information on earthquake safety. Hazards Addressed Earthquake Benefits (Losses Avoided) I/C, EMCC


adequately address all potential threats from natural hazards. Priority High


The plans are working plans and are continually being revised and updated as new information is available and after review of school emergency exercises. A formal review and update of the plans takes place every two years and is carried out by a committee composed of both school personnel and community members such as the Fire Marshall, parents, business leaders and church officials. The updated plans are then submitted to the School Board for their approval.

Lead School Superintendent

Partners School staff, MUSIC (Missouri United School Insurance Council), Fire Marshall, community members

Projected Cost/Funding Minimal/Internal Funds Projected Completion Ongoing Project Update (2017) This is done on an ongoing basis.

224

Criterion for Completion Plans are updated regularly.










Action 3.2.5 Evaluate and maintain emergency preparedness plans. Priority High


The emergency preparedness plan is reviewed during the summer and dates are set for exercises. The plan is reviewed and revised after exercises are held and as new information becomes available.

Lead School Superintendent Partners School staff, MUSIC Projected Cost/Funding Minimal/Internal Funds Projected Completion Ongoing Project Update (2017) This is done on an ongoing basis. Criterion for Completion Plans are evaluated on a regular basis and revised, if necessary.



225

Action 3.2.6 Conduct emergency preparedness exercises periodically throughout the year.

Priority High Plan for Implementation & Administration Exercises are conducted throughout the school year.

Lead School Superintendent and staff Projected Cost/Funding MUSIC Projected Completion Minimal/Internal Funds Project Update (2017) This is done on an ongoing basis. Criterion for Completion Exercises are conducted. Hazards Addressed Earthquake, Windstorm, Tornado Benefits (Losses Avoided) I/C, EMCC


Priority High Plan for Implementation & Administration Contact churches during summer, get keys and numbers.

Lead School superintendent Partners Local churches Projected Cost/Funding Minimal/Internal Funds Projected Completion Ongoing Project Update (2017) This is done on an ongoing basis. Criterion for Completion "Safe houses" are available. Hazards Addressed Earthquake, Severe Winter Weather, Windstorm, Tornado Benefits (Losses Avoided) I/C, EMCC

Action 3.2.8 Provide additional sources of drinking water in schools currently

receiving water from minimal or substandard supplies. Priority High Plan for Implementation & Administration Bottled water will be found and issued as needed.

Lead School district personnel Partners School surplus Projected Cost/Funding Minimal/Internal Funds Projected Completion Ongoing Project Update (2017) This is an issue that continues for the school district Criterion for Completion A sufficient supply of water is available. Hazards Addressed Extreme Heat Benefits (Losses Avoided) I/C, LF, EMCC

226

Action 3.2.9 Build tornado safe rooms. Priority High Plan for Implementation & Administration Seek funding opportunities (grants, sources of matching funds, etc.)

Lead School district staff Partners County and municipal government, SEMA, FEMA Projected Cost/Funding Significant/ Grants, local matching funds Project Update (2017) Safe rooms are an ongoing consideration Projected Completion Dependent on funding availability Criterion for Completion Safe room built Hazards Addressed Windstorm, Tornado Benefits (Losses Avoided) I/C, EMCC



This takes place at the Athletic training (Professional Development) before and during the season.

Lead County Health Department Partners School district staff, MSHSAA Projected Cost/Funding Minimal/Program Funds Projected Completion Ongoing Project Update (2017) This is done on an ongoing basis. Criterion for Completion Materials distributed Hazards Addressed Extreme Heat Benefits (Losses Avoided) I/C, EMCC

In addition to the above mitigation actions for which High Point R-III School District is the lead or a partner, Moniteau County will be the lead on the following actions which also serve as mitigation actions for the school district:






227


Integration of Actions into Current Planning Processes

The school district has a CSIP (Comprehensive School Improvement Plan) and an Emergency Evacuation Plan which covers fire, tornado, earthquake, bomb threats, and intruders; these plans are reviewed and revised on an ongoing basis. In addition, the District goes through an annual budget planning process.

The hazard mitigation actions will be integrated into the appropriate plan and/or budget process and submitted for approval by the School Board

228


Mitigation actions for Jamestown C-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 or for which it is a partner. Those listed at the end of the charts are mitigation actions which the County will lead on behalf of numerous jurisdictions, including the Jamestown C-I School District. The benefits (losses avoided) key for the charts below is:


Action 1.1.5 Update staff knowledge of earthquake safety. Priority High Plan for Implementation & Administration In-service training in August teacher workdays.

Lead Principal or Superintendent Partners School district staff Projected Cost/Funding Minimal/Program Funds Projected Completion Ongoing Project Update (2017) This is done on an ongoing basis. Criterion for Completion In-service held Hazards Addressed Earthquake Benefits (Losses Avoided) I/C, EMCC


adequately address all potential threats from natural hazards. Priority High Plan for Implementation & Administration This is school district policy.

Lead School district staff Projected Cost/Funding Minimal/Program Funds Projected Completion Ongoing Project Update (2017) This is done on an ongoing basis. Criterion for Completion Plans are regularly evaluated.




229







Action 3.2.5 Evaluate and maintain emergency preparedness plans. Priority High Plan for Implementation & Administration This is school district policy.

Lead School district staff Projected Cost/Funding Minimal/Program Funds Projected Completion Ongoing Project Update (2017) This is done on an ongoing basis. Criterion for Completion Plans are regularly evaluated.




year. Priority High Plan for Implementation & Administration This is school district policy and will continue.

Lead School district staff Projected Cost/Funding Minimal/Program Funds Projected Completion Ongoing Project Update (2017) This is done on an ongoing basis. Criterion for Completion Exercises are conducted. Hazards Addressed Earthquake, Windstorm, Tornado Benefits (Losses Avoided) I/C, EMCC

230


Priority High Plan for Implementation & Administration This is already in place and will be maintained.

Lead School district staff Partners Local churches and community building Projected Cost/Funding Minimal/Program Funds Projected Completion Ongoing Project Update (2017) This is done on an ongoing basis. Criterion for Completion "Safe houses" are available. Hazards Addressed Earthquake, Severe Winter Weather, Windstorm, Tornado Benefits (Losses Avoided) I/C, EMCC


Lead School district staff Partners County and municipal government, SEMA, FEMA Projected Cost/Funding Significant/Grants, local matching funds Projected Completion Depends on funding availability


Jamestown Schools submitted an application for safe room funding and were approved, but because they were unable to fund the match requirement, they were unable to build a saferoom. If funds become available in the future, they will again pursue building a safe room.

Criterion for Completion Safe room is built. Hazards Addressed Windstorm, Tornado Benefits (Losses Avoided) I/C, EMCC


Priority High Plan for Implementation & Administration Materials are distributed at the coaches' training.

Lead County Health Department Partners School district staff, MSHSAA Projected Cost/Funding Minimal/Program Funds Projected Completion Ongoing Project Update (2017) This is done on an ongoing basis.

231

Criterion for Completion Materials distributed Hazards Addressed Extreme Heat Benefits (Losses Avoided) I/C, EMCC

Action 4.1.3 Encourage safe driving through public education campaigns. Priority High Plan for Implementation & Administration School assemblies on safe driving are held.

Lead School staff, EMD Partners Co. Sheriff, State Highway Patrol, MODOT Projected Cost/Funding Minimal/Program Funds Projected Completion Ongoing Project Update (2017) This is done on an ongoing basis. Criterion for Completion Issue has been addressed in school assemblies. Hazards Addressed Flood, Severe Winter Weather Benefits (Losses Avoided) I/C, PD, LF, EMCC

In addition to the above mitigation actions for which Jamestown C-I School District is the lead or a partner, Moniteau County will be the lead on the following actions which also serve as mitigation actions for the school district:









Integration of Actions into Current Planning Processes: The Hazard Mitigation actions will be integrated into the Emergency Operations Plan when it is reviewed and updated annually. The district also has a 5-year plan in place for capital improvement projects. The possibility of receiving mitigation grant funds will allow the district to consider a project such as a tornado safe room in the long range planning; this would not be possible without such funds.

232

Moniteau Co. R-I School District Mitigation actions for Moniteau Co. 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 or for which it is a partner. Those listed at the end of the charts are mitigation actions which the County will lead on behalf of numerous jurisdictions, including the Moniteau Co. R-I School District. The benefits (losses avoided) key for the charts below is:



Staff receive crisis response manual at start of school year and review plan. Earthquake drills are also conducted throughout the year.

Lead Superintendent Partners School district personnel Projected Cost/Funding Minimal/Program Funds Projected Completion Ongoing Project Update (2017) This is done on an ongoing basis. Criterion for Completion Training given; drills completed Hazards Addressed Earthquake Benefits (Losses Avoided) I/C, EMCC


adequately address all potential threats from natural hazards. Priority High Plan for Implementation & Administration

Review and update plans on an annual basis to ensure that the most effective and safest plan is in place.

Lead Building principals Partners Fire chief, School district personnel Projected Cost/Funding Minimal/Program Funds Projected Completion Ongoing Project Update (2017) This is done on an ongoing basis. Criterion for Completion Plans reviewed annually



233









Review and update plans on an annual basis to ensure that the most effective and safest plan is in place.

Lead Building principals Partners Fire chief, School district personnel Projected Cost/Funding Minimal/Program Funds Projected Completion Ongoing Project Update (2017) This is done on an ongoing basis. Criterion for Completion Plans reviewed annually




year. Priority High Plan for Implementation & Administration

Schedule and convey dates and times of emergency drills to all district personnel

Lead Building principals Partners Fire chief, School district personnel Projected Cost/Funding Minimal/Program Funds Projected Completion Ongoing Project Update (2017) This is done on an ongoing basis.

234

Criterion for Completion Exercises held Hazards Addressed Earthquake, Windstorm, Tornado Benefits (Losses Avoided) I/C, EMCC


Priority High Plan for Implementation & Administration Plans are in place to evacuate students to local churches.

Lead Supt., Building principals Partners Local churches Projected Cost/Funding Minimal/Program Funds Projected Completion Ongoing Project Update (2017) This is done on an ongoing basis. Criterion for Completion "Safe houses" available Hazards Addressed Earthquake, Severe Winter Weather, Windstorm, Tornado Benefits (Losses Avoided) I/C, EMCC


Lead School district personnel Partners County and municipal government, SEMA, FEMA Projected Cost/Funding Significant/Grants, local matching funds Projected Completion Ongoing Project Update (2017) This is considered on an ongoing basis. Criterion for Completion Safe room built Hazards Addressed Windstorm, Tornado Benefits (Losses Avoided) I/C, EMCC



The County Health Department will provide information from DHSS (Department of Health and Senior Services).

Lead County Health Department Partners School district staff, MSHSAA Projected Cost/Funding Minimal/Program Funds Projected Completion Ongoing

235

Project Update (2017) This is done on an ongoing basis. Criterion for Completion Materials distributed Hazards Addressed Extreme Heat Benefits (Losses Avoided) I/C, EMCC

Action 4.1.3 Encourage safe driving through public education campaigns. Priority High


High school conducts an assembly on the dangers of driving and how to be a safe driver. Also shows videos and conducts checkpoints with Highway Patrol on campus for seatbelt usage.

Lead School district personnel Partners Co. Sheriff, State Highway Patrol, MODOT Projected Cost/Funding Minimal/Program Funds Projected Completion Ongoing Project Update (2017) This is done on an ongoing basis. Criterion for Completion Education activities take place Hazards Addressed Flood, Severe Winter Weather Benefits (Losses Avoided) I/C, PD, LF, EMCC

In addition to the above mitigation actions for which Moniteau Co. R-I School District is the lead, Moniteau County will be the lead on the following actions which also serve as mitigation actions for the school district:









Integration of Actions into Current Planning Processes: The school district staff and administration review and discuss crisis response plans at the beginning of each year and establish a crisis response team. This review process will ensure that the crisis response and manuals reflect the actions of the Hazard Mitigation Plan.

236

Moniteau Co. R-V School District Mitigation actions for Moniteau Co. R-V 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 or for which it is a partner. Those listed at the end of the charts are mitigation actions which the County will lead on behalf of numerous jurisdictions, including the Moniteau Co. R-V School District. The benefits (losses avoided) key for the charts below is:



This is done during staff development days prior to the beginning of the school year.

Lead School district personnel Projected Cost/Funding Minimal/Internal Funds Projected Completion Ongoing Project Update (2017) This is done on an ongoing basis. Criterion for Completion Staff is updated with latest information on earthquake safety. Hazards Addressed Earthquake Benefits (Losses Avoided) I/C, EMCC


adequately address all potential threats from natural hazards. Priority High Plan for Implementation & Administration School plans will be updated annually to address natural hazards.

Lead School district staff Projected Cost/Funding Minimal/internal funds Projected Completion Ongoing Project Update (2017) This is done on an ongoing basis. Criterion for Completion Plans are reviewed annually and updated, if necessary.




237



Lead School district personnel Partners EMD Projected Cost/Funding Moderate to Significant/ Grant and/or District Funds Projected Completion 2012





Emergency evacuation plans are updated at the beginning of each school year.

Lead School district staff Projected Cost/Funding Minimal/internal funds Projected Completion Ongoing Project Update (2017) This is done on an ongoing basis. Criterion for Completion Plans are updated on a regular basis.




year. Priority High Plan for Implementation & Administration Earthquake, fire, and tornado drills are conducted twice annually.

Lead School district staff Projected Cost/Funding Minimal/internal funds Projected Completion Ongoing Project Update (2017) This is done on an ongoing basis. Criterion for Completion Exercises are conducted. Hazards Addressed Earthquake, Windstorm, Tornado Benefits (Losses Avoided) I/C, EMCC

238


Priority High Plan for Implementation & Administration An agreement is in place for a local church to be used as a "safe house".

Lead School Superintendent Partners Local church Projected Cost/Funding Minimal/operating budget Projected Completion Ongoing Project Update (2017) This is done on an ongoing basis. Criterion for Completion "Safe house" is available when needed. Hazards Addressed Earthquake, Severe Winter Weather, Windstorm, Tornado Benefits (Losses Avoided) I/C, EMCC

Action 3.2.8 Provide additional sources of drinking water in schools currently

receiving water from minimal or substandard supplies. Priority High Plan for Implementation & Administration Bottled water will be provided when an emergency arises.

Lead School district personnel Projected Cost/Funding Minimal/Internal Funds Projected Completion Ongoing Project Update (2017) This is an issue that continues for the school district Criterion for Completion A sufficient supply of water is available at all times. Hazards Addressed Extreme Heat Benefits (Losses Avoided) I/C, LF, EMCC

Action 3.2.9 Build tornado safe rooms. Priority High


Make application to HMGP for a stand alone safe room to accommodate approximately 65 students, 20 staff members and 90 town residents.

Lead School district staff Partners Architectural firm, SEMA, FEMA Projected Cost/Funding Significant/Grants, local cash matching funds Projected Completion Ongoing Project Update (2017) Safe rooms are an ongoing consideration Criterion for Completion Tornado safe room is built. Hazards Addressed Windstorm, Tornado Benefits (Losses Avoided) I/C, EMCC

239

Action 3.2.10 Promote the use of NOAA radios. Priority High


If the tornado safe room grant is approved, the School District would like to promote the use of NOAA radios so that area residents would be alerted to the need to seek shelter at the safe room. The School District will assess options from public education to actual provision of radios.

Lead School district staff Partners Local businesses, SEMA, FEMA Projected Cost/Funding Minimal to Moderate/Budget, donations, grants Projected Completion Ongoing

Project Update (2017) This has not been completed but the plan for implementation from 2012 is still relevant.

Criterion for Completion Residents within 5 minutes walking distrance from safe room are equipped with NOAA radios.

Hazards Addressed Windstorm, Tornado Benefits (Losses Avoided) I/C, EMCC



Provide materials from MSHSAA (Missouri State High School Athletic Association) about heat exhaustion and its prevention.

Lead County Health Department Partners School district staff, MSHSAA Projected Cost/Funding Minimal/operating budget Projected Completion Ongoing Project Update (2017) This is done on an ongoing basis.

Criterion for Completion School staff is provided with good information with which to make decisions about activities during periods of extreme heat.

Hazards Addressed Extreme Heat Benefits (Losses Avoided) I/C, EMCC

In addition to the above mitigation actions for which Moniteau Co. R-V School District is the lead or a partner, Moniteau County will be the lead on the following actions which also serve as

mitigation actions for the school district: 1.1.4 Ensure evacuation routes are adequate with special consideration for schools and nursing homes.



240




Integration of Actions into Current Planning Processes The district has a School Safety Plan and a CSIP (Comprehensive School Improvement Plan). The CSIP is rewritten every five years by a committee composed of district staff, faculty, parents, board members and community business leaders. At that time, any long term goal which has been reached is removed from the plan and new goals are established. The CSIP is updated annually.

The mitigation actions will be integrated into the School Safety Plan and/or CSIP, as appropriate.

241

Tipton R-VI School District

Mitigation actions for Tipton R-VI 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 or for which it is a partner. Those listed at the end of the charts are mitigation actions which the County will lead on behalf of numerous jurisdictions, including the Tipton R-VI School District. The benefits (losses avoided) key for the charts below is:



This is done at the beginning of the year with the staff when emergency procedures are discussed.

Lead School district staff Projected Cost/Funding Minimal/local budget Projected Completion Ongoing Project Update (2017) This is done on an ongoing basis. Criterion for Completion Staff is updated on latest earthquake safety information. Hazards Addressed Earthquake Benefits (Losses Avoided) I/C, EMCC


adequately address all potential threats from natural hazards. Priority High Plan for Implementation & Administration The administrative staff does this annually.

Lead Administrative staff Partners Community, local emergency organizations Projected Cost/Funding Minimal/local budget Projected Completion Ongoing Project Update (2017) This is done on an ongoing basis. Criterion for Completion School plans are reviewed and updated.



242




Lead School district personnel Partners EMD Projected Cost/Funding Moderate to Significant/ Grant and/or District Funds Projected Completion 2012




Action 3.2.5 Evaluate and maintain emergency preparedness plans. Priority High Plan for Implementation & Administration The administrative staff does this annually.

Lead Administrative staff Partners Community, local emergency organizations Projected Cost/Funding Minimal/local budget Projected Completion Ongoing Project Update (2017) This is done on an ongoing basis. Criterion for Completion Emergency preparedness plans are maintained on an ongoing basis.




year. Priority High Plan for Implementation & Administration Emergency exercises will be conducted.

Lead School district staff Partners Community, local emergency organizations Projected Cost/Funding Minimal/local budget Projected Completion Ongoing Project Update (2017) This is done on an ongoing basis.

243

Criterion for Completion Exercises are conducted. Hazards Addressed Earthquake, Windstorm, Tornado Benefits (Losses Avoided) I/C, EMCC


Priority High Plan for Implementation & Administration This is covered in the Emergency Plans; local churches are used.

Lead School district staff Partners Local churches Projected Cost/Funding Minimal/local budget Projected Completion Ongoing Project Update (2017) This is done on an ongoing basis. Criterion for Completion "Safe houses" are available. Hazards Addressed Earthquake, Severe Winter Weather, Windstorm, Tornado Benefits (Losses Avoided) I/C, EMCC


Lead School district personnel Partners County and municipal government, SEMA, FEMA Projected Cost/Funding Significant/Grants, local matching funds Projected Completion Ongoing Project Update (2017) Safe rooms are an ongoing consideration Criterion for Completion Safe room built Hazards Addressed Windstorm, Tornado Benefits (Losses Avoided) I/C, EMCC



Coaches have training on this; parents and students are informed of the dangers; staff nurse is available.

Lead County Health Department Partners School district staff, MSHSAA Projected Cost/Funding Minimal/local budget

244

Projected Completion Ongoing Project Update (2017) This is done on an ongoing basis. Criterion for Completion Education on the dangers of extreme heat is provided. Hazards Addressed Extreme Heat Benefits (Losses Avoided) I/C, EMCC

Action 4.1.3 Encourage safe driving through public education campaigns. Priority High Plan for Implementation & Administration Conduct assemblies throughout the year.

Lead School district staff, EMD Partners Co. Sheriff, State Highway Patrol Projected Cost/Funding Minimal/local budget Projected Completion Minimal/local budget Project Update (2017) This is done on an ongoing basis. Criterion for Completion Safe driving is discussed in assemblies. Hazards Addressed Flood, Severe Winter Weather Benefits (Losses Avoided) I/C, PD, LF, EMCC

In addition to the above mitigation actions for which Tipton R-VI School District is the lead or a partner, Moniteau County will be the lead on the following actions which also serve as mitigation actions for the school district:








Integration of Actions into Current Planning Processes The Tipton R-VI School District has an Emergency Operations Plan, a Long-Range Facility Plan, and a Comprehensive School Improvement Plan (CSIP). The actions in the Hazard Mitigation Plan will be incorporated into these existing plans.

245

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

246

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 SRL1. 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

247

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 PaperPDM 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-grantsFMA

(Severe Repetitive Loss

Property)

90/10In Missouri, this cost share is less than the usual 75/25 because the State has an approved “Enhanced” State Mitigation Plan.

e-grants

RFC 100/0 RFC is only available to applicants who cannot meet the cost share requirement of FMA.

e-grants

SRL 90/10In Missouri, this cost share is less than the usual 75/25 because the State has an approved “Enhanced” State Mitigation Plan.

e-grants

Figure 4.5.2FEMA Mitigation Grant Programs

Grant Program

Cost Share

PDM (Small

Impoverished Community)

90/10 e-grants

248

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/

249

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.

Section 5: Plan Maintenance Process


[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 Moniteau 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.

Figure 5.1.1 Participating Jurisdiction Survey

Annual Review of Moniteau 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 Moniteau 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 Moniteau Co. Hazard Mitigation Plan? If so, please describe.

5.2 Plan Updating FEMA requires that a local hazard mitigation plan, such as the Moniteau 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 Moniteau 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

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. Dam Failure Inundation mapping of the two state regulated high hazards dams in the county should be available in 2018 Emergency Action Plans (EAPs) may have been available for these dams by that time. The Mid-Missouri Regional Planning Commission attempted to obtain these maps, as they were expected to be ready for the 2017 update, but the maps were unavailable. They will be added during the annual plan review process. The following sites may be helpful in obtaining current information on the progress of this work: DNR’s Dam Safety Program (dnr.mo.gov/env/wrc/damsft/damsfthp.htm) and DamSafetyAction.org. 5.3 Public Participation in Plan Maintenance


[The plan maintenance process shall include a] discussion on how the community will continue public participation in the plan maintenance process.

The Moniteau County Hazard Mitigation plan will be remain posted on the website of the Mid-Missouri Regional Planning Commission (www.mmrpc.org) for the 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 Moniteau County Emergency Management Director 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 • Moniteau 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/

Documents

Moniteau County Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 - Mid-Missouri Mitigation/Moniteau... · 2017-08-24 · Moniteau County, California, Clarksburg, Jamestown, Tipton, Clarksburg C-II School