Pettis County - Pioneer Trails Regional Planning Commission

Transcription

Pettis County
Natural Hazard
Mitigation Plan
2011 Update
Created by Pioneer Trails Regional Planning Commission
12/11/2011
Authors
5/2010 – 5/2011 Drew Weisberg
6/2011- Current Rich Buford
Pettis County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update 2011
Table of Contents
Introduction
Assurance statements of compliance with FEMA
Basis for planning authority
Adoption by local governing bodies
Planning process
Participants and Jurisdictions represented
Time frame for preparation
Review of previously approved 2005 plan
5
8
8
8
9
10
10
11
Section 1
13
Community Profiles
Geography, geology, and climate
Form of government
Community partnership
Significant cultural/social issues
Public awareness
Media Relations
Demographic information
Economy, employment, and industry
Primary Industries
Labor Force, average wage rate and unemployment
Access to employment: in-commuting and out-commuting
Codes and regulations
Existing community plans
Land use information
Development Trends
Floodplain Management
NFIP participation
Wetland issues
Environmental concerns
Endangered species, historic properties/districts, archeological sites
Identified Assets
Inventory of infrastructure
Roadways
Railways
Airports
Public Transportation
Telecommunications
Sewer and water facilities
Electric/Natural gas
Solid waste disposal
Law enforcement
13
14
19
19
19
19
20
21
26
26
27
28
29
29
29
31
31
31
32
32
32
33
33
33
33
33
34
34
34
35
35
35
2
Emergency Medical services
Fire Protection
Underground infrastructure
Inventory of critical/key/essential facilities
Medical facilities
Schools
Longer term care facilities
Day care centers
Government facilities
Inventory of large employment, commercial, recreational centers
Recreational facilities
35
36
36
37
37
38
39
39
40
41
41
City/Town Profiles
Green Ridge
Houstonia
Hughesville
La Monte
Sedalia
Smithton
41
43
45
47
49
51
53
Section 2
55
Risk Assessment
Hazard identification and elimination process
Community wide hazard profile and list of hazards identified
Hazards not included and reasons for elimination
Tornadoes and Thunderstorms
Floods
Severe Winter Weather
Drought
Heat Wave
Dam Failure
Earthquake
Wild land fires
Multi-jurisdictional risk assessment in the county and municipalities
Hazard Profile worksheets
55
55
55
56
57
74
88
95
103
108
120
128
136
137
Section 3
146
City/County capability Assessment
Mitigation Management policies
Existing Plans
Mitigation programs
County Capabilities (Organization, Staffing, Training)
Emergency Operations Centers
Communications & Warning Systems Communications
146
146
146
147
147
147
147
3
EMA Mobile Command Center (MCC) capabilities
MCC support capabilities:
Public Warning
Hazardous Materials Response Team (HAZMAT)
SKYWARN program
Pettis County Cares Program
Critical Utilities Protection Plan (CUPP)
Damage Assessment Technicians
Responsibilities and Authorities
Vulnerability Assessment of County Policies and Development Trends
Commitments to a Comprehensive Mitigation Program
Laws, Regulations and Policies Related to Development in Hazard-Prone Areas
County Laws, Regulations and Policies Related to Hazard Mitigation in General
How Local Risk Assessments are Incorporated and Prioritized into Local
Planning
Integration of Hazard Mitigation with the City/County Department’s Plans
How the County Determines Cost-Effectiveness of Mitigation Programs
How Governments Meet Requirements for Hazard Mitigation Funding Programs
Areas Where Improvement is Needed
County and Municipal Policies and Development Trends
Pettis County Community Capability Assessment
Funding Sources
Section 4
Introduction to Mitigation
Definition of Mitigation
Categories of Mitigation
Mitigation versus Preparedness
Mitigation versus Response and Recovery
Mitigation Plan Benefits
County Hazard Mitigation Goals, Objectives, Strategy and Coordination
Ensure implementation through inclusion in adoption resolutions
Analysis and prioritization of mitigation actions
Monitoring, evaluating and updating the plan
148
148
148
149
149
149
150
150
150
167
167
150
151
151
151
151
151
151
152
154
155
160
160
160
160
161
162
162
163
171
171
177
Appendix A: Signed Adoption Resolutions
Appendix B: Government Building/Facility Repetitive Loss Listings
Appendix C: Maps
Appendix D: Definitions
Appendix E: Updates made to the 2004 Hazard Mitigation Plan
Appendix F: Multi-Hazard Mitigation Resource Directory, Bibliography, and Acronyms
Appendix G: Documentation of Public Input (Meeting Notices, Agendas, Newspaper
Articles, Meeting Summaries, Sign-in Sheets)
4
INTRODUCTION
Every year in the United States, natural disasters take the lives of hundreds of people and injure
thousands more. Nationwide, taxpayers pay billions of dollars annually to help communities
recover from hazard events. Most disasters that occur are predictable and much of the damage
caused by these events can be alleviated or even eliminated with proper planning.
The Pettis County Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan Update is an effort to reduce the impact of
natural hazards on citizens and property. This will be done by outlining actions that will mitigate
the hazards’ effects and break the cycle of repetitive disaster losses. The Plan Update will build
on the previously approved Pettis County Hazard Mitigation Plan of 2005.
Hazard mitigation as defined by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is any
action taken to eliminate or reduce the long-term risk to human life and property from natural
and technological hazards. Because Missouri is prone to several types of natural disasters,
mitigation planning becomes imperative in preventing human and economic loss. Hazard
mitigation planning is the process through which hazards that threaten communities are
identified, likely impacts of those hazards are determined, mitigation goals are set and
appropriate strategies to lessen impacts are determined, prioritized and implemented. The Pettis
County Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan Update documents the County’s hazard mitigation
planning process, identifies relevant hazards and risks and outlines the strategy the County and
participating jurisdictions will use to decrease hazard vulnerability and increase resiliency and
sustainability.
The Pettis County Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan Update was prepared by the staff of the
Pioneer Trails Regional Planning Commission. The Commission serves Lafayette, Johnson,
Saline and Pettis Counties as well as the 44 communities contained within those counties.
Formed under Chapter 251 of the Revised Statues of the State of Missouri, all regional councils
in Missouri operate as “quasi-governmental” entities. Regional Planning Commissions serve
communities on an advisory basis and county and municipal governments hold membership on a
voluntary basis. The primary role of the regional planning commission is to provide a technical
staff capable of sound advice to its membership. The commission coordinates various planning
and infrastructure needs among the counties and municipalities, as appropriate.
Information in this plan update will be used to help guide and coordinate mitigation activities
and decisions for local land use policy and future development plans. Proactive mitigation
planning will help reduce the cost of disaster response and recovery to the community and its
property owners. It will protect critical facilities, reduce liability exposure, and minimize overall
community impacts and disruption.
This plan update is designed to provide a general blueprint for hazard mitigation activities and is
structured to serve as the basis for specific hazard mitigation efforts. This city and county
mitigation plan complies with the State Emergency Management Agency and FEMA planning
guidance; FEMA regulations, rules, guidelines and checklists; Code of Federal Regulations; and
existing Federal and State laws; and such other reasonable criterion as the President/Governor,
Federal/State congresses and SEMA/FEMA may establish in consultation with City/County
5
governments while the plan is being developed. In reading the 2011 Plan Update, refer to
Appendix D for definitions of terms, and the end of Appenix G for definitions of acronyms.
This plan update also meets the minimum planning requirements for all FEMA mitigation
programs such as the:
Flood Mitigation Assistance Program (FMA)
Pre-Disaster Mitigation Program (PDM)
Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP)
National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP)
National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP)
Community Rating System (CRS)
Participating jurisdictions in the planning update process included:
Pettis County
City of Green Ridge
City of Houstonia
City of Hughesville
City of LaMonte
City of Sedalia
City of Smithton
These are the same communities that participated in the previously approved 2005 Plan.
Representatives of each of the participating communities, along with planners from the PTRPC
comprised the body that developed the Hazard Mitigation Plan Update. This group will be called
the Planning Committee throughout the remainder of this document.
The plan update was prepared pursuant to the requirements of the Disaster Mitigation Act of
2000 (Public Law 106-390) and the implementing regulations set forth by the Interim Final Rule
published in the Federal Register on February 26, 2002 and finalized on October 31, 2007.
(Hereafter, these requirements and regulations will be referred to collectively as the Disaster
Mitigation Act, or “DMA”.) While the act emphasized the need for mitigation plans and more
coordinated mitigation planning and implementation efforts, the regulations established the
requirements that local hazard mitigation plans must meet in order for a local jurisdiction to be
eligible for certain federal disaster assistance and hazard mitigation funding under the Robert T.
Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Act (Public Law 93-288). Because Pettis County is
subject to many hazards, access to these programs is vital.
The DMA also provides specific criteria for the preparation and adoption of multi-jurisdictional
mitigation plans by local governments to meet these requirements. The Pettis County Natural
Hazard Mitigation Plan and Update were prepared to support the requirements of a mitigation
plan for all participating local governments in the County. The DMA specifies that the following
elements must be included in the plan:
6
The plan must document how the mitigation plan was prepared and who was involved in
the planning process
A risk assessment section should include:
> Identification of the hazards likely to affect the area, noting data limitations and
providing explanations for eliminating hazards from further consideration.
> A discussion of past events and description of the severity and resulting effects
> A description of the local vulnerability to the described hazards in terms of the
types and numbers of buildings, infrastructure and critical facilities located in the
jurisdiction.
> A description of the potential dollar losses to the vulnerable structures identified
and a description o the methods used to calculate the estimate
> A description of the vulnerability in terms of land use and development so that
mitigation options can be considered in future land-use decisions
The plan must include a hazard mitigation strategy describing:
> Goals to reduce or avoid long-term vulnerability to the identified hazards
> A range of specific mitigation actions and projects to be considered, with
particular emphasis on new and existing buildings and infrastructure
> An action plan identifying how the actions will be prioritized, implemented and
administered by the local jurisdiction.
> For multi-jurisdictional plans Identifiable action items specific to the jurisdiction
requesting FEMA approval of the plan
All local units of government included in the plan must participate in the planning
process.
The plan must provide for reviewing, monitoring and evaluating the progress of the
plan’s implementation, and must be updated every five years and re-approved.
The plan must include documentation that the local governing bodies have formally
adopted the plan. In a multi-jurisdictional plan, all participation local units of
government seeking plan approval must individually adopt the plan, with the exception of
unincorporated units of government.
7
Assurance statements of compliance with FEMA
This city/county mitigation plan update complies with SEMA’s and FEMA’s planning guidance;
FEMA regulations, rules, guidelines, and checklists; Code of Federal Regulations; and existing
Federal and State laws; and such other reasonable criterion as the President/Governor,
Federal/State congresses and SEMA/FEMA may establish in consultation with City/County
governments while the plan is being develop.
This plan update also meets the minimum planning requirements for all FEMA mitigation
programs, such as the Flood Mitigation Assistance (FMA) Program, the Pre-Disaster Mitigation
(PDM) Program, and the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP), and where appropriate,
other FEMA mitigation related programs such as the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction
Program (NEHRP), the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) and the Community Rating
System (CRS).
Basis for planning authority
The basis for authority to create a natural hazard mitigation plan lies in Section 322 of the Robert
T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (Stafford Act), 42 U.S.C. 5165. This
act was enacted under Section 104 of the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (DMA 2000), P.L.
106-390. Section 104 is the legal basis for FEMA’s Interim Final Rule for 44 CFR Parts 201 and
206, published in the Federal Register on February 26, 2002.
Adoption by local governing bodies
Participation of local governing bodies as stakeholders is critical to successful mitigation
implementation.
Therefore, Pioneer Trails Regional Planning Commission (PTRPC) has collaborated with
each local government to assure participation and sense of ownership among local
government officials.
The Planning Process
The planning update process began in October of 2009. Initial planning work began with
utilizing modern technology to encourage maximum participation. The previously approved
Pettis County 2005 Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan was posted on the Pioneer Trails Website
(trailsrpc.org). This was done for public review. A point of contact was established for
comments and questions about the 2005 plan and the update process. A virtual calendar was also
provided on the webpage under the Hazard Mitigation section. This calendar provided details of
public meeting dates, times and locations for the Planning Committee. In order to comply with
the Sunshine Law, all Planning Committee public meeting notices were posted in the Main
Entrance to the PTRPC website and press releases were issued in the most widely distributed
newspapers in the County. Notifications were also sent to Emergency Managers of Pettis
County and neighboring counties, Mayor’s offices, Emergency Responders, Area Hospitals,
School District Superintendents and Safety Directors of Higher Education Institutions. Mailings
and press releases were distributed on a schedule that allowed officials sufficient time to review
8
the draft prior to the next hazard mitigation update public meeting. Cities that were not
represented at Planning Committee public meetings were contacted during the planning process
to provide data and input on the plan update.
Two public Planning Committee meetings were held in December and January.
Public Meeting #1
Friday, December 18, 2009
First United Methodist Church
1702 W. 32nd St.
Sedalia, MO
The first public meeting introduced the public to the Hazard Mitigation update process. The four
phase process was described and outline and a timeframe for the update was discussed. The
initial public meeting was an overview of the first two phases of hazard mitigation planning,
resource allocation and identifying hazards. Utilizing FEMA guidelines, specifically FEMA386, worksheet packets were generated and provided to attendees. The worksheets outlined:
Hazard Rankings
Hazard Information
Infrastructure Inventory
Hazard Issues
Regulatory Tools
Financial Resources
Planning Committee public meeting attendees were asked to fill out the worksheets and respond
back to provide input into the update. The worksheets are included in this plan on [pages ___,
Appendix ___]
Public Meeting #2
Wednesday, January 19th, 2010
Sedalia-Pettis County EMD Office
319 S. Lamine Rd.
Sedalia, MO
The second Planning Committee public meeting reviewed the resources available in Pettis
County and the process of hazard identification began. The third phase of the hazard mitigation
process was also introduced and discussed. Attendees reviewed goals, objectives and strategies
from the 2005 plan to discuss actions that were accomplished. In addition, goals, objectives, and
actions that needed to be introduced or revised were discussed. The initial draft of the 2010
Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan Update was posted online to allow the public to review the plan
and provide input.
9
Key participants in the planning process and the roles that they played on the Planning
Committee are included in the following table.
Participating
Jurisdiction
Pettis County
City of Green Ridge
City of Houstonia
City of Hughesville
City of La Monte
City of Sedalia
City of Smithton
Hazard Mitigation Participation by Jurisdiction
Formal
Public
Participant
Telephone Email
Plan
Meeting
Adoption
x
x
x
Allan Rohrbach
x
x
x
x
x
x
Dave Clippers
x
x
x
x
Meetings
with PTRPC
Staff
x
Letter of
Authorization
x
x
x
x
x
Representatives from communities without the resources and manpower to attend public
meetings were kept apprised of the plan developments by less formal communication, such as
emails, phone calls, and one-on-one meetings. In addition, every effort was made during the
plan development phase to gather data and ideas from all participants. Key Planning Committee
participants included the following individuals.
David Clippert, Sedalia-Pettis County Emergency Management Director
James Tyson, Pettis County Floodplain Manager
Allan Rohrbach, Green Ridge Mayor
The following table sets forth the timeline for public participation and development of the 2011
Plan Update.
Timeline for preparation
10
Review of previously approved 2005 plan
The Planning Committee reviewed each section of the previously approved 2005 plan, and
determined that all sections of the original plan needed to be updated to some extent. The basic
outline of the original 2005 was retained. The original plan was written early in FEMA’s
interpretation of the requirements for Hazard Mitigation Plans. The current guidance, Local
Multi-Hazard Mitigation Planning Guidance, was published in July 2008, and was used in the
development of the Plan Update. Based on feedback from FEMA planners and new guidance
developed late in 2001, a restructuring of the plan seemed appropriate to fulfill the current
interpretation of FEMA requirements in a clear and cohesive manner.
A general description of changes and updates made to the plan are shown below.
Introduction: Most of this section was unchanged except for the dates and the timeframe.
Dated material was deleted. Review of changes in the planning area, including disaster
declarations, was performed.
Section 1: The Community Profiles were updated with information from the 2010 census and
other more current databases. All charts and graphs were updated to reflect more recent data.
The NFIP information was double checked in insure accuracy. All participating jurisdictions
reviewed the information in the Identified Assets sub-section for accuracy. The City/Town
Profiles were made current. Maps showing identified SFHAs were inserted into the plan.
Section 2 Risk Assessment: The same hazards that were in the previously approved 2005 Plan
were carried forward into the 2010 Plan. However, the information in each of the hazard profiles
was rearranged under the four headings required by FEMA Guidelines: location, severity/
magnitude, previous events of the hazard, and probability of future hazard events. In addition,
the vulnerability assessment incorporated new information from the 2010 State of Missouri
Hazard Mitigation Plan Update. Data limitations were cited, along with pledges to try to obtain
better information for the next plan update. The Plan Update does not include information
concerning the 2011 presidentially declared flooding disasters.
Section 3: City/County Capability Assessment:
The capabilities of all participating jurisdictions were reviewed to insure that all were current.
Changes were made where necessary.
Section 4: Introduction to Mitigation section was shortened by elimination of dated materials.
Information in the Goals, Objectives, and Actions was rearranged to more closely align with
current FEMA guidelines. A thorough review of the strategy set forth in the previously approved
2005 Plan was performed. New strategies were developed and put into the Update. A review of
the effectiveness of previous monitoring, evaluating, and updating efforts of the 2005 Plan was
performed. A more comprehensive monitoring methodology was developed.
Appendices: Replaced appendices with appropriate ones for update.
11
The process of reviewing the 2005 Plan included evaluating the changes that have occurred in
the planning area since 2005, and the impact of those changes on the hazard mitigation plan.
The general consensus was that some land development had occurred in the largest city, Sedalia,
but the general picture in terms of hazard mitigation remained stable. Part of this process of
review involved information from the federal disaster declarations that included Pettis County.
Out of the twelve disaster declarations (not including the 2011 flooding and tornado
declarations) since the beginning of the Pettis County plan development in 2004, only three
involved the planning area. Those three were as follows.
March 16, 2006 - DR # 1631 was declared for Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding –
Pettis County was approved for both Individual Assistance (IA) and Public Assistance
(PA).
April 5, 2006 – DR # 1635 was declared for Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding –
Pettis County was approved for PA only.
June 25, 2008 – DR # 1773 was declared for Severe Storms and Flooding – Pettis was
approved for PA only.
The declarations resulted in reduced resources both in terms of funding and in terms of
manpower for the development of the 2011 Plan Update.
Identified natural hazards
Tornados and severe thunderstorms as well as severe winter storms, drought and heat wave have
affected Pettis County within the last 50 years. Earthquakes, wildfires and dam failures have not
occurred within Pettis County in the past 50 years; however, data and expert opinions indicate
the possibility of occurrence in the future. Natural hazard risks to Pettis County are ranked in
descending order. The tornado/thunderstorm hazard is followed by, severe winter storms, flood,
drought, heat wave, earthquake, dam failure, and wildfire hazards.
Goals, future planning and plan coordination
The overall goals of the Update include: (1) protect the lives and livelihoods of all citizens; (2),
manage growth through sustainable principles and practices to limit hazard areas; (3) ensure
uninterrupted government and emergency functions in a disaster; and (4) preserve and maintain
property, infrastructure, businesses and jurisdiction vitality. These goals, as well as the current
objectives and actions will be reviewed every five years under the coordination of the county’s
Emergency Management Agency.
Numerous citizens and public organizations have participated in this process. Implementation,
monitoring and evaluation will be sustainable over the long term because it has grassroots
support originating from a sense of county, local and individual ownership
12
Section I
Community Profiles
County Profile
History
Pettis County is one of 115 counties and county equivalent cities in Missouri. Organized in
January 26, 1833, it took its name from Spencer Pettis, the third Congressman from Missouri,
elected in 1828, when the entire State made but one congressional district. He is remembered for
his duel with Major Thomas Biddle, which resulted in the death of both. The Territory of Pettis
County was taken from the counties of Cooper and Saline; at one time the southern boundary of
Saline County passed through the present city of Sedalia.
During the Civil War sentiment was greatly divided and a large number of the arms-bearing
people entered one or the other of the contending armies. With the exception of the attack upon
Sedalia during the Price raid in 1864, the county saw little of war except the occasional passage
of troops. However, the county seat was a large military post and depot. A few of the personal
feuds which so greatly marred some other portions of the estate did exist in this County.
Pettis County is a strong rural county, but Sedalia was closely tied to the railroad lines passing
through it. Those times are almost forgotten, except for the annual Ragtime Festival held to
commemorate the partnership in Sedalia of music publisher John Stark and ragtime composer
Scott Joplin.
The population of the county increased from 32,438 in 1900 until 1940 when the population was
33,336. The years between 1940 and 1950 showed a decline to 31,577 after 1950 there had been
a steady increase until 1980 when the population was 36,378. The population for 1990 was
35,437 and by the 2000 census had grown to 39,403 which is an increase of 11.2% over the 1990
figures. In the 2010 Census the county has continued to grow but at a slower rate as the 2010
population is 42,201 which is a 7.1% increase from 2000. Today 37.8% of the population lives
in rural areas. However, only 5% of the population lives on farms.
13
Population
Pettis County Population Trend
42,500
42,000
41,500
41,000
40,500
40,000
39,500
39,000
38,500
38,000
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Years
Figure 1: Pettis County Population Trends
Source: U.S. Census Bureau
Geography, Geology, Climate
Pettis County is located in the central part of Missouri. It is bounded on the north by Saline
County; east by Cooper and Morgan counties; south by Benton County and west by Lafayette,
Johnson and Henry Counties.
Pettis County encompasses approximately 685 square miles (16.5 incorporated miles), or
438,400 acres. The Lower Missouri-Blackwater-Lamine River Basin includes those streams in
the west-central part of Missouri, which drain into the Missouri River. The Lamine River is
formed when Flat and Richland creek meet in Morgan County to form a prominent Missouri
River tributary – the Lamine River. From its beginning just south of Highway 50 to its
confluence with the Missouri, 59 river miles north, the Lamine meanders through Pettis County.
According to the topography relief map below, Pettis County’s topography consists mostly of
gently rolling plains and some highly dissected plateaus. The map below shows the overall
layout of the planning area, including the county and the incorporated jurisdictions.
14
Figure 2: Pettis County
Climate
Like the rest of Missouri, Pettis County has a continental type of climate marked by strong
seasonality. In winter months, dry-cold air masses periodically swing south from the northern
plains and Canada. The resulting weather includes reasonably humid air, snowfall and rainfall.
In summer months, moist, warm air masses swing north from the Gulf of Mexico. The resulting
weather produced by this effect includes large amounts of rainfall. However, high pressure
15
could stagnate over the County creating extended periods of drought. Spring and fall months are
typically transitional seasons. Abrupt changes in temperature and precipitation can occur due to
successive, fast moving fronts separating contrasting air masses.
The climate is generally moderate. Temperatures range from an average high of 89 degrees in
July to an average low of 19 degrees in January. Rainfall averages 4 inches per month from
March through July while the average is 3 inches per month during September through
December. January and February average only 2 inches, while snowfall averages 3-5 inches in
the winter months. Average wind speeds range from 9 miles per hour in July to 13 miles per
hour in March. Winter and spring winds are from the west-northwest while summer winds blow
primarily from the south
Figure 3: Topographic Relief Map
Soils
There are a total of seven soil associations in Pettis County including the Dockery-Tangle nookLamine Association, Pershing-Green ton-Dockery Association, Hartwell Association, BluelickGoss-Pembroke Association, Maplewood=Paintbrush-Eldon Association, Arispe-MacksburgGreenton Association, Eldon=Paintbrush=Bahner Association.
The Dockery-Tanglenook-Lamine Association landscape association consists of flood plains
along streams that dissect the county. This association makes up about 3 percent of the county.
It is about 48 percent Dockery soidl, 22 percent Tanglenook and similar soils, 18 percent Lamine
soils and 12 percent minor soils. Dockery soils are somewhat poorly drained. They are on flood
plains adjacent ot stream channels. Thanglenook soil are poorly drained. They are on high
stream flood plains few feet higher than the adjacent bottom land. Lamine soils are somewhat
16
poorly drained. They are on high stream flood plains a few feet high that the adjacent bottom
land.
Pershing-Greenton-Dockery Association landscape consists of branching ridge tops with sloping
areas between them that form the beginnings of a dissected drainage pattern. This association
makes up about 6 percent of the county. It is about 32 percent Pershing and similar soils, 22
percent Greenton and similar soils, 11 percent Dockery soils, and 35 percent minor soils.
Pershing soils are gently sloping and moderately sloping. They formed in loess. They are on
ridge tops, side slopes and foot slopes. Greenton soils are moderately sloping and strongly
sloping. They formed in a thing mantle of loess underlain by shale and limestone residuum.
They are on side slopes. Dockery soils are nearly level. They formed in alluvium. They are on
flood plains.
Hartmwell Association landscape consists of long, brnachning ridge tops and extremely long
side slopes that are very gently sloping. Foot slopes below the side slopes are adjacent to small
flood plains that converge downward in the landscape toward larger streams. This association
makes up about 15 percent of the county. Ti is about 84 percent Hartwell soils and 16 percent
minor soils; Hartwell soils are on ridge tops, side slopes and foot slopes.
Bluelick-Goss-Pembroke Association landscape consists of long main ridge tops with numerous
lateral side ridges sloping areas between the side ridges. The ridge tops begin a branching
pattern of drainage that converges to form small drainage ways connecting with larger streams.
Strongly sloping to steep areas with prominent drainage patterns border these bottomland areas.
This association makes up about 19 percent of the county. It is about 25 percent Bluelick soils,
22 percent Goss and similar soils, 20 percent Pembroke soils, and 33 percent minor soils.
Bluelick soils are gently sloping to strongly sloping. They are comprised of loess in the
underlying cherty limestone residuum. They are on ridge tops and side slopes. Goss Soils are
moderately steep and steep. They formed in cherty limestone or dolomite residuum. They are
on side slopes. Pembroke soils are gently sloping to strongly sloping. They formed in loess.
They are on ridge tops, side slopes and foot slopes.
Maplewood-Paintbrush-Eldon Association landscape consists of long main ridge tops with
numerous lateral side ridges separated by long side slopes and narrow banking drainage ways.
This association makes up about 18 percent of the county. It is about 28 percent Maplewood and
similar soils, 26 percent paintbrush and similar soils, 12 percent Eldon and similar soils, and 34
percent minor soils. Maplewood soils are gently sloping and are somewhat poorly drained.
They formed in loess and in the underlying cherty limestone and dolomite residuum. They are
one ridge tops and side slopes. Eldon soils are moderately sloping and strongly clopping and are
well drained. They formed in cherry limestone and dolomite residuum. They are on side slopes.
17
Arispe-Macksburg-Greenton Association landscape consists of long, broad, branching main
ridges with numerous lateral side ridges. Long, concave side slopes between the main ridges
begin a pattern of branching drainage that converges to form small flood plains. This association
makes up about 32 percent of the county. It is about 52 percent Arispe soils, 25 percent
Macksburg soils, 11 percent Greenton Soils, and 12 percent minor soils. Macksburg soils are
gently sloping. They formed in loess. They are on ridge tops. Greenton soils are gently sloping
and moderately sloping. They formed in a thing mantle of loess and in the underlying limestone
and shale residuum. They are on side slopes.
Eldon-Paintbrugh-Bahner Association The landscape of this association consists of long main
ridge tops with numerous lateral side ridges. Sloping areas between the side ridges begin a
branching pattern of drainage that converges to form small flood plains adjacent to larger
streams. Strongly-sloping to steep areas with prominent drainage patterns border these bottomland areas. This association makes up about 7 percent of the county. It is about 48 percent
Eldon and similar soils, 20 percent Paintbrush soils, 10 percent Bahner soils, and 22 percent
minor soils. Eldon soils are moderately sloping and strongly sloping and are well drained. They
are on side slopes. Paintbrush soils are gently sloping and moderately sloping and are
moderately well drained. They are on ridge tops and side slopes. Bahner soils are gently sloping
and moderately sloping and are moderately well drained. They are on ridge tops and side slopes.
Dockery-TanglenookLamine Association
Pershing-GreentonDockery Association
Hartwell Association
Bluelick-Goss-Pembroke
Association
Maplewood-PaintbrushEldon Association
Arispe-MacksburgGreenton Association
Eldon-Paintbrush-Bahner
Association.
Figure 4: Pettis County Soil Types
A detailed map of Pettis County soils is located in Appendix C
18
Form of Government
The county government, as related to disaster mitigation, primarily consists of the County
Commission, Planning and Zoning, Assessor, County Clerk, Sheriff, Emergency Management,
Public Health, Coroner, and Road and Bridge. Pettis County operates as a second-class county.
The county government has authority to administer county structures, infrastructure and finances
as well as a master plan, zoning code, subdivision regulations, floodplain regulations and storm
water regulations.
Community Partnerships
The County and its cities collaborate on numerous issues such as infrastructure, law
enforcement, and emergency services. Missouri Department of Transportation (MoDot) and the
county and cities collaborate efforts concerning transportation issues. Missouri Department of
Conservation (MDC) and local firefighters work together to safeguard the county’s forested
areas.
Significant Cultural/Social issues
There has been very rapid growth in Hispanic population in Pettis County during the past decade.
School enrollment data shows a 545 percent increase in Hispanic students since 1990. The
increase was almost 600 percent in the Sedalia district, where Hispanic students now account for
4 percent of total enrollment. Experience has shown that the increase has been even more
explosive in the general population due to an influx of many young unmarried males in search of
employment. There has also been a sizable influx of Russian/Ukrainian residents to the area as
well. This rapid influx has created many issues and concerns around emergency services,
housing, banking, education, transportation, and communication.
Public Awareness
The Pettis County Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan Update kick-off meeting was held December
18, 2009. Representatives from the County and the incorporated areas as well as the general
public to learn about the benefits of creating hazard mitigation plans as well as the planning
process. The advantages of hazard mitigation were presented to local civic leaders at the
meeting. Notifications of public meetings relating to the update planning process were published
in the Sedalia Democrat which serves Pettis County.
19
Media Relations
The Sedalia Democrat is the official newspaper of Pettis County. In addition, the Central
Missouri news covers news in Sedalia and the surrounding areas. Both provide adequate
coverage of planning issues such as natural hazard mitigation.
Newspapers:
Sedalia Democrat
Central Missouri News
Knob Noster Item
Four Radio Stations are based in Pettis County. These local stations cover local issues in depth.
The Kansas City broadcast media provide weather reports and warnings that detail specific cities
and counties at risk.
Radio Stations:
KDRO-AM, Sedalia
KPOW-FM, Sedalia
KSIS-AM, Sedalia
KIX-FM, Sedalia
Television Stations:
DMOS-6 (PBS) Sedalia
WDAF-4 (Fox), Kansas City
KCTV-5 (CBS), Kansas City
KCPT-19 (PBS), Kansas City
KCMI-38 (IND), Kansas City
KSHB-41 (NBC), Kansas City
The media plan for increasing hazard mitigation awareness will be initiated through the
appropriate local agencies as specific hazard seasons occur. At these times, residents are more
attuned to receiving prevention information. Various prevention instructions from the FEMA
website will be the main source of information to be disseminated through the media.
20
Demographic information
Hazard mitigation programs must consider the population demographics of the communities they
are designed to protect. Some population experience greater vulnerability from hazard events
because of decreased resources or physical abilities to respond. Studies demonstrate that those
people most at-risk (the elderly, physically/mentally disabled, ethnic minorities, people near or
below the poverty level) tend to suffer more severe effects from disasters than the general
population.
Population growth and density play a large role in hazard mitigation. Development trends are
important factors to consider if people are locating in areas that are in the path of potential
natural hazards.
Population
More than 40,000 people live in Pettis County. Population growth has been fairly stagnant over
the past 30 years. More people have been locating in unincorporated areas of the County and
five of the six incorporated areas experienced little to no growth or a decrease in population.
Only Hughesville experienced a growth from 1980 to 2008 of nearly 20%. The unincorporated
areas of Pettis County, however, saw a 34% increase in population over the last 30 years. More
people are beginning to locate to the County in areas outside the six jurisdictions. Table 1
provides an overview of the population trends in Pettis County over the last 30 years.
Pettis County
Population, 2010
42,201
Population, percent change, 2000 to 2010
7.10%
Population, 2000
39,403
Table 1: Pettis County Population
Jurisdiction
1980
1990
2000
2010
% Change 2000 - 2010
City of Green Ridge
488
452
445
476
6.97%
City of Houstonia
327
283
275
210
-20%
City of Hughesville
152
174
174
183
5.17%
City of La Monte
1,054
995
1,064
1,140
7.14%
City of Sedalia
20,927
19,800
20,339
21,387
5.15%
21
City of Smithton
559
532
510
570
11.76%
Unincorporated Area
12,871
13,201
16,596
18,235
11%
Pettis County
36,378
35,437
39,403
42,201
7.10%
Source: MSDC 2010 Census
Diversity
Although Pettis County’s racial mix remains predominantly white in the 2010 Census, the
diversity of the population has increased. Historically, diversity has been scarce. However, the
2010 Census showed the presence of non-white races increased to 3.4% of the total population.
The portion of the county’s Hispanic population in particular grew significantly. Between 2000
and 2010, the county’s Hispanic population increased from 268 to 1,542. The county’s increase
exceeded the state’s 92.2% increase. Table 3 presents a more detailed look at the county’s
diversity. Roughly 78% of Pettis County’s 25–plus years population are high school graduates
or higher. Depending upon regional economic conditions, this indicates the workforce should be
able to find alternative employment if a disaster were to eliminate jobs. The county’s age
bracket in Table 3 shows that 58.5% of the population is of labor force age; 40.1% of the work
force is age 25-54. Typical vulnerable populations include those age 65 and over at 16% as well
as those age 14 and under at 21.9% of the general population.
Table 2
Pettis County Diversity
2010 Census
2000 Census
Percent Change
White
37,839
36275
4.31%
African American
1,264
1197
5.60%
Asian
253
154
64.29%
American Indian and Alaska Native
177
148
19.59%
Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander
31
21
47.62%
Other
2,637
1608
63.99%
Totals
42201
39403
7.10%
Source: 2010 Census
22
Age Trends
The vulnerability of age groups can vary significantly based on health, age and income level.
The elderly appear to be one of the more susceptible groups to the effects of a natural disaster
due to a lack of physical and economic resources necessary for a response.
Figures 5 and 6 demonstrate the population trend of Pettis County from 2000 to 2010. The
population has become older with most families remaining in the County and few new, younger
families moving in. In 2000, most children were between 5 and 18 while their parents were
mostly 35 to 45 years of age. This is compared to 1990 where most children were between 0 and
15 and their parents were aged 25 to 35. The elderly population has remained fairly consistent
throughout the past decade other than females aged 85 and over.
2000 Population
80-84
70-74
AGE COHORT
60-64 Years
50-54 Years
40-44 Years
Female
30-34 Years
Male
20-24 Years
10-14 Years
Under 5 Years
2000 1500 1000
500
0
500
1000 1500 2000
POPULATION
Figure 5: 2000 Pettis County Population Pyramid
Source: 2000 U.S. Census
23
1990 Population
80-84
70-74
AGE COHORT
60-64 Years
50-54 Years
40-44 Years
Female
30-34 Years
Male
20-24 Years
10-14 Years
Under 5 Years
2000 1500 1000
500
0
500
1000 1500 2000
POPULATION
Figure 6: 1990 Pettis County Population Pyramid
Source: 2000 U.S. Census – As of this writing, this is the most current data categorized by sex
Housing
The housing market in Pettis County is impacted by the presence of State Fair Community
College, Whiteman AFB in nearby Knob Noster, MO , and patterns of growth. The 2010 Census
noted 70.3% owner occupation versus 19.6% rentals, with an 8.2% vacancy rate. The average
dwelling unit in the County is approximately 37 years old.
Table 3
24
Source: 2000 U.S Census
*As of this writing this is the most current data available
25
Economy, employment and history
The 2000 U.S. Census (the most current information for most of this breakdown of data)
reported the County had a labor force (worker 16 and over) of 18,286, or 46% of the County’s
total population. The average wage for the first quarter of 2001 was $468 per week. Nearly
12.6% of the population, or 4,967 persons, were below the federal poverty level. The 2000
unemployment rate for Pettis County was 4.9% compared to Missouri’s 2000 rate of 4.7%.
Table 4
Source: 2000 U.S. Census
The July 1, 2010 unemployment rate for Pettis County was 8.91%, which was lower than the
statewide rate of 9.60% on the same date.
Primary Industries
Continued automation in the manufacturing process has helped drive up the demand for the
higher wages of skilled labor. At the same time, fewer employees are needed to operate the
systems. Pettis County’s primary products include: processed poultry food products, steel and
metal fabrication, commercial food service products, chemical products, cellular glass insulation,
playground equipment, bullets, industrial cleaning tools, compressors and fiberglass tanks. The
table below is from the 2010 Census, and presents a picture of the Pettis County economy.
26
Business QuickFacts
Private nonfarm establishments, 2009
Private nonfarm employment, 2009
Private nonfarm employment, percent change 20002009
Non-employer establishments, 2009
Total number of firms, 2007
Black-owned firms, percent, 2007
American Indian- and Alaska Native-owned firms,
percent, 2007
Asian-owned firms, percent, 2007
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander-owned
firms, percent, 2007
Hispanic-owned firms, percent, 2007
Women-owned firms, percent, 2007
Manufacturers shipments, 2007 ($1000)
Merchant wholesaler sales, 2007 ($1000)
Retail sales, 2007 ($1000)
Retail sales per capita, 2007
Accommodation and food services sales, 2007 ($1000)
Building permits, 2010
Federal spending, 2009
Pettis
County
Missouri
1
1,056
17,284
-2.2%
150,892
1
2,358,706
1
-1.7%
2,493
375,075
3,399
S
F
501,064
4.9%
0.6%
S
F
1.9%
0.1%
F
21.2%
1.2%
26.1%
1,535,848 110,907,604
169,425 81,032,913
547,263 76,575,216
$13,415
$12,957
55,361 11,070,634
28
9,699
1
332,418 67,372,613
Inventory of Commercial/Industrial Facilities
Several major manufacturing plants, a mix of both national and local companies, are located
within the County (see Table 5). A list of these companies that employ 50 or more people
follows.
27
Table 5
Access to employment: in-commuting and out-commuting
The majority of Pettis County’s workforce works inside the county. Pettis County’s commuting
patterns show that 2,527 or 14% of the county’s workers work outside of the county . In the
event of a natural disaster confined to Pettis County, the county’s out-commuters are likely to
retain their access to employment. See out-commuting chart below.
Pettis County
Johnson County
Saline County
Jackson County
Benton County
Henry County
Moniteau County
Figure 7: Pettis County Outcommuting Patterns
28
Source: http://mcdc2missouri.du/data/workflow/reports/MissouriRsort.
Codes/Regulations such as building, storm water, fire and zoning
Missouri state law dictates that powers and structure of county governments. Pettis County
operates as a second-class county and administers county structures, infrastructure and floodplain
regulations. Zoning codes as well as building and storm water regulations are need to implement
mitigation measures such as site plan review of drainage, flood hazard, soil, slop and street
connectivity issues.
Existing Community Plans
Pettis County has developed a County Emergency Operations Plan. The purpose of the
Emergency Operations Plan (EOP), published in 1998 and updated in 2003 and 2009 is to
“reduce or prevent the loss of lives and damage to property in Pettis County.” The EOP
delegates the Presiding County Commissioner with the responsibility for emergency
management activities in locations that do not have a local emergency management organization.
Pettis County emergency management is set up along the following functional lines: direction
and control; communications and warning; emergency public information; damage assessment;
law enforcement; fire and rescue; resource and supply; public works; evacuation; in-place
shelter; reception and care; health and medical, terrorism/bioterrorism, and civil disorder. The
EOP also defines lines of succession for continuity of government during a disaster as well as
preservation of records and the logistics of administrative functions such as procedures for
preservation of records and the logistics of administrative functions such as procedures for
obtaining use of facilities. The EOP is reviewed annually and changed as needed.
Land use information
Land use in Pettis County is divided into the following categories: residential (35,753 acres)
commercial (2,491 acres), industrial (2,379 acres), public (4,137 acres), recreational (2,932
acres), transportation, and undeveloped (farmland with 376,217 acres). According to the most
recent Agriculture data, Pettis County agriculture land use is divided into the following:
Cropland: harvested (184,121), pastured (60,854), other (70,116), Woodland pasture (27, 319),
and other pasture (44,936) (agebb.Missouri.edu).
29
Figure 8: Pettis County Landcover
30
Development
trends
Pettis County has seen some growth in the last ten years growing from a population 39,403 in
2000 to a population of 42,201 in the 2010 census. Within the county 37.8% of the population
live in rural areas and 66.2% live in urban housing. These units are located primarily in or near
Sedalia, Smithton, and La Monte. Smaller concentrations exist in Green Ridge, Houstonia, and
Hughesville.
Table 6
Population Trends Cities within Pettis County
Jurisdiction
2000
2010
% of Change
Green Ridge
445
476
6.97
Houstonia
275
220
-20.0
Hughesville
174
183
5.17
LaMonte
1,064
1,140
7.14
Sedalia
20,339
21,387
5.15
Smithton
510
570
11.76
Pettis County
39,403
42,201
7.10
Source: http://mcdc.missouri.edu
Floodplain management & NFIP participation
Pettis County has an active floodplain manager who ensures the regulation of construction
remodeling, and all types of excavation in designated flood plains.
Within floodplain and floodway zones, new construction, and improvements are not allowed
without extensive mitigation features in the construction. Any encroachments such as fill, new
construction, or other developments within in the floodway must not create any increase in flood
levels within the community during a base flood discharge. The table below shows the NFIP
status of communities in the planning area. Houstonia is not a participant. Note that “NSFHA”
means that the community has no Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHAs).
Community Name
County
Init FHBM
Identified
LA MONTE, CITY OF
PETTIS COUNTY *
SEDALIA, CITY OF
SMITHTON, CITY OF
PETTIS COUNTY
PETTIS COUNTY
PETTIS COUNTY
PETTIS COUNTY
05/02/75
12/15/83
02/08/74
04/25/75
Init FIRM
Identified
(NSFHA)
5/01/94(L)
01/05/96
(NSFHA)
Curr Eff
Map Date
08/24/84
05/01/94
09/18/85
09/10/84
31
The county participates in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). The Floodplain
Manager administers the program for Pettis County. As of December 31, 2003, the county had 9
flood insurance policies in force at $716,800. The city of Sedalia has 72 flood insurance policies
in force at $5,001,000. Additional NFIP information is found on page 161.
Wetlands issues
The topography and soil content are not conducive to formation of large wetlands. However,
numerous small wetlands exist with varying degrees of quality.
Environmental concerns
Hazardous material sites, from gas stations to various commercial and industrial sites, exist
within the county. Most sites are located within urban areas. Natural disasters could precipitate a
release of hazardous materials at any of these sites. No federal Superfund sites lie within the
county. See Figure 57 located in Appendix C for a map of all EPA sites.
Transportation incidents involving hazardous materials could occur at any time or place in Pettis
County. A hazardous material incident is most likely to occur along U.S. Highway 65, U.S.
Highway 50, and primary arterial roadways leading to fixed facilities or along the many miles of
railways and switching spurs in Pettis County. The Union Pacific Railroads transports hazardous
materials in large quantities through Sedalia and Pettis County. The geographic location of Pettis
County in relationship to Whiteman Air Force Base makes it a high risk for direct effects of
thermonuclear blasts, if the base is attacked with nuclear weapons.
Endangered species and threatened species within Pettis County is the Topeka Shiner (Notropis
Topeka). Endangered plant species is Mead's milkweed (Asclepias meadii).
The National Registry of Historic Places includes numerous sites in Pettis County. The
Hughesville area includes Bois d'Arc Cooperative Dairy Farm Historic District, Hillview
Cooperative Dairy Farm Historic District, Osage Farms Type 315:13 Government Farmhouse,
Osage Farms Unit No. 1 Historic District, Osage Farms Unit No. 25 Historic District, Osage
Farms Unit No. 26 Historic District, Osage Farms Unit No. 30 Historic District, Osage Farms
Unit No. 31, Osage Farms Unit No. 43 Historic District, General David Thomas House. Sedalia
area includes Building at 217 West Main Street, Gentry, William H., House, Harris House, Hotel
Bothwell, Hubbard, C.C., High School, McVey School, Missouri State Fairgrounds Historic
District, Missouri, Kansas and Texas Railroad Depot, Missouri/Sedalia Trust Company, Sedalia
Commercial Historic District, Sedalia Public Library. The Houstonia area includes Osage Farms
Unit No. 41 and Osage Farms Units No. 8 and No. 9 Historic District. See Figure 56 located in
Appendix C for a map of historic locations in Pettis County.
The Archeological Society of Missouri (ASM) has recorded 318 archaeological sites in Pettis
County. The exact locations cannot be shown in order to protect the individual resources.
32
Reference for further information can be made to Missouri Department of Natural Resources, 1800-361-4827 or their website at http://www. dnr.mo.gov /shpo/ homepage.htm. The Missouri
Archaeological Society’s website is located at http://coas.missouri.edu/mas/ and provides
reference documents on archaeological sites in Missouri.
Identified assets
This section provides a survey of existing fixed assets such as infrastructure, critical facilities,
employment centers and recreation centers as major factors in disaster mitigation.
Inventory of infrastructure
Infrastructure includes transportation, communications, water/wastewater, electricity and natural
gas, solid waste disposal, law enforcement, fire protection, emergency medical services and
emergency management.
Roadways
Roadways continue to be the main source of transportation within the region to support the
movement of people and goods along 1,351.97 miles of road. The Missouri Department of
Transportation (MoDOT) provides and maintains all federal and state roadways, including
492.67 miles of road within the county. Pettis County maintains more than 859.30 miles of
roadway in unincorporated areas. Roughly 75.3% of the county roads are either soil or gravel
roads.
Within the county’s road network are three major transportation corridors. Pettis County is
located just south of Interstate 70. Interstate 70 is the main route across the State of Missouri
between St. Louis and Kansas City. US Highway 50 runs east-west across the county and US
Highway 65 runs North-South across the county. A detailed map of Pettis County transportation
systems is located in Appendix C.
Railroads
The main line of Union Pacific Railroad links the city of Sedalia to major markets to the east and
west. “Piggyback” railroad cars go to both coasts, and are available from the Kansas City
terminal. Passenger service is available through Amtrak with stations in Sedalia, Warrensburg
and Jefferson City.
Airports
Sedalia Memorial Airport serves Sedalia and Pettis County and is owned by the City Of Sedalia.
The facility is at an elevation of 909 feet at a distance of about 2 miles from Sedalia. Sedalia
Memorial Airport handles nearly 20,000 aircraft operations yearly. Its 5,000-foot lighted
concrete runway handles aircraft up to 48,000 pounds gross weight. A second crosswind runway
is 3,600 feet long. The 500-acre airport is home to more than 20 private and business aircraft.
Available services include: jet fuel, transportation, and mechanic.
33
Corporate Air Express, established in 1996, is an on-demand air carrier service offering charter
flights from and returning to Sedalia Memorial Airport. Available services include: flight
training and aircraft rental.
Public Transportation
Public transportation in the county is provided by OATS, Inc. This publicly funded system
provides door-to-door transportation service with flexible schedules to meet the needs of those
who may have little or no alternative means of travel, regardless of age or disability.
Telecommunications
New infrastructures and services are enhancing county residents’ quality of life. The following
list of communication facilities is not all-inclusive, but represents the major providers of the
county’s communications infrastructure.
Table 7
Sewer and water facilities
The county continues to improve its ability to service residents and businesses with public water
and sewer.
34
Table 8
Electricity and natural gas
There are five providers of electric service for Pettis County, Central Missouri Electric
Cooperative, UtiliCorp United/Missouri Public Service, Rural Electric CO-OP, ,and Kansas City
Power and Light.
The natural gas providers of Pettis County are UtiliCorp United/Missouri Public Service, and
the KPL Gas Company (Warrensburg). Natural gas service is available along Highway 50 west
of Sedalia to Dresden and east of Sedalia to Otterville.
Solid waste disposal
Steve Hauler Disposal, D & D Trash Service, Heaper Sanitation, E-Z Way Disposal Services and
Norris & Sons collect the county’s solid waste disposal. Waste is trucked to a landfill site in
Sedalia.
Law enforcement
The Pettis County Sheriff’s office includes the sheriff and 8 patrol officers. The Pettis County
Sheriff has mutual-aid agreements with surrounding counties for augmentation of the
department. The towns of Sedalia, Green Ridge, La Monte, and Smithton maintain municipal
police departments.
Emergency medical services
Pettis County emergency medical services are provided by the following two medical response
companies: American Medical Response Incorporated and American Paramedical Services
Incorporated.
35
Fire protection
The following fire protection departments provide services for the entire county:
Pettis County Fire Department
Sedalia Fire Department
Green Ridge Fire Protection District
Houstonia Fire Department
Hughesville Fire Department
La Monte Fire Protection District
Smithton Rural Fire Protection District
Lake Creek Fire Department
Cole Camp Fire Department
The districts that service the county are listed in Table 9 below.
Table 9
Pettis County Fire Protection District
Fire Protection
District
Sedalia
Green Ridge
Houstonia
Hughesville
La Monte
Smithton
Lake Creek
Pettis County
Stations
Vehicles
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
35
9
4
1
1
3
3
3
5
Any development within five miles of a station and 1,000 feet of a hydrant is given an ISO rating
of 6. Rural areas that are beyond this type of service are given an ISO rating of 9. The ISO
rating can be reduced from 9 to 6 with enough water-hauling capacity and sufficient mutual aid
response agreements with neighboring jurisdictions. It is the intent of the fire protection districts
to provide improvements that will allow most rural areas of the county to be granted the more
preferable ISO rating of 6, which would create a savings of 10 to 15 percent on insurance
premiums and mitigate the risk of fire damage.
Underground Infrastructure
Due to homeland security concerns, underground utilities are not mapped in this plan. The
Missouri One Call utility location telephone number is 800-344-7483. Listings of utility lines
posing a possibly disastrous hazard include a contact telephone number for emergency
personnel. The following companies have underground lines running through Pettis County:
36
Inventory of critical/key/essential facilities
Relevant facilities include medical facilities, schools, long-term care facilities, day care centers,
and government facilities. These facilities represent resources for care and shelter as well as
populations requiring a higher level of care and installations critical to community services.
Medical facilities
Pettis County is supported by one hospital located in Sedalia (see address below). Residents also
rely on hospitals located in Sedalia, Columbia, Boonville and Warrensburg. All of the hospitals
have developed emergency plans in accordance with State and Federal regulations. Such plans
are tested and exercised regularly.
Table 10
37
Schools
More than 6,000 students attend various preschool, elementary, middle, junior high or high
schools in the area. The Sedalia Public Schools is the largest school system in the county. It has
nine separate schools ranging from Early Childhood through Senior High School. State Fair
Community College located in Sedalia enrolls more than 3,000 students per semester. The table
below lists education facilities in the planning area.
Table 11
38
Long term care facilities
The table below includes a current listing of long-term care facilities located in the planning area.
Table 12
Facility name
Address
Bristol Care Inc
Bristol Manor
Brooking Park Village
The Essex
Fair View Nursing Home
Four Seasons Living Center
Georgeton Country View Est
Pleasant View Estates
Rest Haven
Stoney Ridge Village
121 E. Bdwy Blvd
910 Main
116 Brooking Ave
rd
301 E 3 St.
th
1714 W. 16 St
2800 Hwy TT
22378 Hwy. H
1401 W. 3rd St..
1800 Ingram Ave.
25023 Bothwell Pk
City
Sedalia
La Monte
Sedalia
Sedalia
Sedalia
Sedalia
Sedalia
Sedalia
Sedalia
Sedalia
Day Care Centers
The table below includes a current listing of recongnized day care facilities located in the
planning area.
Table 13
Center/operator name
Abbey Sheryl
Aunt Martha’s Preschool
Bobbie’s Home Care
Honey Bear Daycare
Kid Konnection Daycare
Kid Konnection Inc.
Lasting Impressions
Little Guys & Gals Daycare
Little Village Child Center
Minniolia Day Nursery
Address
23974 Anderson
School Rd.
2345 McVey Rd
401 E Olive St
3109 Aaron Ave.
2800 W Main
509 State Fair Blvd
nd
1120 W 2 St
th
813 W 6
1700 W Main
732 W Cooper
City
Sedalia
Sedalia
La Monte
Sedalia
Sedalia
Sedalia
Sedalia
Sedalia
Sedalia
Sedalia
39
Government Facilities
County buildings include county and city government centers, police stations, fire stations, and
ambulance bases. The following table and map detail these facilities.
Table 14
40
Inventory of large employment, commercial and recreation centers
Relevant facilities include those that concentrate large groups of people together in a single
location.
Recreation facilities
Pettis County has a number of recreational facilities including the Katy Trail national park, the
Missouri State Fairgrounds which includes 396 acres of exhibit areas and a 2,200-site
campground and the Bothwell Lodge State Park
City/town/village profiles
The tables below provide a comparison of characteristics within Pettis County’s incorporated and
unincorporated areas. Note that for the smaller population communities that 2010 information is
not available. In the 2010 census, population was counted for zip code areas only.
41
42
Green Ridge
Total population 2000 (2010 not available)
Classification
Leadership structure
Median household income, 2000
Total housing units
Housing unit, median year built
Median gross rent
Median owner-occupied housing value
Master plan
Emergency Operations Plan
Zoning regulations
Building regulations
Subdivision regulations
Storm water regulations
Floodplain regulations
Water service
Sewer service
Electric service
Fire service
Ambulance service
Rivers, streams
Major arterials
476 (2010 Census)
Village-fourth class
Chairman/Trustees
$36,750
187
1955
$400
$63,672
no
yes
yes
yes
no
no
yes
yes
yes
no
yes
no
no
Mo. Hwy. 127, B
43
44
Houstonia
Total population
Classification
Total housing units
Median gross rent
Master plan
Zoning regulations
Water service
Sewer service
Electric service
Fire service
Ambulance service
Rivers, streams
Major arterials
220 (2010 Census)
Chairman/Trustees
$34,219
105
1985
N/A
$48,992
no
yes
no
no
no
no
no
yes
yes
yes
yes
no
no
no
45
46
Hughesville
Total population
Classification
Total housing units
Median gross rent
Master plan
Zoning regulations
Water service
Sewer service
Electric service
Fire service
Ambulance service
Rivers, streams
Major arterials
183 (2010 Census)
Chairman/Trustees
$30,833
78
1985
$350
$44,167
yes
yes
no
yes
yes
no
no
yes
yes
yes
yes - volunteer
yes-Sedalia
no
no
47
48
La Monte
Total population
Classification
Total housing units
Median gross rent
Master plan
Zoning regulations
Water service
Sewer service
Electric service
Fire service
Ambulance service
Rivers, streams
Major arterials
1,140 (2010 Census)
Chairman/Trustees
$28,688
468
1985
$405
$48,900
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes - Sedalia
no
no
49
50
Sedalia
Total population
Classification
Total housing units 2010
Median gross rent (2009)
Median owner-occupied housing value (2010)
Master plan
Zoning regulations
Water service
Sewer service
Electric service
Fire service
Ambulance service
Rivers, streams
Major arterials
21,387 (2010 Census)
Chairman/Trustees
$37,806
9,979
1959
$574
$78,600
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
Sedalia
Sedalia
no
US 65
51
52
Smithton
Total population
Classification
Total housing units
Median gross rent
Master plan
Water service
Sewer service
Electric service
Ambulance Service
Fire service
Rivers, streams
Major arterials
570 (2010 Census)
Chairman/Trustees
$32,312
212
1953
$418
$53.300
no
yes
yes
yes
no
yes
yes
yes
yes
no
yes
Lamine River
no
53
54
Section II – Risk Assessment
Hazard Identification and Elimination Process
During the development of this Update, many sources were researched for data relating to
hazards threatening the planning area. Primary sources included FEMA, Missouri’s State
Emergency Management Agency (SEMA), National Climate Data Center (NCDC) and the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOM). The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)
and Center for Earthquake Research and Information (GERI), Central U.S. Earthquake
Consortium (CUSEC) were major sources for earthquake information. Missouri Department of
Natural Resources’s (MDNR) Dam and Reservoir Safety Program provided major
information concerning dams. Additional research was based on data from United States
Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), National Park Service, National Forest Service, other
departments within Missouri’s Department of Natural Resources, Missouri Department of
Conservation, and University of Missouri, Columbia. Other sources included county officials;
existing county, regional and state plans, reports on the floods of 1993 and 1995; position
papers on transportation issues and information from local officials and residents. Past State
and federal disaster designations, current Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMS) and available
local mitigation plans were also utilized.
M
The Planning Committee reviewed the list of hazards profiled in the 2005 Plan, and determined
that all still pose risks for the planning area. Current databases were reviewed for incidents of all
hazards occurring within the county. Some hazards were found to be regional in scope and
impact. Variations in risk from jurisdiction to jurisdiction were noted. Location-specific hazards
not found through the information search were further investigated. This was done to determine
whether the hazard could occur in the future. Hazard event histories, repetitive loss information,
and conversations with local residents were used to identify relevant hazards.
Community-Wide Hazard Profile and List of Hazards Identified
In developing the 20011 Plan Update, the Planning Committee based the list of natural hazards
to be profiled on the 2005 Plan. Those hazards are tornadoes and severe thunderstorms, riverine
flooding (including flash flooding), severe winter weather (snow, ice, extreme cold), drought,
heat wave, earthquakes, wildfires and dam failures. These disasters can cause what is known as
“cascading hazards“ or hazards caused as a result of other hazards. Cascading hazards could
include interruption of power supply, water supply, business, and transportation. Disasters also
can cause civil unrest, computer failure, and environmental health hazards. Any of these, alone
or in combination, could impact emergency response activities. Examples of specific disasters
include hazardous materials release, mass transportation accidents, and disease outbreak due to
unsanitary conditions. Table 17 below illustrates how the occurrence of one hazard can lead into
other hazard events.
Table 17
55
Hazards Not Included and Reasons for Elimination
The Missouri State Plan includes several natural hazards that were not included in the Pettis
County Plan Update. For example, landslides and land subsidence, according to the United
States Geological Survey (USGS) website, are not likely to occur in Pettis County due to the soil
and substructure. Therefore, they were not included in the Plan Update. Hail and lightning were
not addressed as separate hazards, but were discussed peripherally in the profile on Severe
Thunderstorms and Tornadoes. The Planning Committee noted that hail and lightning losses are
generally minor and are covered by homeowner/auto insurance. The next plan update may
include analysis of these hazards. Also, the risk of coastal storms, hurricanes, tsunamis,
avalanche and volcanic activity does not exist due to the county’s location, soil profile and
geologic structure. These hazards were not included in the Plan Update.
In addition, the Planning Committee tried to obtain information concerning possible levee breach
dangers in the county. Although levees probably do exist in the planning area, it is likely that
they are agricultural levees presenting little danger to the general population. No Pettis County
levees are listed in the National Levee Database (NLD) maintained by the USACE
(http://nld.usace.army.mil/egis/f?p=471:1:3352100546410181). However, it should be noted
that the USACE, working with FEMA and other agencies, assembled a Regional Interagency
Levee Task Force in 2008. The purpose was to provide a uniform approach to gathering levee
data across the Midwest. Data is currently being updated and made more readily available
through this task force. Some of this data may be available for the next plan update.
The following pages include profiles of all of the hazards designated by the Planning Committee
as impacting the planning area. The hazards are analyzed in the Plan Update on a county-wide
basis. In those instances where impacts vary between jurisdictions (flooding, dam breach, etc.)
those differences are noted. Each hazard profile includes an analysis describing the hazard’s
severity, location, previous events, and probability of future events. Starting on page 137 are
hazard worksheets that show Planning Committee estimates related to these four elements. Each
hazard is assigned a rating on each of the four the elements. This information is also included in
the hazard profiles that follow.
56
Tornadoes/Severe Thunderstorms Hazard Profile
When severe thunderstorms and tornadoes hit a community, they leave behind a distinctive trail.
Toppled trees, damaged buildings and cars, downed power lines, and widespread power
outages are signs that a storm has struck. After such events, it can take communities
weeks to return to normal. These storms result in costly structural damages, personal injury,
property damage and death. Tornado intensity is determined by using the F- Scale (Fujita 1981)
and the EF Scale, as explained in the pages that follow.
Ostby (1993) found that the occurrence of weak tornadoes (F0-F1) has shown a dramatic
increase since 1980, while violent tornado occurrence has remained steady or decreased.
Reasons for this include improved verification efforts by local NWS offices and the increase in
storm chasing.
Tornadoes and other severe windstorms can occur instantly. The National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Agency and other agencies have researched the development of these storms. As a
result, Doppler Radar was developed in the 1950s. By the 1970's it was clear that Doppler Radar
would provide much improved severe thunderstorm and tornado warnings.
Hazard Description
A tornado is a vortex of rapidly rotating air that is in contact with the ground. This means that to
be a tornado, the swirling winds must be at the surface and capable of doing damage. If there is
debris in the winds, it is definitely a tornado, even if there is no visible funnel cloud. A funnel
cloud without debris might be a tornado but one cannot be certain that it is (or is not). A tornado
can move over a surface with few objects to be picked up and swirled about. In addition, one
may not be able to see all the way to the surface beneath a funnel cloud because of intervening
hills, trees, or buildings. However, to the observer on the ground, all funnel clouds should be
treated as if they are tornadoes, unless one can be certain that they will not touch down. See
Figure 9 below.
57
Source: NOAA Figure 9
Severity
When thunderstorms occur over a large area, the risk of significant damage increases.
The majority of windstorms in a convective system are of marginal severity, with only
isolated events reaching high intensity. The most threatening situation would be a very intense
convective wind event that also affected a large area. A few times each year in North America,
extreme convective wind events of this sort do occur. To date, no such storm has struck a
major city during a vulnerable time (e.g., the morning or evening rush hours). However, it is
only a matter of time until this occurs. Given that the area affected can approach that of a tropical
cyclone's damage swath, and certainly far exceeds that affected during a tornado outbreak (while
not being as intense, of course), devastation is possible.
When such storms are accompanied by large hail (e.g., > 5 cm in diameter), the damage
potential soars to even greater heights than when the wind occurs alone. The occurrence of
hail has resulted in some of the costliest storms in United States history; coupling a fall
of large hail with winds approaching 50 m s-1 could produce incredible damage in a
populated area. Of course, economic losses to agriculture from such storms are already high, but
do not attract much public attention, and such losses would be very difficult to mitigate with a 2030 minute warning. Nevertheless, major property losses can result when such storms cover a
large area.
A timely forecast may not be able to do much to mitigate the property loss, but could reduce the
casualties. It appears possible to forecast these extreme events accurately. However, further
research needs to be done to test the existing hypothesis about the interaction between the
convective storm and its environment that produces the extensive swath of high winds.
Convective wind events are a hazard to societies the world over, doing considerable damage and
occasionally generating many casualties. Most convection produces some straight-line wind as a
result of outflow generated by the convective downdraft, and so anyone living in convectionprone areas of the world has experienced this phenomenon. On rare occasions, the intensity of
the wind achieves the potential for doing damage.
Whether or not damage actually occurs is dependent on having structures in the path of the wind.
Although engineered structures typically are resistant to wind damage, many structures are quite
vulnerable to damage from even relatively modest windstorms. In the United States, it is
assumed that the potential for wind damage begins at around 50 knots. Of course, damage can
occur in situations where there means to measure the wind speed. For this reason wind damage
is graded according to its character: e.g., damage to tree limbs is considered non-severe, but
uprooted trees are considered to represent a severe event. Refer to Figures 10, 11, and 12 below.
Various human activities place people at risk from convective winds, notably aircraft operations
and recreation. Most casualties from convective windstorms in the United States arise from
such situations. Given the high vulnerability of aircraft operations during takeoff and landing
procedures (the aircraft are operating on the margins of their flight "envelope" during such times);
it does not take a particularly intense event from a meteorological standpoint to create many
casualties. Commercial aircraft are less vulnerable than private aircraft, but their high
58
occupancy means that rare events can have a large impact on casualty figures. Recreational
boating also can account for many casualties in relatively modest windstorms, whereas most
commercial craft are unlikely to be affected by marginal convective wind events.
Figure 10, 11, 12
Severe Thunderstorms
Severe windstorms range in type from downdrafts to tornadoes. The most frequent
surface winds in Missouri originate from the west and southwest. These winds are associated
with storms moving into the region from Kansas and Oklahoma. Tornadoes range in size
and severity. The dimensions of the storm can be measured by the size of the damage path. It is
important to note that the "average" can be misleading, since most tornadoes are small. The
typical tornado damage path is about one or two miles, with a width of about 50 yards. The
largest tornado path widths can exceed one mile, and the smallest widths can be less than 10
yards. Widths can vary considerably during a single tornado, because the size of the tornado can
change considerably during its lifetime. Path lengths can vary from what is basically a single
point to more than 100 miles. Note that tornado intensity (the peak wind speeds) is not
necessarily related to the tornado size. Detailed statistics about the time a tornado is on the
ground are not available. This time can range from an instant to several hours. Typically, ground
time is roughly five minutes or so. Detailed statistics about forward speed of tornadoes are not
available. Movement can range from virtually stationary to more than 60 miles per hour, typical
storms move at roughly 10-20 miles per hour.
59
It is generally believed that tornado wind speeds can be as high as 300 mph in the
most violent tornadoes. Wind speeds that high can cause automobiles to become airborne, rip
ordinary homes to shreds, and turn broken glass and other debris into lethal missiles. The biggest
threat to living creatures (including humans) from tornadoes is from flying debris and from being
tossed about in the wind. It was once thought that the low pressure in a tornado contributed to the
damage by making buildings "explode" but this is no longer believed to be true. Tornadoes are
classified according to the F-Scale developed by Theodore Fujita. The F-scale ranks tornadoes
according to wind speed, and the severity of damage caused within the wind speed ranges. Table
18 below shows the Fujita Tornado Measurement Scale.
60
On February 1, 2007 the Fujita Scale was replaced by the Enhanced Fujita Scale. The table
below compares the two, and provides information concerning impacts.
61
FUJITA SCALE
OPERATIONAL EF
SCALE
DERIVED EF SCALE
F
Number
Fastest
1/4-mile
(mph)
3 Second
Gust
(mph)
EF
Number
3 Second
Gust
(mph)
EF
Number
3 Second
Gust
(mph)
0
40-72
45-78
0
65-85
0
65-85
1
73-112
79-117
1
86-109
1
86-110
2
113-157
118-161
2
110-137
2
111-135
3
158-207
162-209
3
138-167
3
136-165
4
208-260
210-261
4
168-199
4
166-200
5
261-318
262-317
5
200-234
5
Over 200
*** IMPORTANT NOTE ABOUT ENHANCED F-SCALE WINDS: The Enhanced F-scale still is a set of wind estimates (not
measurements) based on damage. Its uses three-second gusts estimated at the point of damage based on a judgment of 8
levels of damage to the 28 indicators listed below. These estimates vary with height and exposure. Important: The 3 second
gust is not the same wind as in standard surface observations. Standard measurements are taken by weather stations in open
exposures, using a directly measured, "one minute mile" speed.
Tornadoes in Pettis County historically have ranged in intensity from F0 to F3. There have been
no recorded F4 or F5 storms. Refer to Table 21 and Figure 19 below.
Table 22
Storm Intensity for Pettis County
Location
F0
F1
F2
F3
F4
F5
Total
Pettis
4
10
2
3
0
0
19
La Monte
2
1
1
0
0
0
4
Smithton
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
Sedalia
2
0
0
0
0
0
2
Houstonia
1
1
1
0
0
0
3
62
Green Ridge
1
1
1
0
0
0
3
Hughesville
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
11
14
5
3
0
0
33
Total
Even though only about 10% of tornadoes are significant, these tornadoes are responsible for the
majority of deaths caused by tornadoes in the country. Violent tornadoes have claimed 67% of
the total casualties. Furthermore, the US suffers millions of dollars in damage costs in the
aftermath of such events- an important consideration for the insurance industry.
Pettis County has reported 33 tornadoes between the years 1950 and 1994, seven of which have
resulted in 77 injuries and one death. The estimated damage from these storms cost
approximately $81 million dollars. Missouri is considered to be in the top ten lists for total
number of tornadoes and number of killer tornadoes (ranking number seven). Based on the
previous thirty-three events in the Pettis County, the future probable severity is shown below.
Figure 20
Tornadoes occur mostly during the spring and summer; the tornado season comes early in the
south and later in the north because spring comes later in the year as one moves northward.
Tornadoes and storms usually occur during the late afternoon and early evening, but they have
been known to occur in every state in the United States, on any day of the year, and at any hour.
In Pettis County, most of the storms occurred in the months of March and May with 6 or more
tornadoes per month. June and November each had a total of 3 tornadoes, and July, August,
September and December had 2 or less per month.
Refer to Figures 14 through 17 for images of tornado destruction by Fujita scale rating.
63
Figure 14, 15, 16, and 17
The level of tornado impacts is fairly predictable in regard to F-scale and distance from the path
of the storm as shown in the illustration below.
64
The Pettis County Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee assigned a magnitude/severity rating
to the hazard Severe Thunderstorms/Tornadoes. They rated the hazard to be of ”Limited”
severity, or impacting 10 percent to 25 percent of the jurisdiction. This rating was based on a
review of prior events and the personal knowledge of the Planning Committee members.
Location
A tornado or severe thunderstorm could happen anywhere in the planning area. No location is
more likely than any other to experience a tornado or severe thunderstorm. Whenever and
wherever conditions are right, tornadoes and thunderstorms are possible. However, they are
most common in the central plains of North America, east of the Rocky Mountains and west of
the Appalachian Mountains. The map in Figure 18 shows historic tornado paths in Pettis
County.
65
66
Previous Events
According to the NCDC, there have been 36 tornadoes reported in Pettis County. There have
been 71 reported tornado related injuries and one death in Pettis County since 1950. The
estimated damages reported from these storms was approximately 78M. Pettis County has had
three F3 tornadoes in 1973, 1977, and 1980. Tornado occurrences reported to the NCDC are
found in Table 19.
Table 19
TORNADO(s) were reported in Pettis County,
Missouri between 04/30/1950 and 11/30/2011.
Location
Date
Time
Type
Mag:
Dth:
Inj:
PrD:
CrD:
Mag
Magnitude
Deaths
Injuries
Property Damage
Crop Damage
Dth
Inj
PrD
CrD
1 PETTIS
08/21/1952
0020
Tornado
F2
1
13
25.0M
0
2 PETTIS
07/22/1961
1815
Tornado
F1
0
0
250K
0
3 PETTIS
06/12/1970
1855
Tornado
F1
0
1
25K
0
4 PETTIS
04/30/1972
1416
Tornado
F0
0
0
0K
0
5 PETTIS
04/20/1973
1430
Tornado
F3
0
0
3K
0
6 PETTIS
04/20/1973
1925
Tornado
F2
0
8
2.5M
0
7 PETTIS
05/04/1977
1345
Tornado
F3
0
24
25.0M
0
8 PETTIS
05/12/1980
1612
Tornado
F3
0
23
25.0M
0
9 PETTIS
06/15/1981
1810
Tornado
F1
0
0
250K
0
10 PETTIS
06/20/1981
2230
Tornado
F1
0
0
3K
0
11 PETTIS
04/02/1982
1515
Tornado
F0
0
0
0K
0
12 PETTIS
04/02/1982
1735
Tornado
F1
0
0
25K
0
13 PETTIS
12/01/1982
2155
Tornado
F1
0
0
3K
0
14 PETTIS
05/01/1983
1355
Tornado
F0
0
0
0K
0
15 PETTIS
11/15/1988
1710
Tornado
F1
0
0
25K
0
16 PETTIS
11/15/1988
1720
Tornado
F1
0
0
25K
0
17 PETTIS
11/15/1988
1730
Tornado
F0
0
0
0K
0
18 PETTIS
09/20/1992
1830
Tornado
F1
0
0
25K
0
19 La Monte
04/10/2001
04:45 PM
Tornado
F1
0
0
50K
0
20 Smithton
05/30/2001
06:38 PM
Tornado
F1
0
0
0
0
21 La Monte
05/04/2003
06:35 PM
Tornado
F0
0
0
5K
0
22 Sedalia
05/06/2003
01:55 PM
Tornado
F0
0
2
2K
0
23 Houstonia
10/29/2004
06:16 PM
Tornado
F1
0
0
300K
0
24 Sedalia
03/09/2006
12:19 AM
Tornado
F0
0
0
5K
0
67
25 La Monte
03/12/2006
03:49 PM
Tornado
F0
0
0
0
0
26 Manila
03/12/2006
03:57 PM
Tornado
F1
0
0
0
0
27 Green Ridge
03/12/2006
04:12 PM
Tornado
F2
1
6
2.5M
0
28 Houstonia
03/12/2006
08:02 PM
Tornado
F0
0
0
0
0
29 Houstonia
03/12/2006
08:07 PM
Tornado
F2
0
0
0
0
30 La Monte
03/12/2006
08:57 PM
Tornado
F2
0
0
0
0
31 Green Ridge
03/30/2006
08:24 PM
Tornado
F0
0
0
0
0
32 Green Ridge
03/30/2006
08:28 PM
Tornado
F1
1
0
450K
0
33 Hughesville
09/12/2008
16:44 PM
Tornado
F0
0
0
5K
0K
34 Sedalia
05/20/2010
17:46 PM
Tornado
F0
0
0
8K
0K
35 Sedalia
05/25/2011
11:22 AM
Tornado
F2
0
20
4.0M
0K
36 Beaman
05/25/2011
11:52 AM
Tornado
F0
0
0
0K
0K
97
85.458M
0
TOTALS: 3
Information from the NCDC on severe thunderstorms and high winds is included in summary
form in Table 20 below.
Mag:
Dth:
Inj:
PrD:
CrD:
THUNDERSTORM WINDS event(s) were
reported in Pettis County, Missouri
Location
Date
Time
Type
Magnitude
Deaths
Injuries
Property Damage
Crop Damage
Mag
Dth
Inj
PrD
CrD
1 PETTIS
07/10/1958
1430
Tstm Wind
0 kts.
0
0
0
0
2 PETTIS
07/10/1958
1430
Tstm Wind
0 kts.
0
0
0
0
3 PETTIS
08/15/1959
1830
Tstm Wind
52 kts.
0
0
0
0
4 PETTIS
04/20/1961
2055
Tstm Wind
0 kts.
0
0
0
0
5 PETTIS
05/24/1962
2230
Tstm Wind
0 kts.
0
0
0
0
6 PETTIS
04/06/1964
1640
Tstm Wind
60 kts.
0
0
0
0
7 PETTIS
07/01/1964
1400
Tstm Wind
0 kts.
0
0
0
0
8 PETTIS
05/26/1965
1530
Tstm Wind
0 kts.
0
0
0
0
9 PETTIS
09/15/1965
1955
Tstm Wind
62 kts.
0
0
0
0
10 PETTIS
06/11/1968
0100
Tstm Wind
0 kts.
0
0
0
0
11 PETTIS
07/17/1968
1630
Tstm Wind
0 kts.
0
0
0
0
12 PETTIS
07/09/1969
1811
Tstm Wind
0 kts.
0
0
0
0
13 PETTIS
04/20/1973
1215
Tstm Wind
0 kts.
0
0
0
0
14 PETTIS
05/01/1973
1925
Tstm Wind
50 kts.
0
0
0
0
15 PETTIS
06/04/1973
2100
Tstm Wind
51 kts.
0
0
0
0
16 PETTIS
07/18/1973
1730
Tstm Wind
0 kts.
0
0
0
0
68
17 PETTIS
10/03/1973
1758
Tstm Wind
0 kts.
0
0
0
0
18 PETTIS
07/14/1978
1815
Tstm Wind
0 kts.
0
0
0
0
19 PETTIS
08/11/1978
1545
Tstm Wind
56 kts.
0
0
0
0
20 PETTIS
07/30/1979
1545
Tstm Wind
0 kts.
0
0
0
0
21 PETTIS
08/21/1979
1730
Tstm Wind
0 kts.
0
0
0
0
22 PETTIS
08/22/1979
1745
Tstm Wind
50 kts.
0
0
0
0
23 PETTIS
08/04/1980
1733
Tstm Wind
61 kts.
0
0
0
0
24 PETTIS
08/05/1980
1950
Tstm Wind
0 kts.
0
0
0
0
25 PETTIS
08/20/1980
2000
Tstm Wind
0 kts.
0
0
0
0
26 PETTIS
09/01/1980
1917
Tstm Wind
52 kts.
0
0
0
0
27 PETTIS
09/02/1980
1950
Tstm Wind
0 kts.
0
0
0
0
28 PETTIS
09/02/1980
2015
Tstm Wind
52 kts.
0
0
0
0
29 PETTIS
04/03/1981
1837
Tstm Wind
0 kts.
0
0
0
0
30 PETTIS
04/03/1981
1837
Tstm Wind
0 kts.
0
0
0
0
31 PETTIS
04/03/1981
1917
Tstm Wind
0 kts.
0
0
0
0
32 PETTIS
04/13/1981
2035
Tstm Wind
65 kts.
0
0
0
0
33 PETTIS
06/21/1981
0915
Tstm Wind
0 kts.
0
0
0
0
34 PETTIS
07/15/1981
1915
Tstm Wind
60 kts.
0
0
0
0
35 PETTIS
07/18/1981
2300
Tstm Wind
56 kts.
0
0
0
0
36 PETTIS
07/24/1981
2308
Tstm Wind
0 kts.
0
0
0
0
37 PETTIS
07/24/1981
2320
Tstm Wind
71 kts.
0
0
0
0
38 PETTIS
03/12/1982
1840
Tstm Wind
0 kts.
0
0
0
0
39 PETTIS
05/14/1982
2135
Tstm Wind
61 kts.
0
0
0
0
40 PETTIS
06/09/1982
0130
Tstm Wind
65 kts.
0
0
0
0
41 PETTIS
06/09/1982
0143
Tstm Wind
52 kts.
0
0
0
0
42 PETTIS
07/01/1982
1645
Tstm Wind
0 kts.
0
0
0
0
43 PETTIS
08/26/1982
1955
Tstm Wind
52 kts.
0
0
0
0
44 PETTIS
08/26/1982
2043
Tstm Wind
66 kts.
0
0
0
0
45 PETTIS
04/27/1983
1400
Tstm Wind
0 kts.
0
0
0
0
46 PETTIS
05/18/1983
1800
Tstm Wind
0 kts.
0
0
0
0
47 PETTIS
06/15/1984
1610
Tstm Wind
52 kts.
0
0
0
0
48 PETTIS
09/13/1984
1750
Tstm Wind
0 kts.
0
0
0
0
49 PETTIS
10/18/1984
1700
Tstm Wind
0 kts.
0
0
0
0
50 PETTIS
06/21/1985
2045
Tstm Wind
0 kts.
0
0
0
0
51 PETTIS
07/12/1986
1825
Tstm Wind
61 kts.
0
0
0
0
52 PETTIS
05/21/1987
1827
Tstm Wind
61 kts.
0
0
0
0
69
53 PETTIS
07/05/1987
0915
Tstm Wind
0 kts.
0
0
0
0
54 PETTIS
09/14/1987
1358
Tstm Wind
52 kts.
0
0
0
0
55 PETTIS
09/14/1987
1402
Tstm Wind
52 kts.
0
0
0
0
56 PETTIS
07/25/1988
1015
Tstm Wind
56 kts.
0
0
0
0
57 PETTIS
08/09/1988
1625
Tstm Wind
0 kts.
0
0
0
0
58 PETTIS
06/08/1990
1343
Tstm Wind
61 kts.
0
0
0
0
59 PETTIS
05/26/1991
1400
Tstm Wind
0 kts.
0
0
0
0
60 PETTIS
07/03/1991
1130
Tstm Wind
0 kts.
0
0
0
0
61 PETTIS
07/11/1991
1645
Tstm Wind
0 kts.
0
0
0
0
62 PETTIS
10/03/1991
1610
Tstm Wind
55 kts.
0
0
0
0
63 PETTIS
04/15/1992
1543
Tstm Wind
52 kts.
0
0
0
0
64 PETTIS
05/16/1992
1715
Tstm Wind
0 kts.
0
0
0
0
65 PETTIS
07/02/1992
1705
Tstm Wind
74 kts.
0
0
0
0
66 Sedalia
03/30/1993
1610
Tstm Wind
61 kts.
0
0
5K
0
67 Sedalia
03/30/1993
1625
Tstm Wind
0 kts.
0
0
5K
0
68 Sedalia
09/22/1993
1835
Tstm Wind
0 kts.
0
0
50K
0
69 Sedalia
04/16/1995
1052
Tstm Wind
0 kts.
0
0
30K
0
70 La Monte
05/16/1995
1737
Tstm Wind
61 kts.
0
0
25K
0
71 Sedalia
05/16/1995
1740
Tstm Wind
61 kts.
0
0
5K
0
72 PETTIS
07/04/1995
0425
Tstm Wind
52 kts.
0
0
3K
0
73 Hughesville
05/17/1997
09:15 PM
Tstm Wind
60 kts.
0
0
0
0
74 Sedalia
06/18/1998
04:10 PM
Tstm Wind
60 kts.
0
0
0
0
75 Sedalia
06/18/1998
06:56 AM
Tstm Wind
60 kts.
0
0
0
0
76 Bryson
04/05/1999
01:15 PM
Tstm Wind
52 kts.
0
0
0
0
77 Sedalia
04/08/1999
04:15 PM
Tstm Wind
61 kts.
0
0
75K
0
78 La Monte
06/06/1999
04:50 PM
Tstm Wind
60 kts.
0
0
0
0
79 La Monte
06/20/1999
09:00 PM
Tstm Wind
0 kts.
0
0
15K
0
80 Sedalia
08/07/1999
09:32 PM
Tstm Wind
57 kts.
0
0
0
0
81 Sedalia
08/07/1999
09:44 PM
Tstm Wind
60 kts.
0
0
0
0
82 La Monte
11/22/1999
11:45 PM
Tstm Wind
70 kts.
0
0
100K
0
83 Dresden
02/25/2000
10:10 AM
Tstm Wind
0 kts.
0
0
0
5K
84 Houstonia
02/25/2000
10:25 AM
Tstm Wind
0 kts.
0
0
5K
0
85 Longwood
05/26/2000
09:35 PM
Tstm Wind
70 kts.
0
0
10K
5K
86 Sedalia
06/25/2000
08:39 PM
Tstm Wind
57 kts.
0
0
0
0
87 Sedalia
06/25/2000
08:55 PM
Tstm Wind
60 kts.
0
0
10K
10K
88 Sedalia
07/11/2000
05:36 PM
Tstm Wind
57 kts.
0
0
0
0
70
89 Sedalia Arpt
07/11/2000
06:14 PM
Tstm Wind
53 kts.
0
0
0
0
90 Hughesville
07/11/2000
06:45 PM
Tstm Wind
52 kts.
0
0
0
0
91 La Monte
08/07/2000
05:13 PM
Tstm Wind
60 kts.
0
0
0
0
92 Sedalia
08/07/2000
05:20 PM
Tstm Wind
65 kts.
0
0
0
0
93 Sedalia
04/10/2001
05:15 PM
Tstm Wind
52 kts.
0
0
0
0
94 Sedalia
06/01/2001
06:38 PM
Tstm Wind
70 kts.
0
0
0
0
95 Sedalia
08/29/2001
06:00 PM
Tstm Wind
57 kts.
0
0
0
0
96 Sedalia
03/09/2002
12:55 AM
Tstm Wind
52 kts.
0
0
0
0
97 Sedalia
05/07/2002
12:07 AM
Tstm Wind
50 kts.
0
0
0
0
98 La Monte
10/02/2002
03:02 PM
Tstm Wind
57 kts.
0
0
0
0
99 Sedalia
10/02/2002
03:10 PM
Tstm Wind
57 kts.
0
0
0
0
100 Sedalia
05/06/2003
02:11 PM
Tstm Wind
61 kts.
0
0
0
0
101 Sedalia
05/08/2003
09:15 PM
Tstm Wind
70 kts.
0
0
0
0
102 Sedalia
05/10/2003
05:45 AM
Tstm Wind
52 kts.
0
0
0
0
103 Longwood
06/10/2003
04:30 AM
Tstm Wind
52 kts.
0
0
0
0
104 Sedalia
08/21/2003
08:10 PM
Tstm Wind
61 kts.
0
0
0
0
105 Sedalia
08/21/2003
08:20 PM
Tstm Wind
61 kts.
0
0
0
0
106 Bahner
08/21/2003
08:35 PM
Tstm Wind
61 kts.
0
0
0
0
107 Dresden
06/12/2004
10:23 PM
Tstm Wind
52 kts.
0
0
0
0
108 Hughesville
06/12/2004
10:25 PM
Tstm Wind
52 kts.
0
0
0
0
109 Sedalia
07/05/2004
05:55 AM
Tstm Wind
65 kts.
0
0
5K
0
110 Sedalia
07/05/2004
06:05 AM
Tstm Wind
65 kts.
0
0
25K
0
111 Smithton
07/05/2004
06:12 AM
Tstm Wind
65 kts.
0
0
5K
0
112 Hughesville
08/17/2004
06:42 PM
Tstm Wind
52 kts.
0
0
0
0
113 Hughesville
06/07/2005
03:20 PM
Tstm Wind
52 kts.
0
0
0
0
114 Hughesville
06/10/2005
01:00 PM
Tstm Wind
52 kts.
0
0
0
0
115 La Monte
06/10/2005
01:08 PM
Tstm Wind
63 kts.
0
0
0
0
116 Lamonte
06/10/2005
12:50 PM
Tstm Wind
57 kts.
0
0
0
0
117 Sedalia
06/30/2005
02:55 PM
Tstm Wind
52 kts.
0
0
1K
0
118 Sedalia
07/03/2005
08:13 PM
Tstm Wind
57 kts.
0
0
10K
0
119 Hughesville
07/21/2005
04:30 PM
Tstm Wind
57 kts.
0
0
0
0
120 Sedalia
07/21/2005
04:39 PM
Tstm Wind
51 kts.
0
0
0
0
121 Smithton
07/21/2005
04:44 PM
Tstm Wind
61 kts.
0
0
0
0
122 Sedalia
06/19/2008
16:55 PM
Tstm Wind
52 kts.
0
0
2K
0K
123 La Monte
08/28/2008
18:45 PM
Tstm Wind
52 kts.
0
0
0K
0K
124 La Monte
06/15/2009
23:01 PM
Tstm Wind
52 kts.
0
0
0K
0K
71
125 Sedalia
06/15/2009
23:10 PM
Tstm Wind
52 kts.
0
0
0K
0K
126 Sedalia
06/27/2009
19:15 PM
Tstm Wind
52 kts.
0
0
0K
0K
127 Stokey
07/20/2010
17:50 PM
Tstm Wind
61 kts.
0
0
0K
0K
128 Sedalia
07/20/2010
18:02 PM
Tstm Wind
52 kts.
0
0
0K
0K
129 Sedalia
07/20/2010
18:02 PM
Tstm Wind
52 kts.
0
0
0K
0K
130 Green Ridge
07/20/2010
18:04 PM
Tstm Wind
61 kts.
0
0
1K
0K
131 Sedalia
07/24/2010
17:30 PM
Tstm Wind
52 kts.
0
0
0K
0K
132 Lamonte
08/13/2010
19:50 PM
Tstm Wind
52 kts.
0
3
1K
0K
133 Sedalia
06/18/2011
02:24 AM
Tstm Wind
61 kts.
0
0
20K
0K
134 Sedalia
08/07/2011
15:25 PM
Tstm Wind
52 kts.
0
0
0K
0K
135 La Monte
08/18/2011
23:45 PM
Tstm Wind
61 kts.
0
0
1K
0K
136 Sedalia
08/18/2011
23:57 PM
Tstm Wind
54 kts.
0
0
0K
0K
137 Sedalia
08/18/2011
23:58 PM
Tstm Wind
61 kts.
0
0
3K
0K
138 Dresden
08/19/2011
00:15 AM
Tstm Wind
52 kts.
0
0
0K
0K
TOTALS: 0
3
411K
20K
An example of the severity of storms reported in the NCDC table above is the June 19, 2008
storm which blew over a tree destroying a car, a June 30, 2008 storm which toppled metal street
light poles, and the August 18, 2011 storm which had winds of up to 60 miles per hour with golfball sized hail.
Probability
The probability of severe thunderstorms and tornadoes was difficult to predict for the Planning
Committee. Storms usually occur during the late afternoon and early evening, but they have
been known to occur in every state in the United States, on any day of the year, and at any hour.
Historically, tornadoes occur in most frequently in the spring and summer months, but can occur
anytime. Based on prior events, the planning area could experience at least one severe
thunderstorm every year, and a tornado at least once every two years.
Table 21
0
0
9
6
6
3
1
1
2
1
3
December
November
October
September
August
July
June
May
April
March
February
January
Occurrences of Tornadoes in Pettis County 1950-2003
1
Source: NOAA
72
The Pettis County Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee assigned a probability rating to the
hazard Severe Thunderstorms/Tornadoes. They rated it ”Likely” or having a 10 percent to 100
percent probability of occurrence in the next twelve months. This rating was based on a review
of prior events and the personal knowledge of the Planning Committee members.
Recommendations
New-home builders and builders of public facilities should be provided with information
concerning safe-room construction and cost (e.g., FEMA Publication 320) and should be
encouraged to build new structures with safe rooms. Safe rooms would likely be desirable
features for new-home buyers in high tornado risk areas. Homeowners and owners of public
facilities should be provided with information concerning safe-room construction and cost, and
should be encouraged to retrofit existing structures with safe rooms. All communities should be
encouraged to adopt and enforce building codes with wind load design for new construction and
substantial improvements.
73
Flood/Flash Flood Hazard Profile
Flooding poses a threat to lives and safety and can cause severe damage to public and private
property. Floods are the most common and widespread of all disasters in Pettis County. Most
communities in the United States have experienced some kind of flooding, after spring rains,
heavy thunderstorms, or winter snow thaws. Refer to Figures 22 and 23 below and the
floodplain map in Appendix C. The National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) Repetitive Loss
properties for the county are in a table located in Appendix B of the Plan Update.
Figures 22 and 23
The Flood Control Act of 1928 authorized the United States Corps of Engineers (USAGE) to
control the Mississippi River with dams, levees and diversion channels. This Act authorized the
USAGE to undertake a structural approach to reducing flood damages (thus keeping water from
people). After numerous floods, and having spent billions of dollars on floods and disasters,
Congress looked at another approach to reduce flood losses, adding a nonstructural approach in
the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968. This act, called the National Flood Insurance program
(NFIP), required local governments to adopt regulations governing new development activities
in identified flood plains. These regulations were a prerequisite to be eligible for the sale of flood
insurance within their jurisdictions.
Description of Hazard
Flooding is a natural event and has been characteristic of rivers and waterways throughout
history. It becomes a disaster when it is of such magnitude that both man-made and natural
landforms and human lives are destroyed or seriously damaged (Gaffney). A variety of factors
affect the type and severity of flooding throughout the planning region, including urban
development and infrastructure and topography. A flood is defined as an overflow or inundation
that comes from a river or other body of water (Barrows, 1948) and causes or threatens damage
or any relatively high stream flow overtopping the natural or artificial banks in any reach of a
stream (Leopold and Maddock, 1954). A flood is defined by the NFIP as: A general and
74
temporary condition of partial or complete inundation of two or more acres of normally dry land
area or of two or more properties from:
Overflow of inland or tidal waters,
Unusual and rapid accumulation or runoff of surface waters from any source, or
A mudflow
River flooding includes headwater, backwater, and interior drainage. Floods can be slowor fast-rising, depending on rainstorm intensity and length of time, or from rapid snowmelt
or ice melt. Floods generally develop over a period of days. During heavy rains from storm
systems (including severe thunderstorms), water flows down the watershed, collecting in, and
then overtopping, valley streams and rivers.
Flash flooding is characterized by rapid accumulation or runoff of surface waters from any source.
This type of flooding can occur within six hours of a rain event, after a dam or levee failure, or
by the sudden release of water held by an ice or debris dam. Because flash flooding can develop
in just a matter of hours, they catch people unprepared. Most flood- related deaths result from
this type of flooding. Most flash flooding is caused by slow-moving thunderstorms or heavy
rains.
Several factors contribute to both river and flash flooding. Two key elements are rainfall intensity
(the rate of rainfall) and duration (length of time that the rainfall lasts). In addition the type of
ground cover, soil type, and topography all play important roles in flooding.
Flooding potential is further exacerbated in urban areas by the increased runoff. Runoff can be
from two to six times over what would occur on undisturbed terrain. Soils lose their ability to
absorb rain as land is converted from fields or woodlands to buildings and pavement. During
periods of urban flooding, streets become rivers, and basements and viaducts become death traps
as they fill with water.
Floodplains are located in relatively flat lowland areas and adjoin rivers and streams. These
lowland areas adjacent to rivers and stream banks serve to carry excess floodwater during rapid
runoff. 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 on historical records. A 500-year
flood is defined as the area in the floodplain that has a .2% probability of occurring in any given
year. While unlikely, it is possible to have two 100 or even 500 year floods within years or months
of each other. The primary use for these terms is for the determination of flood insurance rates
in flood hazard areas. Using historic weather and hydrograph data experts derive the estimated
rate of flow or discharge of a river or creek. After extensive study and coordination with Federal
and State agencies, this group recommended that the 1 percent annual-chance flood (also referred
to as the 100-year or "Base Flood") be used as the standard for the NFIP.
The 1-percent-annual-chance flood was chosen on the basis that it provides a higher level of
protection while not imposing overly stringent requirements or the burden of excessive costs on
property owners. The 1-percent-annual-chance flood (or 100-year flood) represents a
magnitude and frequency that has a statistical probability of being equaled or exceeded in any
75
given year, or the 100-year flood has a 26 percent (or 1 in 4) chance of occurring over the life of a
30-year mortgage.
Floodplains are a vital part of a larger entity called a watershed basin. A watershed basin is
defined as all the land drained by a river and its branches. In some cases, flooding may not be
attributed to a river, stream or lake. It may be the combination of excessive rainfall, snowmelt,
saturated ground and inadequate drainage.
Severity
Damage resulting from flooding includes the inundation of residences, outbuildings,
businesses, churches, and storm water structures. Flooding leaves behind mud, rock, debris,
braches, trash, and chemical pollutants. Prolonged inundation destroys trees, Depending upon
the depth of the flood and the volume and rate of flow of the water, floodwaters may be capable
of carrying vehicles, as well as whole or parts of buildings, etc. Wherever they reach, floodwaters
leave behind layers of thick muddy ooze.
Note that at the time of the development of the 2011 Update, the serious flooding of the summer
of 2011 had not yet occurred. Information concerning this event will be helpful in the next plan
update in five years.
During the spring and summer of 1993, record flooding inundated much of the upper Mississippi
River Basin, which includes the planning area. The magnitude of the damages -- in terms of
property, disrupted business, and personal trauma -- was unmatched by any other flood disaster
in United States history. Property damage alone was over $20 billion. Damaged highways and
submerged roads disrupted overland transportation throughout the flooded region. The
Mississippi and the Missouri Rivers were closed to navigation before, during, and after the
flooding. Millions of acres of productive farmland remained under water for weeks during the
growing season. Rills and gullies in many tilled fields and large holes (exceeding 100 feet in
depth) were the result of the severe erosion that occurred throughout the Midwestern United
States farm belt. The hydrologic effects of extended rainfall throughout the upper Midwestern
United States were severe and widespread. The banks and channels of many rivers were severely
eroded, and sediment was deposited over large areas of the basin's flood plain. Record flows
submerged many areas that had not been affected by previous floods. Industrial and agricultural
areas were inundated, which caused concern about the transport and fate of industrial chemicals,
sewage effluent and numerous levees to fail. One failed levee on the Raccoon River in Des
Moines, Iowa, led to flooding of the city's water treatment plant. As a result, the city was without
drinking water for 19 days. The map below illustrates the extent of flooding in 1993.
76
Figure 24
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers produced a set of maps showing damage estimates for the
1993 flood. According to the maps, Pettis County damages included:
Greater than $10 million In commercial properties damages
Between $1 and $5 million in public facilities damages
Between $1 and $5 million in residential damages
Greater than $10 million in transportation system damage
Between $500,000 and $10 million in utilities damages
Greater than $1 million is emergency expenses
The Pettis County data above were collected for seven specific areas of damage s and costs
and for one general area. The specific areas collected were residential, commercial/industrial,
public facilities, transportation, utilities, agriculture and emergency services. The general area
was an attempt to cover “secondary costs” of the flooding. These were the costs of buyout,
mitigation, mission, unemployment assistance and crisis counseling. For all categories of
damages that included structures, the attempt was made to get numbers of structures damaged,
extent of that damage, and the extent of damage to any contents. For revenue-generating
activities, an attempt was made to find the extent of revenues lost. Within agriculture, the acres
damaged for various crops were sought. For the transportation sector, miles of roads and
railroads damaged were sought.
77
Although buyout and relocation costs were typically allotted by local officials, very few counties in
any District had this variable reported. These costs were typically included in the mitigation costs
rather than presented separately. Mitigation costs were derived from the FEMA, from SBA reports
and from Housing and Urban Development (HUD) officials. In most cases, the mitigation costs
were well-reported and include monies that went for buyouts. Unemployment costs, including
both unemployment and food aid assistance costs, were derived from FEMA and USDA reports.
As can be seen in the map below, Pettis County fell into the second lowest category of damages
of between $50,000 and $999,999
Figure 25
The commercial variable for the 2003 flooding damage reports included all commercial and
industrial damages for the particular area. The figures for all parts of the commercial/industrial
damages were derived from FEMA, SBA, and state and local sources. Refer to Figure 25 above.
The equipment damages for both commercial and industrial are found in the commercial
equipment damages variable. These estimates come from FEMA, SBA and local sources.
Commercial and industrial revenues lost were grouped under the commercial variable. These
estimates come from SBA and local sources.
78
Figure 26
FEMA Damage Survey Reports (DSRs) and local sources were used for the various categories of
damage to public facilities. The variables included under this category were number of and
damages to public structures, public equipment damage, costs of public restoration and debris
clearance, damages to parks and recreation facilities, and damages to water control facilities. The
latter variable was drawn from U.S. Department of Agriculture and Corps sources as well as those
sources used for the other public variables. As can be seen in the map above, Pettis County
again fell into the second lowest category of damages: of between $25,000 to $99,000. Refer to
Figure 26 above.
79
Figure 27
The residential data gathered were numbers of residences damaged, structure damage, and
content damage. This category included residential damage figures for both structure and
content not separated. As can be seen in the map above, Pettis County again fell into the second
lowest category of damages, between $50,000 to $99,000. Refer to Figure 27 above.
80
Figure 28
Variables for railroad damages were miles of lines flooded, amount of damages, and revenues
lost. These were determined by contacting the private railroad companies, local officials, and the
Federal Railroad Administration. The revenues lost depended upon the cooperation of the
railroad companies, information that was not always forthcoming. Refer to Figure 28 above.
Variables for trucking damages were the number of trucking companies experiencing damage, the
amount of damages, and revenues lost. Damages were determined by contact with the companies
involved. Only in Kansas City and St. Louis Districts were damages in this category reported.
Damages to airports included numbers of airports damaged, amounts of that damage, and
revenues lost by airports. These variables were acquired from the Federal Aviation
Administration and local officials.
Transportation damages were also acquired on miles of roads flooded, traffic rerouting costs, and
damages to roads and bridges. Information was gathered from local and state officials and from
the FEMA DSRs. As can be seen in the map above, Pettis County fell into the third lowest
category of damages, between $100,000 to $499,999.
81
Figure 29
The utilities damages covered water, sewer, electric and general utilities. Data regarding utilities
damage was sought from state departments of natural resources or environmental protection,
the FEMA DSRs and local officials. Very few answers were obtained as to numbers of
water facilities damaged. Names of some water facilities, evidently those that suffered some
damage, are included in the records. Numbers of water customers affected and dollar amounts of
water facilities damage were more frequently reported. Very few areas reported lost water
revenues. As can be seen in the map above, Pettis County had no damages. Refer to Figure 29
above.
82
Figure 30
The two emergency cost variables are the emergency preparedness and response costs and the
evacuation costs. The former was primarily derived from the FEMA DSR's, with supplemental
data coming from some local and regional officials. The latter variable came from these same
sources, as well as the Red Cross and FEMA Disaster Field Offices. The final variable, crisis
counseling, was derived from FEMA reports and state sources. Refer to Figure 29 above.
Infrastructure problems included contaminated wells, collapsed wells, destroyed pumping
equipment, failed sewage treatment facilities or private septic systems, contaminated ground and
drinking water, sewage backups and treatment facilities seriously purged by the floodwaters. As
can be seen in the map above, Pettis County fell into the lowest category of damages, less than
$25,000.
According to the NCDC weather database, there has been one death since 1950 in Pettis County
due to floods. However, the Sedalia-Pettis County Emergency Management Agency Director,
reports 21 deaths due to flash flooding in Pettis County since 1950. Pettis County has also
suffered $7.839 million in property damage and $7.002 million in crop damage due to floods
since 1950.
Pettis County typically has most of its wet weather in the spring months (April, May, June, July
and August). Seasonal patterns are depicted on the Table 25 below.
83
Table 25
2
0
0
3
7
7
4
3
2
0
December
November
October
September
August
July
June
May
April
March
January
February
Occurrences of Flood in Pettis County 1994-2003
0
0
Depending upon the weather forecasts, the onset of a flash flood can be almost instantaneous.
Warnings can be issued by the National Weather Service and the local media. USACE and
USGS river stage warnings are given that enable communities to plan for flood events. The
National Weather Service prepares its forecasts in collaboration with agencies like the U.S.
Geological Survey, U.S Bureau of Reclamation, U. S. Army Corps of engineers, Natural
Resource Conservation Service, National Park Service, ALERT Users Group, Bureau of Indian
Affairs, and many state and local emergency managers across the County.
to the hazard Flooding (river and flash). They rated the hazard as being of ”Limited” impact, or
one that impacts 10 percent to 25 percent of the jurisdiction. This rating was based on a review
of prior events and the personal knowledge of the Planning Committee members.
Location
In certain areas of Pettis County, steep slopes of the region induce high velocities as the water
flows downhill and downstream, in many cases producing flash flooding conditions. Some areas
in Pettis County are located in low areas, and therefore, often in the floodplain. Floodwaters
have the potential to affect or even severely harm portions of the community, especially if the
floodwalls or levees fail.
Boundaries for areas prone to flooding are shown in the map below, as well as in the maps in
Appendix C. Flood risk in individual communities is illustrated in the maps included in the
City/Town profiles beginning on page 43. As can be seen in these community maps, little of the
developed land in the planning area is located in SFHAs. The communities of Smithton,
LaMonte, and Green Ridge have virtually no SFHA within the corporate city limits. “Fingers”
of SFHAs extend into some southeastern portions of Sedalia, with some structures located in
them. Note that as listed in Appendix B, Sedalia has four properties identified as “Repetitive
Loss Properties” by the NFIP, so flooding is a problem in that community. Houstonia may have
several structures in the flood plain in a small area of the southeastern portion of the community.
As can be seen in the county-wide map on the next page, many areas in the unincorporated
county are in SFHAs. However, as these areas are not as densely populated, so that fewer
structures will be located there. The number of structures located in the identified SFHAs in the
planning area is not known at this time. However, the Planning Committee will try to obtain this
information for the next plan update.
84
85
Flash flooding can occur in areas other than in SFHAs. Location information for flash flooding
outside of SFHAs can be determined by a review of some of the most recent reported flash
flooding events in the planning area. Some of the areas reported in the past 20 years include the
following.
Two to three feet of water was reported over the road at US Highway 50 and Center, with
several cars stranded.
One and a half feet of water over Highway 127
Two to three feet of water was reported over the road at US Highway 50 and Center.
Several roads were closed due to high water. They included the following: Oak Grove
Lane, Yeater, Gottschalk, Butterbaugh Ford, and Pinhook.
Flooding was reported across the intersection of HWY 65 and State Route BB.
Highway 127 flooded.
Water over road on US Highway 50 west of Sedalia due to heavy rains.
US Highways 50 and 65 were under as much as 2 to 3 feet of water
US 50 Highway near Sedalia was under 2 feet of water.
Highway 50 was closed in both directions out of Sedalia because of high water.
As can be seen in the listing above, repeated flash flooding events involving U.S Highway 50
have been reported.
Previous Events
The table below illustrates previous events of flooding, both river and flash, in Pettis County.
Note that the table represents only reported events, and that damage figures are area-wide and do
not always represent what was reported for the planning area.
Mag:
Dth:
Inj:
PrD:
CrD:
FLOOD event(s) were reported in Pettis County, Missouri
Location or County
Date
Time
Type
Magnitude
Deaths
Injuries
Property Damage
Crop Damage
Mag
Dth
Inj
PrD
CrD
1 Sedalia
09/13/1993 1200
Urban Flood
N/A
0
0
0
0
2 Central And
04/11/1994 0000
River Flood
N/A
0
0
5.0M
5.0M
3 Sedalia
04/11/1994 0300
Flash Flood
N/A
0
0
0
0
4 Northern Central And
05/07/1995 1800
River Flood
N/A
0
0
2.8M
2.0M
5 All Over County
05/17/1995 0400
Flash Flood
N/A
0
0
20K
0
6 Sedalia
05/17/1995 0400
Flash Flood
N/A
0
0
0
0
7 Kansas City
05/17/1995 0700
Flood
N/A
0
0
10K
0
8 All Around
05/17/1995 2030
Flash Flood
N/A
0
0
7K
2K
9 PETTIS
08/04/1995 0800
Flood
N/A
1
0
0
0
86
10 Sedalia
08/06/1995 0200
Flood
N/A
0
0
2K
0
11 Lamont
07/20/1996 11:30 PM
Flash Flood
N/A
0
0
0
0
12 Green Ridge
06/28/1997 05:00 PM
Urban/sml Stream Fl
N/A
0
0
0
0
13 Sedalia
06/20/1998 09:55 AM
Flash Flood
N/A
0
0
0
0
14 Sedalia
07/26/1998 05:58 AM
Flash Flood
N/A
0
0
0
0
15 Sedalia
07/30/1998 03:00 AM
Urban/sml Stream Fl
N/A
0
0
0
0
16 Sedalia
08/07/1999 10:00 PM
Urban/sml Stream Fl
N/A
0
0
0
0
17 East Portion
05/26/2000 10:50 PM
Flash Flood
N/A
0
0
0
0
18 Sedalia
07/11/2000 06:30 PM
Urban/sml Stream Fl
N/A
0
0
0
0
19 Houstonia
04/10/2001 06:00 PM
Flash Flood
N/A
0
0
0
0
20 Sedalia
06/04/2001 04:29 AM
Flash Flood
N/A
0
0
0
0
21 Sedalia
06/04/2001 04:36 AM
Flash Flood
N/A
0
0
0
0
22 Postal
05/10/2003 06:50 AM
Flash Flood
N/A
0
0
0
0
23 Sedalia
01/04/2005 07:16 PM
Flash Flood
N/A
0
0
0
0
24 Green Ridge
01/12/2005 07:20 PM
Flash Flood
N/A
0
0
0
0
25 Longwood
06/10/2007 07:00 AM
Flash Flood
N/A
0
0
0K
0K
26 Sedalia
06/29/2007 08:30 AM
Flash Flood
N/A
0
0
0K
0K
27 Sedalia
09/12/2008 05:13 AM
Flash Flood
N/A
0
0
0K
0K
28 Sedalia
06/15/2009 23:45 PM
Flash Flood
N/A
0
0
0K
0K
29 Green Ridge
07/11/2010 12:30 PM
Flash Flood
N/A
0
0
0K
0K
TOTALS: 1
0
7.839M 7.002M
Table 24
A review of the reported flooding events above reveals that virtually all of them involve flooded
roadways. Only one event specific to the planning area reported damages to buildings, and that
was the August 6, 1995 event where flooded basements are reported.
Probability
Table 24 above reveals that it is likely that a flooding event of some degree occurs almost
annually in Pettis County. The Pettis County Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee assigned a
probability rating to the hazard Flooding. They rated it ”Likely” or having between 10 percent
100 percent probability of happening in the next year, or happening at least once in the next 10
years. This rating was based on a review of prior events and the personal knowledge of the
Planning Committee members.
87
Severe Winter Weather Hazard (Snow, Ice and Extreme Cold) Profile
Winter weather is different than other hazards such as dam failure or tornadoes in that the hazard tends to
occur over a much larger area, often times affecting areas from several counties to multiple states.
Winter weather includes heavy snow, ice, freezing rain/sleet and extreme cold temperatures. Severe
winter storm hazards include heavy snow, blizzards, sleet, freezing rain, ice storms and can be
accompanied by extreme cold. Winter events or conditions are further defined below.
Heavy Snow: According to the National Weather Service (NWS), heavy snow is generally
snowfall accumulation to 4 inches or more in depth in 12 hours or less; or snowfall
accumulating to 6 inches or more in depth in 24 hours or less. A snow squall is an intense,
but limited duration, period of moderate to heavy snowfall (e.g. snowstorm), accompanied
by strong, gusty surface winds and possibly lightning (generally moderate to heavy snow
showers) (NWS, 2005). Snowstorms are complex phenomena involving heavy snow and
winds, whose impact can be affected by a great many factors, including a region’s
climatologically susceptibility to snowstorms, snowfall amounts, snow fall rates, wind
speeds, temperatures, visibility, storm duration, topography, and occurrence during the
course of the day, weekday versus weekend, and time of season (Kocin and Uccellini,
2004).
Blizzard: Blizzards are characterized by low temperatures, wind gusts of 35 miles per hour
(mph) or more and falling and/or blowing snow that reduces visibility to 0.25 miles or less
for an extended period of time (three or more hours( (NWS,2005).
Sleet or Freezing Rain Storm: Sleet is defined as pellets of ice composed of frozen or
mostly frozen raindrops or refrozen partially melted snowflakes. These pellets of ice
usually bounce after hitting the ground or other hard surfaces. Freezing rain is rain that
falls as liquid but freezes into glaze upon contact with the ground. Both types of
precipitation, even in small accumulations, can cause significant hazards to a community
(NWS, 2005).
Ice Storm: An ice storm is used to describe occasions when damaging accumulations of
ice are expected during freezing rain situations. Significant accumulations of ice pull down
trees and utility line resulting in loss of power and communication. These accumulations of
ice make walking and driving extremely dangerous, and can create extreme hazards to
motorist and pedestrians (NWS, 2005).
Extreme Cold: Extreme cold events are when temperatures drop well below normal in an
area. Extremely cold temperatures often accompany a winter storm, so individuals may
have to cope with power failures and icy roads. Although staying indoors as much as
possible can help reduce the risk of car crashes and falls on the ice, individuals may also
face indoor hazards. Many homes will be too cold—either due to a power failure or
because the heating system is not adequate for the weather. When people use space heaters
and fireplaces to stay warm the risk of household fires and carbon monoxide poisoning
increases. What constitutes extreme cold and its effects can vary across different areas of
the country. In regions relatively unaccustomed to winter weather, near freezing
88
temperatures are considered “extreme cold.” Exposure to cold temperatures, whether
indoors or outside, can lead to serious or life-threatening health problems such as
hypothermia, cold stress, frostbite or freezing of the exposed extremities such as fingers,
toes, nose and ear lobes (Centers of Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 2005).
Severity
Snow can range from blizzard conditions to snow flurries and can accumulate to several inches,
resulting in dangerous driving conditions. Ice conditions including sleet and freezing rain can
result in roadways being covered in sheets of ice and ice jams resulting in flooding. Sleet usually
bounces when hitting a surface and does not stick to objects; however, it can accumulate like snow
and cause a hazard to motorists. Freezing rain is rain that falls onto a surface with a temperature
below freezing; this causes it to freeze to surfaces, such as trees, cars, and roads, forming a
glaze of ice. Even small accumulations of ice can cause a significant hazard. An ice storm occurs
when freezing rain falls and freezes immediately on impact. Heavy accumulations of ice can bring
down trees, electrical wires, telephone poles and lines, and communication towers. Communications
and power can be disrupted for days while utility companies work to repair the extensive damage.
Sometimes winter storms are accompanied by strong winds creating blizzard conditions with
blinding wind-driven snow, severe drifting and dangerous wind chill. Strong winds with these
intense storms and cold fronts can knock down trees, utility poles and power lines. Extreme cold
often accompanies a winter storm or is left in its wake. Prolonged exposure to the cold can
cause frostbite or hypothermia and become life-threatening. Infants and elderly people are most
susceptible to extremely cold weather conditions. What constitutes extreme cold and its effect varies
across different areas of the United States. In areas unaccustomed to winter weather, near freezing
temperatures are considered "extreme cold." Freezing temperatures can cause severe damage to
citrus fruit crops and other vegetation. Pipes may freeze and burst in homes that are poorly insulated
or without heat. In the north, below zero temperatures may be considered as "extreme cold." Long cold
spells can cause rivers to freeze, disrupting shipping, and Ice jams may form and lead to flooding.
Heavy snow can immobilize a region and paralyze a city, stranding commuters, stopping the flow
of supplies, and disrupting emergency and medical services. Accumulations of snow can collapse
buildings and knock down trees and power lines. In rural areas, homes and farms may be isolated for
days, and unprotected livestock may be lost. The cost of snow removal, repairing damages, and loss
of business can have large economic impacts on cities and towns.
Extreme cold temperatures are ranked based upon a wind chill chart that figures the temperature on
how the wind and cold feel on exposed skin. As the wind increases, heat is carried away from the
body at a faster rate, driving down the body temperature. Frostbite, hypothermia and death can result
from winter weather. Seventy percent of snow injuries result from vehicle accidents, 25% occur in
people getting caught in the weather. Cold injuries occur to 50% of people over 60 years old,
75% happen to males and 20% occur in the home.
Types of damage that could occur in Pettis County include property damage, as well as injury
and death to individuals. Each year dozens of people die due to exposure to cold in the U.S. In
addition, vehicle accidents and fatalities, fires due to dangerous use of heaters and other winter
89
weather fatalities (heart attacks from shoveling snow, for example) result in a threat. Threats such
as hypothermia and frostbite can lead to the loss of fingers and toes or cause permanent kidney,
pancreas, liver damage and death. People can become trapped in their homes and cars without
utilities or assistance. Other damage can include rooftop collapse (as a result of the inability of the
roofs to withstand the weight of a heavy snowfall event), automobile accidents and downed power
lines/power outages from ice storms. Heavy snow can strand commuters, close airports, stop the
flow of supplies and disrupt emergency and medical services. Livestock may be lost on farms.
The cost of snow and debris removal, repairing damages and the loss of business can have a
severe impact on the region.
Winter storms in Pettis County, as compared to winter storms to the north and west, are
relatively mild. Severe winter weather is rare. Based on records maintained from 1900 through
2009, the region has experienced total annual snowfall over the average of 15.4 inches per year.
Of these years, only six years experienced annual snowfall of over 40 inches. In the queries
requested from NOM, storm magnitudes were not reported
- Extreme is the greatest daily snow depth recorded for the day of the year.
- Average is the average of all daily snow depth recorded for the day of the year.
Figure 31: Daily Snow Depth Average and Extreme
Source: www.hprcc.unl.edu
Based on queries from NOAA, no deaths or injuries were reported in Pettis County due to winter
storms. No other information was available from NOAA.
Winter storms are considered deceptive killers because most deaths are indirectly related to the
storm. People die in traffic accidents on icy roads and of hypothermia from prolonged exposure
to cold. Everyone is potentially at risk during winter storms. The actual threat depends on the
specific situation.
90
Related to ice and snow injuries and deaths:
About 70% occur in automobiles.
About 25% are people caught out in the storm.
Related to exposure to cold:
50% are people over 60 years old.
Over 75% are males.
About 20% occur in the home.
There are a variety of transportation impacts due to cold weather. Diesel engines are stressed and
often fuel gels in extreme cold weather impacting trucking and rail traffic. Rivers and lakes
freeze, stopping barge and ship traffic. Subsequent ice jams threaten bridges and can close major
highways. Cold temperatures take their toll on vehicle batteries. Shear cold temperatures stress
metal bridge structures. Transportation losses for the winter of 1976 -77 came to $6.5 billion (in
1980 dollars) (NOAA, 1982).
Cold temperature impacts on agriculture are frequently discussed in terms of frost and freeze
impacts early or late in growing seasons. Absolute temperature and duration of extreme cold can
have devastating effects on trees and winter crops as well. Prolonged cold snaps can impact
livestock not protected from the frigid temperatures. In the winter of 1983-84, a single cold snap
around Christmas destroyed over $1 billion of the citrus crop in Florida. Louisiana lost 80% of its
citrus crop. Tennessee estimated $15 million in agriculture losses. Texas experienced hundreds of
millions of dollars in crop damage (NOM, 1983).
Energy consumption rises significantly during extreme cold weather. In the winter of 1976-77
additional energy consumption cost $3.8 billion (1980 dollars). This includes increase costs of
electricity, fuel oil, and coal.
Extreme cold temperatures can cause significant ground freezing problems, especially if
there is little snow cover. Buried water pipes can burst causing massive ice problems and loss of
water pressure in metropolitan areas. This poses a variety of public health and public safety
problems. One case of a broken water main in Denver, Colorado forced the entire evacuation in
sub-zero temperatures of the medically fragile patients of the Veteran's Hospital. Other cases of
broken water mains have shut down subway systems and financial centers. Schools often close
during extreme cold snaps to protect the safety of children who wait for school buses.
91
to the hazard Severe Winter Weather. They rated it “Limited” or damaging 10 percent to 25
percent of the jurisdiction. This rating was based on a review of prior events and the personal
knowledge of the Planning Committee members.
Location
Severe winter weather could occur in any portion of the planning area. Late winter storms that
have a tendency to be intense tend to generate in the southwest portion of the United States and
move northeast, dependent upon the meteorology and the storm track. Winter weather is
different than other hazards such as tornadoes in that the hazard tends to occur over a much
larger area, often times affecting from several counties to multiple states.
Previous Events
Data from Table 26 was provided by the NCDC. As previously stated, the data provided in Table
26 below represents only reported events, related injuries and property damage. The winter storms
listed include snow and ice events. According to NOAA winter weather is not tracked to the
same degree it has for severe Midwest spring storms. This is mainly due to the fact that winter
weather and winter storms are more "subjective."
92
Table 26
Mag:
Dth:
Inj:
PrD:
CrD:
SNOW & ICE event(s) were reported in Pettis
County, Missouri
Location or County
Date
Time
Magnitude
Deaths
Injuries
Property Damage
Crop Damage
Type
Dth Inj
PrD
CrD
1 Central And Eastern M
04/05/1994
1500
Winter Storm
0
0
500K
0
2 MOZ031>033 - 038>040
01/18/1995
1800
Heavy Snow
0
0
200K
0
3 Northwest, Central An
11/11/1995
0100
Snow/ice
0
0
0
0
4 MOZ001>008 - 011>017 -
12/08/1995
0400
Snow
0
0
0
0
5 MOZ045>046 - 053>054
01/09/1997
12:00 AM
Heavy Snow
0
0
0
0
6 MOZ023 - 031>033 - 03
01/11/1998
10:00 PM
Ice Storm
0
0
0
0
7 MOZ045>046 - 054
03/11/2000
04:00 AM
Heavy Snow
0
0
0
0
8 MOZ030>031 - 037>039
11/08/2000
12:00 PM
Ice Storm
0
0
0
0
9 MOZ039>040 - 045>046
12/11/2000
01:00 AM
Ice Storm
0
0
0
0
10 MOZ028 - 033 - 037>040 -
12/13/2000
09:00 AM
Heavy Snow
0
0
0
0
11 MOZ001>008 - 011>017
01/28/2001
02:00 AM
Winter Storm
0
0
0
0
12 MOZ005>008 - 013>017
02/09/2001
02:00 AM
Winter Storm
0
0
0
0
13 MOZ025 - 028>033
01/30/2002
04:00 AM
Ice Storm
0
0
32.0M
0
14 MOZ045>046
01/02/2003
05:20 AM
Winter Storm
0
0
0
0
15 MOZ039 - 045>046
12/10/2003
04:00 AM
Winter Storm
0
0
0
0
16 MOZ039 - 045
12/12/2003
02:00 PM
Winter Storm
0
0
0
0
17 MOZ037 - 039>040
01/25/2004
05:30 AM
Winter Storm
0
0
0
0
18 MOZ006 - 032 - 039 - 045
01/05/2005
07:00 AM
Ice Storm
0
0
0
0
19 MOZ005>008 - 013>017
11/29/2006
06:00 AM
Ice Storm
0
0
0K
0K
20 MOZ031 - 045 - 046
11/30/2006
17:00 PM
Heavy Snow
0
0
0K
0K
21 MOZ017 - 023>025
12/01/2006
00:00 AM
Heavy Snow
0
0
0K
0K
22 MOZ017 - 022 - 028 - 045
01/12/2007
10:00 AM
Winter Storm
0
0
0K
0K
23 MOZ032 - 039>040
12/09/2007
01:00 AM
Ice Storm
0
0
0K
0K
24 MOZ045
02/28/2009
05:40 AM
Heavy Snow
0
0
0K
0K
25 MOZ045
12/24/2009
18:00 PM
Winter Storm
0
0
0K
0K
26 MOZ001>003 - 006>008
01/06/2010
10:00 AM
Winter Storm
0
0
0K
0K
27 MOZ032 - 037 - 043 - 045
02/04/2010
15:00 PM
Winter Weather
0
0
0K
0K
28 MOZ045 - 053 - 054
03/20/2010
04:00 AM
Winter Storm
0
0
0K
0K
29 MOZ006 - 016 - 023>024
01/10/2011
03:00 AM
Winter Weather
0
0
0K
0K
30 MOZ031 - 045
01/19/2011
15:00 PM
Winter Storm
0
0
0K
0K
32.65M
0
TOTALS: 0
0
Source: NCDC
93
Mag:
Dth:
Inj:
PrD:
CrD:
EXTREME COLD event(s) reported in Pettis
County, Missouri
Location or County
Date
Time
Magnitude
Deaths
Injuries
Property Damage
Crop Damage
Type
Mag Dth Inj
PrD
CrD
1 Northwest Missouri
09/22/1995
0600
Freeze
N/A
0
0
0
0
2 MOZ001>008 -
01/10/1997
12:00 AM
Extreme Cold
N/A
0
0
0
0
7 MOZ001>008 -028 05
10/06/2000
12:00 AM
Extreme Cold
N/A
0
0
0
0
55
0
50K
TOTALS: 49
Probability
With 39 reported events of snow and ice over the past 17 years, it is likely that at least one or two
events will occur every year in the planning area. Weather data shows that winter weather most
commonly occurs in January (38% of storms occurred in this month), followed by December
(29%). Records show that temperatures drop to zero or below an average of two or three days
per year, and temperatures as cold as 32 degrees or lower occur less than 25 days in most years.
Snowfall has averaged a little over 18 inches per winter season, and snowfall of an inch or less is
received on five to ten days in most years.
hazard Severe Winter Weather. They rated it ”Likely” or having between 10 percent 100 percent
probability of happening in the next year, or happening at least once in the next 10 years. This
rating was based on a review of prior events and the personal knowledge of the Planning
Committee members.
Figure 32
Recommendation
Mitigation activities for Pettis County should include the education of its workers and residents
about prevention of injuries and deaths from severe winter weather. Communities should
become aware of the warning systems in place and identify shelter locations and phone numbers
of emergency services.
94
Drought Hazard Profile
Drought is defined as the deficiency of precipitation over an extended period of time, usually a
season or more. This deficiency results in a water shortage for some activity, group or
environmental sector. Drought should be considered relative to some long-term average
condition of balance between precipitation and evapotranspiration (i.e., evaporation +
transpiration) in a particular area, a condition often perceived as "normal". It is also related to the
timing (i.e., principal season of occurrence, delays in the start of the rainy season, occurrence
of rains in relation to principal crop growth stages) and the effectiveness (i.e.,
rainfall intensity, number of rainfall events) of the rains. Other climatic factors such as
high temperature, high wind, and low relative humidity are often associated with
drought in many regions of the world and can significantly aggravate its severity.
Description
Drought should not be viewed as merely a physical phenomenon or natural event. Its impacts on
society result from the interplay between a natural event (less precipitation than expected
resulting from natural climatic variability) and the demand people place on water supply. Human
beings often exacerbate the impact of drought. Recent droughts in both developing and
developed countries and the resulting economic and environmental impacts and personal
hardships have underscored the vulnerability of all societies to this hazard.
There are two main kinds of drought definitions: conceptual and operational. Conceptual
definitions, formulated in general terms, help people understand the concept of drought. Drought
is a protracted period of deficient precipitation resulting in extensive damage to crops, resulting
in loss of yield. Conceptual definitions may also be important in establishing drought policy. For
example, Australian drought policy incorporates an understanding of normal climate variability into
its definition of drought. The country provides financial assistance to farmers only under
"exceptional drought circumstances," when drought conditions are beyond those that could be
considered part of normal risk management. Declarations of exceptional drought are based on
science-driven assessments. Previously, when drought was less well defined from a policy
standpoint and less well understood by farmers, some farmers in the semiarid Australian climate
claimed drought assistance every few years.
Severity
Operational definitions help define the onset, severity, and end of droughts. No single
operational definition of drought works in all circumstances, and this is a big part of why
policy makers, resource planners, and others have more trouble recognizing and planning for
drought than they do for other disasters. In fact, most drought planners now rely on mathematic
indices to decide when to start implementing water conservation or drought response measures.
In the early 1980s, research by Donald A. Wilhite, director of the National Drought Mitigation
Center, and Michael H. Glantz, of the National Center for Atmospheric Research,
uncovered more than 150 published definitions of drought. The definitions reflect differences in
regions, needs, and disciplinary approaches. Wilhite and Glantz categorized the definitions in
95
terms of four basic approaches to measuring drought: meteorological, hydrological, agricultural,
and socioeconomic. The first three approaches deal with ways to measure drought as a physical
phenomenon. The last approach to measuring drought deals with drought in terms of supply and
demand, tracking the effects of water shortfall as it ripples through socioeconomic systems.
Meteorological drought is usually an expression of precipitation's departure from normal over
some period of time. These definitions are usually region-specific, and presumably
based on a thorough understanding of regional climatology. Meteorological measurements are
the first indicators of drought.
Agricultural drought occurs when there is not enough soil moisture to meet the needs of a
particular crop at a particular time. Agricultural drought happens after meteorological
drought but before hydrological drought. Agriculture is usually the first economic sector to be
affected by drought. Agricultural drought links various characteristics of meteorological (or
hydrological) drought to agricultural impacts, focusing on precipitation shortages, differences
between actual and potential evapotranspiration, soil water deficits, reduced ground water or
reservoir levels, and so forth. Plant water demand depends on prevailing weather conditions,
biological characteristics of the specific plant, its stage of growth, and the physical and biological
properties of the soil. A good definition of agricultural drought should be able to account for the
variable susceptibility of crops during different stages of crop development, from emergence to
maturity. Deficient topsoil moisture at planting may hinder germination, leading to low plant
populations per hectare and a reduction of final yield. However, if topsoil moisture is sufficient for
early growth requirements, deficiencies in subsoil moisture at this early stage may not affect final
yield if subsoil moisture is replenished as the growing season progresses or if rainfall meets
plant water needs.
Hydrological drought refers to deficiencies in surface and subsurface water supplies. It is measured
as stream flow and as lake, reservoir, and groundwater levels. There is a time lag between lack of
rain and less water in streams, rivers, lakes, and reservoirs, so hydrological measurements are not
the earliest indicators of drought. When precipitation is reduced or deficient over an extended
period of time, this shortage will be reflected in declining surface and subsurface water levels.
Hydrological drought is associated with the effects of periods of precipitation (including snowfall)
shortfalls on surface or subsurface water supply (i.e., stream flow, reservoir and lake levels,
ground water). The frequency and severity of hydrological drought is often defined on a
watershed or river basin scale. Although all droughts originate with a deficiency of precipitation,
hydrologists are more concerned with how this deficiency plays out through the hydrologic
system. Hydrological droughts are usually out of phase with or lag the occurrence of
meteorological and agricultural droughts. It takes longer for precipitation deficiencies to show up
in components of the hydrological system such as soil moisture, stream flow, and ground water
and reservoir levels. As a result, these impacts are out of phase with impacts in other economic
sectors. For example, a precipitation deficiency may result in a rapid depletion of soil moisture
that is almost immediately discernible to agriculturalists, but the impact of this deficiency on
reservoir levels may not affect hydroelectric power production or recreational uses for
many months. Also, water in hydrologic storage systems (e.g., reservoirs, rivers) is often used for
multiple and competing purposes (e.g., flood control, irrigation, recreation, navigation,
hydropower, wildlife habitat), further complicating the sequence and quantification of impacts.
96
Competition for water in these storage systems escalates during drought and conflicts between
water users increase significantly.
Although climate is a primary contributor to hydrological drought, other factors such as changes in
land use (e.g„ deforestation), land degradation, and the construction of dams all affect the
hydrological characteristics of the basin. Because regions are interconnected by hydrologic
systems, the impact of meteorological drought may extend well beyond the borders of the
precipitation-deficient area. For example, meteorological drought may severely affect portions of
the northern Rocky Mountains and northern Great Plains region of the United States. However,
since the Missouri River and its tributaries drain this region to the south, there may be significant
hydrologic Impacts downstream. Similarly, changes in land use upstream may alter hydrologic
characteristics such as infiltration and runoff rates, resulting in more variable stream flow and a
higher incidence of hydrologic drought downstream. Bangladesh, for example, has shown an
increased frequency of water shortages in recent years because land use changes have occurred
within the country and in neighboring countries. Land use change is one of the ways human
actions alter the frequency of water shortage even when no change in the frequency of
meteorological drought has been observed.
For the purposes of drought response planning, all three categories (meteorologic, hydrologic
and agriculture) can be regarded as equivalent, since each one relates to the occurrence of
drought to water shortfalls in some component of the hydrologic cycle The most commonly used
drought severity indicators are the Palmer Drought Severity Index (PDSI) and the Crop Moisture
Index. These are published by NOM and the USDA. The PDSI is more widely used than any
other single indicator. It provides a standardized means of depicting drought severity throughout
the US. It measures the departure of water supply (in terms of precipitation and stored soil
moisture) from demand (the amount of water required to recharge soil and keep rivers, lakes and
reservoirs at normal levels). By relating these figures to the previous regional index a continuous
stream of data is created reflecting long-term wet or dry tendencies.
The severity of drought is most commonly measured by the Palmer Drought Severity Index
(PDSI). It is is a measurement of dryness based on recent precipitation and temperature. It was
developed by meteorologist Wayne Palmer, who first published his method in the 1965 paper
Meteorological Drought[1] for the Office of Climatology of the U.S. Weather Bureau. The table
below defines each numeric classification.
Table 28
Palmer Classifications
4.0 or more
Extremely wet
3.0 to 3.99
Very wet
2.0 to 2.99
Moderately wet
1.0 to 1.99
Slightly wet
97
0.5 to 0.99
Incipient wet spell
0.49 to –0.49
Near normal
-0.5 to 0.99
Incipient dry spell
-1.9 to –1.99
Mild drought
-2.0 to –2.99
Moderate drought
-3.0 to –3.99
Severe drought
-4.0 or less
Extreme drought
Drought characteristics include economic, social and environmental. This Plan Update will
describe some of the economic and environmental impacts that could occur. The “Dust Bowl” of
the1930s is most often remembered as impacting agriculture. Deficient rainfall, high
temperatures, and high winds, as well as insect infestations and dust storms occurred at that time,
and damaged many crop. Although records focus on other problems, the lack of precipitation
would also have affected wildlife and plant life, and would have created water shortages for
domestic needs. The severity and aerial coverage of the event played a part in making the 1930s
drought widely recognized drought of record for the United States.
The State of Missouri’s Drought Plan was most recently revised in 2002. Missouri's plan divides
the state into three regions according to their susceptibility to drought, see the map on the
following page. Susceptibility is measured by the characteristics of surface and ground water
supplies.
Regions were judged to have slight, moderate or high susceptibility
to
drought.
Pettis County was included in Region B, which is considered moderate
surface
and groundwater supply drought susceptibility.
Groundwater
resources
are adequate to meet domestic and municipal water needs, but due to
required well depths, irrigation wells are very expensive.
98
Missouri’s drought plan complements and supports the State Consolidated Plan and the State
Emergency Operations Plan. Actions within the drought plan are triggered when the Palmer
Drought Index reaches certain levels. The Drought Assessment Committee (DAC), chaired by the
Director of the Department of Natural Resources, is activated in the Drought Alert Stage. The
DAC then activates the Impact Task Forces, which cover the following topics: agriculture, natural
resources and environmental recreation, water supplies, wastewater, health, social, economic and
post drought evaluation.
The social and economic costs of drought are substantial. Given the extent to which the U. S.
relies on acceptable water supply for health and well- being, the need for advanced drought
planning is obvious. Types of damage can include the increasing incidence of range fires,
causing injuries and devastation to properties, depletion of groundwater supplies (residents being
requested to cut water usage), poor crop growth, and a decrease in hay for cattle (overgrazing)
conditions. A shortage of hay forces ranchers to sell cattle at low prices and food prices
increase due to lower production levels for milk, meat, produce, and other foodstuffs.
Drought also results in reduced revenues from recreational areas, environmental
damages (endangered species were affected, erosion of landscapes), contaminant levels in
surface and groundwater rise due to decrease in volume of stream flow, loss in revenues from
agriculturally related industries such as harvesting, trucking, and food processing (reduced
99
irrigation water led to a reduction in vegetable production, with concomitant losses in jobs and
income).
Drought in Pettis County is primarily a problem with rural water supply and agricultural water
supply, especially those supplied by small water structures. When good water becomes scarce
and people must compete for the available supply, the importance of drought severity increases
dramatically.
According to the Climate Prediction Center, average annual precipitation for the Pettis County
area is approximately 41 inches. The state rates Pettis County for moderate drought
susceptibility. Precipitation-related impacts on time scales ranging from a few days to a few
months can include impacts on wildfire danger, non-irrigated agriculture, topsoil moisture, range
and pasture conditions, and unregulated stream flows. Lack of precipitation over a period of
several months or years adversely affects reservoir stores, irrigated agriculture, groundwater
levels, and well water depth. Groundwater resources in the county seem to be adequate to meet
domestic and municipal water needs, but due to required well depths, irrigation wells are very
expensive.
to the hazard Drought. They rated it based on agricultural lands only since urban structures are
not usually impacted by this hazard. The Committee assigned a “Catastrophic” rating, meaning
that it would impact 50 percent or more of the jurisdiction’s agricultural lands. This rating was
based on a review of prior events and the personal knowledge of the Planning Committee
members.
Location
All locations in the planning area are equally susceptible to drought.
Previous Events
The only drought event reported for Pettis County in the NCDC database was in the years 1999 2000. This event involved most of the state. April 2000 was the driest on record in the state of
Missouri, according to the Midwestern Climate Center. The lowest rainfall totals occurred in
parts of west-central Missouri, which includes the planning area. The weather station WFO
Pleasant Hill received only 0.30 inches of precipitation for the entire month, and Sweet Springs
picked up only 0.47 inches. At Kansas City International Airport, 0.65 inches of rain fell during
the month, making it the driest April recorded in Kansas City. April's dry weather represented a
continuation of long-term drought dating back to July 1999, as rainfall deficits in most locations
exceeded 10 inches and the U.S. Drought Monitor showed most of northern and western
Missouri in a severe drought. According to the Missouri State Climatologist, 1999-2000 was the
5th driest July-through-April period on record.
During the 1999-2000 droughts, the entire state was placed under a Phase 1 Drought Advisory
100
level by DNR and the Governor declared an Agricultural Emergency. In October the U.S.
Agriculture Secretary declared a federal disaster, making low-interest loans available to farmers
in Missouri and neighboring states. By June of 2000, the entire state was under a Phase 2 Alert
for drought conditions.
Other recent drought events are shown in the table below.
Table 29
Recent Drought Events in Pettis County
Date
Phase
Palmer Scale
Description
19-Sep-06
Phase III
-2.0 to -4.0
Conservation
16-Aug-06
Phase III
-2.0 to -4.0
Conservation
4-May-06
Phase II
-1.0 to -2.0
Drought Alert
15-Apr-06
Phase II
-1.0 to -2.0
Drought Alert
17-Feb-06
Phase II
-1.0 to -2.0
Drought Alert
13-Jan-04
Phase I
≥ -1.0
Advisory phase
13-Nov-03
Phase II
-1.0 to -2.0
Drought alert
9-Oct-03
Phase I
≥ -1.0
Advisory phase
5-Sep-03
Phase I
≥ -1.0
Advisory phase
12-Aug-03
Phase II
-1.0 to -2.0
Drought alert
29-Jul-03
Phase II
-1.0 to -2.0
Drought alert
20-May-03
Phase I
≥ -1.0
Advisory phase
4-Mar-03
Phase III
-2.0 to -4.0
Conservation
phase
22-Jan-03
Phase III
-2.0 to -4.0
Conservation
phase
8-Oct-02
Phase I
≥ -1.0
Advisory phase
11-Sep-02
Phase I
≥ -1.0
Advisory phase
101
Probability
Drought history in Pettis County indicates that it could happen once every ten years. However, the
past number and severity of events is not necessarily a predictor of future occurrences.
Therefore, it is possible for Pettis County to experience drought in any given year. The Pettis
County Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee assigned a probability rating to the hazard
Drought. They rated it ”Likely” or having between 10 percent 100 percent probability of
happening in the next year, or happening at least once in the next 10 years. This rating was
members.
Recommendation
Initiate a mitigation activity to discern and promote a set of best practices for drought-resistant
farming. Initiate a cooperative effort to reduce the number of small water structures and educate
city residents on watering restrictions of lawns.
102
Heat Wave Hazard Profile
Heat wave is defined as a prolonged period of excessive heat and humidity: more than 48 hours
of high heat (90 degrees F or higher) and high humidity (80 percent relative humidity or
higher) are expected. Although heat waves are not often taken as seriously as other forms of
severe weather, the mortality from these weather events in the U. S. from 1979 to 1998 is greater
than the number of lives claimed by lightning, hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, and earthquakes
combined (National Center for Environmental Health).
Hazard Description
Even during a normal year without a catastrophic heat wave, the National Weather Service
claims that an average of about 175 people succumb to summer heat. This number does not
include the number of excess deaths of people already in poor health, whose deaths may have
been advanced by exposure to extreme heat. In contrast to the visible nature of "deadly
weather," like floods, hurricanes, and tornadoes, a heat wave is a "silent disaster." Unlike violent
weather events, the impact of extreme heat is dramatically less apparent.
Extreme heat is a hazard that could rapidly increase in magnitude in the 21st century. The
increasing urbanization of the world's population results in larger numbers of vulnerable people.
Global warming also dictates a need to improve heat wave mitigation and response systems.
In a normal year, about 175 Americans succumb to summer heat. Among the large continental
family of hazards, only the cold of winter--not lightning, hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, or
earthquakes-- takes a greater toll. In the 40-year period from 1936 through 1975, nearly
20,000 people were killed in the United States by the effects of heat and solar radiation. In the
disastrous heat wave of 1980, more than 1,250 people died. These are just the direct casualties
of heat waves. No one can know how many more deaths are advanced by heat wave weather-how many diseased or aging hearts cannot survive the added stress of extreme heat.
Severity
Based on the latest research findings, the NWS has devised the "Heat Index"(HI), (sometimes
referred to as the "apparent temperature") to measure the severity of extreme heat. The HI, given
in degrees F, is an accurate measure of how hot it really feels when the relative humidity (RH) is
added to the actual air temperature. To find the HI, look at the Heat Index Chart in Figure 37
below. As an example, if the air temperature is 95 degrees F (found on the left side of the chart)
and the RH is 55% (found at the top of the chart), the HI -- or how hot it really feels -- is 110
degrees F. This is at the intersection of the 95-degree row and the 55% column.
103
Figure 38: Heat Severity Index
Source: National Weather Service
In addition, the NWS recently has devised a method to warn of advancing heat waves up to
seven days in advance: Mean Heat Index. It is a measure of how hot the temperatures actually
feel to a person over the course of a full 24 hours. It differs from the traditional Heat Index in that
it is an average of the Heat Index from the hottest and coldest times of each day.
Heat kills by taxing the human body beyond its abilities. Normally, the body has ways of keeping
itself cool, by letting heat escape through the skin, and by evaporating sweat (perspiration). If
the body does not cool properly, the victim may suffer a heat-related illness. Anyone can be
susceptible although the very young and very old are at greater risk. Heat-related illnesses can
become serious or deadly if unattended. Damage to the body ranges from heat cramps to death.
Heat Cramps: Heat cramps are muscular pains and spasms due to heavy exertion. They
usually involve the abdominal muscles or the legs. It is generally thought that the loss of
water and salt from heavy sweating causes the cramps.
Heat Exhaustion: Heat exhaustion is less dangerous than heat stroke. It typically occurs
when people exercise heavily or work in a warm, humid place where body fluids are lost
through heavy sweating. Fluid loss causes blood flow to decrease in the vital organs,
resulting in a form of shock. With heat exhaustion, sweat does not evaporate as it should,
possibly because of high humidity or too many layers of clothing. As a result, the body is
not cooled properly. Signals include cool, moist, pale, flushed or red skin; heavy
sweating; headache; nausea or vomiting; dizziness; and exhaustion. Body temperature
will be near normal.
Heat Stroke: Also known as sunstroke, heat stroke is life-threatening. The victim's
temperature control system, which produces sweating to cool the body, stops working.
The body temperature can rise so high that brain damage and death may result if the
104
body is not cooled quickly. Signals include hot, red and dry skin; changes in
consciousness; rapid, weak pulse; and rapid, shallow breathing. Body temperature can be
very high--sometimes as high as 105F.
Compared to other meteorological hazards that pose threats to property and human health (e.g„
floods, hurricanes, and tornadoes), heat waves rank first as the cause of death. Extremes of heat
have a broad and far-reaching set of impacts. These include loss of life and illness, as well as
economic costs in transportation, agriculture, production, energy, and infrastructure.
There are several impacts on transportation documented in case studies. Aircraft lose lift at high
temperatures. Some airports have closed due to periods of extreme heat that made aircraft
operations unsafe. Highways and roads are damaged by excessive heat. Asphalt roads soften.
Concrete roads have been known to "explode" lifting three to four foot pieces of concrete.
During the 1980 heat wave hundreds of miles of highway buckled (NOM, 1980). Stress is placed
on automobile cooling systems, diesel trucks and railroad locomotives. This leads to an increase
in mechanical failures. Train rails develop sun kinks and distort.
Various sectors of the agriculture community are affected by extreme heat. Livestock, such as
rabbits and poultry, are severely impacted by heat waves. Millions of birds have been lost during
heat waves. Milk production and cattle reproduction also decreases during heat waves. Pigs are
also adversely impacted by extreme heat. In terms of crop impacts in the summer of 1980, it is
unclear what the impacts are of very high temperatures for a few days, versus the above average
summer temperatures or the drought. We do know that high temperatures at the wrong time
inhibit crop yields. Wheat, rice, corn, potato, and soybean crop yields can all be
significantly reduced by extreme high temperatures at key development stages.
The electric transmission system is impacted when power lines sag in high temperatures. In 2002
a major west coast power outage impacting 4 states was blamed in part on extreme high
temperatures causing sagging transmission lines to short out. The combination of extreme heat
and the added demand for electricity to run air conditioning causes transmission line
temperatures to rise
The demand for electric power during heat waves is well documented. In 1980, consumers paid
$1.3 billion more for electric power during the summer than the previous year. The demand for
electricity, 5.5% above normal, outstripped the supply, causing electric companies to have
rolling black outs.
The demand for water increases during periods of hot weather. In extreme heat waves,
water is used to cool bridges and other metal structures susceptible to heat failure. This
causes a reduced water supply and pressure in many areas. This can significantly contribute to
fire suppression problems for both urban and rural fire departments.
The rise in water temperature during heat waves contributes to the degradation of water
quality and negatively impacts fish populations. It can also lead to the death of many other
organisms in the water ecosystem. High temperatures are also linked to rampant algae growth,
causing fish kills in rivers and lakes.
105
Although most heat-related deaths occur in cities, residents of rural areas are at risk due to
factors that can include age, outdoor activities, or lack of air conditioning. 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. Excessive
heat can lead to illnesses and other stresses on people with prolonged exposure to these
conditions.
to the hazard Heat Wave. They rated it “Catastrophic” or impacting more than 50 percent of the
jurisdiction in one degree or another. This rating was based on a review of prior events and the
personal knowledge of the Planning Committee members.
Location
Heat waves in Pettis County will be planning-area wide. Heat wave weather is different than
other hazards such as tornadoes in that the hazard tends to occur over a much larger area, often
times affecting from several counties to multiple states.
Prior Events
Of the 15 reported heat waves to hit the Pettis County region between 1994 and 2009, fourteen
produced heat indices within the "Danger" range. The most intense heat waves occurred across
the Pettis County region in summers of 1994, 1999, and 2001. The effects of these heat waves
are compiled in the table below. Note that the deaths listed are area-wide, and not confined to
Pettis County.
Table 30
106
The 1999 heat wave was the most devastating of all the heat waves combined with a total of 22
deaths, 55 injuries and 50K of crop damage in the state. Northwest Missouri suffered through two
weeks of oppressive heat and humidity in late July as temperatures topped the 90 degree mark
for 14 consecutive days. Dew points in the lower to middle 70s pushed afternoon heat indices
above 100 degrees each day. The heat wave was most intense from July 23rd through the 30th,
as temperatures reached the upper 90s or topped 100 degrees for 8 consecutive days, with
afternoon heat indices between 110 and 115 degrees.
Probability
Based on previous events, it is likely that the planning area will experience extreme heat every
two to three years. Heat waves are sporadic phenomena that occur throughout the United States.
Frequency, intensity, and duration of heat Waves, however, vary drastically from year to year. As
seen in the table below, extreme heat in Pettis County is most likely to occur in July.
Table 31
hazard Heat Wave. They rated it ”Likely” or having between 10 percent 100 percent probability
of happening in the next year, or happening at least once in the next 10 years. This rating was
members.
Recommendation
Initiate a mitigation activity to provide cooling centers or portable fans for the elderly during
sustained high temperatures. Also initiate an education program to teach outdoor workers,
students, and the general public on the dangers of extended exposure to high temperatures and
simple measures to avoid harmful consequences
107
Dam Failure Hazard Profile
The purpose of a dam is to impound (store) water, wastewater or liquid borne materials for any
of several reasons, including flood control, human water supply, irrigation, livestock water
supply, energy generation, containment of mine tailings, and recreation or pollution control. Many
dams fulfill a combination of the above functions.
Manmade dams may be classified according to the type of construction material used, the
methods used in construction, the slope or cross-section of the dam, the way the dam resists the
forces of the water pressure behind it, the means used for controlling seepage and, occasionally,
according to the purpose of the dam.
The materials used for construction of dams include earth, rock, tailings from mining or
milling, concrete, masonry, steel, timber, miscellaneous materials (such as plastic or rubber) and
any combination of these materials. Dams are owned and operated by individuals, private and
public organizations and the government. Associated works include spillways, water supply
facilities, and lake drain structures. Most dams have an earth embankment and one or two spillways .
Embankment dams are the most common type of dam in use today in Missouri. Ninety-nine
percent of all Missouri are made of earthen materials, and 1% are constructed of
concrete. Materials used for embankment dams include natural soil or rock, or waste
materials obtained from mining or milling operations. An embankment dam is termed an "earth
fill" or "rock fill" dam depending on whether it is comprised of compacted earth, or
mostly compacted/dumped rock. The ability of an embankment dam to resist the reservoir
water pressure is primarily a result of the mass weight, type, and strength of the construction
materials.
Concrete dams may be categorized into gravity and arch dams according to the designs used to
resist the stress of reservoir water pressure. Typical concrete gravity dams are the most common
form of concrete dam.
Description of the Hazard
Because the purpose of a dam is to retain water effectively and safely, the water retention ability
of a dam is of prime importance. Water may pass from the reservoir to the downstream side of a
dam by:
Passing through the main spillway or outlet works
Passing over an auxiliary spillway
Overtopping the dam
Seepage through the abutments
Seepage under the dam
Overtopping of an embankment dam is very undesirable because the embankment materials may
be eroded away. Additionally, only a small number of concrete dams have been designed to be
overtopped. Water normally passes through the main spillway or outlet works; it should pass
108
over an auxiliary spillway only during periods of high reservoir levels and high water inflow. All
embankment and most concrete dams have some seepage. However, it is important to control the
seepage to prevent internal erosion and instability. Proper dam construction, and maintenance
and monitoring of seepage provide this control.
Thousands of people have been injured, some killed, and billions of dollars of property
damaged by dam failures in the United States. The catastrophic dam failure upstream
from Johnstown, Pennsylvania killed 2,209 people in May 31, 1889. It resulted from
inappropriate maintenance of a poorly constructed dam. The problem of unsafe dams in
Missouri was underscored by the 1968 dam failure at Lawrenceton south of Jefferson City, one in
Washington County in 1975, and a near failure in Franklin County in 1978.
Driving every other issue and all activities within the dam safety community is the risk of dam
failure. Although the majority of dams in the U.S. have responsible owners and are
properly maintained, dams fail every year. In the past several years, there have been hundreds of
documented failures across the nation (this includes 250 after the Georgia Flood of 1994). A life
was recently lost in New Hampshire as a result of a dam failure. Dam and downstream repair
costs resulting from failures in 23 states reporting in one recent year totaled $54.3 million.
In Missouri, the first state legislation aimed at regulating dams was passed in 1889 and was
called the Dam Mills and Electric Power Law. The law concerned damage caused by construction
and lake formation. It did not address the engineering aspects of design or downstream safety of
dams.
In 1972, Congress passed the National Dam Safety Act (Pt. 92 -367) that called for an
inventory of dams in the U.S. In 1986, Congress enacted the Water Resources Development Act
(P.L. 99-662). The Title XII-Dam Safety Act authorized the formation of the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (USACE) to maintain and periodically update the inventory of dams. In 1988 funds
were appropriated for this effort. FEMA and USACE developed a Memorandum of Agreement
wherein FEMA assumed responsibility for maintaining and updating the inventory using the
funds authorized. The Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-303) Section 215
reauthorized periodic update of the National Inventory of Dams (NID) by USACE and continued a
funding mechanism. For the 1998 update, the USACE resumed the lead responsibility and
worked with FEMA and other agencies. There are about 77,000 dams in the inventory.
Federal law and the Association of Dam Safety Officials (ASDSO) Model State Dam Safety
program define a dam as "any artificial barrier, including appurtenant works, which impounds or
diverts water and which is: (1) is 25 feet or more in height from the natural bed of the stream or
watercourse measured at the downstream toe of the barrier, or from the lowest elevation of the
outside limit of the barrier, if it is not across a stream channel or watercourse to the maximum
water storage elevation; or (2) has an impounding capacity at the maximum water storage
elevation of fifty acre-feet or more.
This Act does not apply to any such barrier which is not in excess of six feet in height,
regardless of storage capacity, or which has a storage capacity at a maximum water
storage elevation not in excess of fifteen acre-feet, regardless of height (P.L. 92-367; Dam Safety
109
Act of 1972) unless such barrier, due to its location or other physical characteristic, is likely to
pose a significant threat to human life or property in the event of its failure." (P.L. 99662, Water
Resources Development Act of 1986).
Criteria for dams in the NID are as follows:
1)
All high hazard potential classification dams
2)
All significant hazard potential classification dams
3)
Low hazard or undetermined potential classification dams which:
Equal or exceed 25 feet in height and which exceed 15 acre-feet in storage
Equal or exceed 50 acre-feet storage and exceed 6 feet in height.
The NID has definitions for downstream hazard potential. These definitions are different from
the Missouri Department of Natural Resources, Geological Survey and Resource Assessment,
Dam and Reservoir Safety Program. The NID definitions, as accepted by the Interagency
Committee on Dam Safety are as follows:
Low Hazard Potential: Dams assigned the low hazard potential classification are those
where failure or disoperation results in no probable loss of human life and low economic
and/or environmental losses. Losses are principally limited to the property owners.
Significant Hazard Potential: Dams assigned the significant hazard potential
classification are those dams where failure or disoperation results in no probable loss of
human life but can cause economic loss, environmental change, disruption of lifeline
facilities, or impact other concerns. Significant hazard potential classification dams are
often located in predominantly rural or agricultural areas but could be located in areas
with population and significant infrastructure.
High Hazard Potential: Dams assigned the high hazard potential classification are
those where failure or disoperation will probably cause loss of human life.
In September 1979, ninety years after the first state legislation was passed, the Missouri House
Bill 603 (called the Dam Safety Law) was passed. The USACE had determined that Missouri led
the country in total number of unsafe dams. The law requires a construction permit for
construction of new dams or to modify, remove, or alter existing dams. Owners of existing dams
35 feet or more in height must obtain a registration permit and owners of new dams 35 feet or
more in height must obtain a safety permit after construction to operate the structures. All
regulated dams must be inspected periodically to assure that their continued operation does not
constitute a hazard to public safety, life and property.
The Missouri Dam and Reservoir Safety Program is responsible for ensuring that all new and
existing non-agricultural, non-federal dams 35 feet or more in height meet minimum safety
standards. The program reviews engineering plans and specifications; conducts hydrologic,
hydraulic and structural analysis of dams; monitors construction of new dams and modification
of existing dams; performs safety inspections of existing dams; responds to dam safety
emergencies so that public safety, life and property are protected. Basic functions of the program
include inspections, permit issuance (construction, registration and safety permits), compliance
and review, data management (around 4000 dams in Missouri, of which only about 600 are
110
regulated under Missouri law), inundation mapping (provided to recorder of deeds for each
county showing areas impacted by dam failure).
Missouri dam owners are solely responsible for the safety and the liability of the dam and for
financing its upkeep, upgrade and repair. While most infrastructure facilities (roads, bridges,
sewer systems, etc.) are owned by public entities, the majority of dams in the United States are
privately owned. Many different types of people and entities own and operate dams. About 58
percent are privately owned. Local governments own and operate the next largest number of
dams, about 16 percent. State ownership is next with about four percent; the federal government,
public utilities and undetermined interests each own smaller numbers of dams (5%).
In 2009, the number of Missouri state-regulated dams was 680. The number of Missouri dams in
National Inventory of Dams (NID) was 5,242.
Severity
The International Commission of Large Dams (ICOLD) identified three major categories of dam
failure: (1) overtopping by flood; (2) foundation defects; and (3) piping. For earthen dams, the
major reason for failure is piping or seepage. For concrete dams, the major reasons for failure
are associated with foundations. Overtopping has been a significant cause of dam failure
primarily in cases where there was an inadequate spillway. Dam failures are most likely to
happen for one of five reasons:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Overtopping caused by water spilling over the top of a dam
Structural failure of materials used in dam construction
Cracking caused by movements like the natural settling of a dam
Inadequate maintenance and upkeep
Piping—when seepage through a dam is not properly filtered and soil particles continue
to progress and form sink holes in the dam
When dams fail, the results can be catastrophic. Dams are innately hazardous structures. Failure
or disoperation can result in the release of the reservoir contents—this includes water, mine
wastes or agricultural refuse—causing negative impacts upstream or downstream or at locations
remote from the dam. Negative impacts of primary concern are loss of human life, economic loss
including property damage, lifeline disruption and environmental damage.
While the definition varies from place to place, it generally means that failure of a high-hazard
dam will be loss of life. It must be emphasized that this determination does not mean that these
dams are in need of repair. These dams could be in excellent condition or they could be in poor
condition. "High-hazard" simply reflects the dam's potential for doing damage downstream
should it fail.
High-hazard potential dams exist in every state and affect the lives of thousands downstream.
The current issue and debate is over the increasing number of these high hazard structures -- not
because more high-hazard dams are being built, but that more development is occurring
downstream. Dam and reservoir safety regulators generally have no control over local zoning
111
issues or developers' property rights. So this issue continues to worry regulators as the trend
persists.
The cost of a dam failure is difficult to assess because flooding can affect large areas. Local
communities may be directly impacted due to building damage, injuries fatalities, lost water
supply, damaged transportation and infrastructure and lost recreational assets.
to the hazard Dam Failure. They rated it ”Negligible” or impacting less than 10 percent of the
jurisdiction. This rating was based on a review of prior events and the personal knowledge of the
Location
The National Inventory of Dams, the State of Missouri, and FEMA have summarized the status of
dams in Missouri by hazard classification. Table 32 lists Pettis County dams and their Missouri
DNR classifications. The table categorizes the dams as Class I, Class II, or Class III. A dam in
the Class I category has a downstream zone that contains 10 or more permanent dwellings or any
public building. Class I dams are inspected every two years. A Class II dam’s downstream zone
contains one to nine permanent dwellings or one or more industrial buildings, or one or more
campgrounds with permanent water, sewer and electrical services. Class II dams are inspected
every three years (Class II). A Class III includes Low-Hazard Potential dams. Their zones
contain 'everything else' not defined as the structures in Class I or Class II. These dams are
inspected every five years.
There are two Class I dams in the planning area, which are the Spring Fork Lake Dam and the
Windsor Farrington Park Lake Dam. The following information is from the National Inventory
of Dams (NID) maintained by the UDACE.
Windsor Farrington Park Lake Dam
Owner: City of Windsor
Location: On the eastern edge of the City of Windsor
Height: 26 feet
Purpose: Recreation
Inspection Authority: not regulated by the state
Year Completed: 1902
Construction Materials: earth and rock fill
EAP: not required
Spring Fork Lake Dam Lake Dam
Owner: City of Sedalia Water Department
Location: 5 miles south of Sedalia
Height: 43 feet
112
Purpose: Water Supply
Inspection Authority: regulated by the state
Year Completed: 1925, modified 1988
Construction Materials: compacted earth of clay soils
EAP: required by the state
As of this writing it is not know the amount of structures in the dam breach inundation areas,
however looking at the maps we can clearly see that the damage to structures would be limited. It
is in the interest of the planning committee to obtain this information to be put into the next plan
update.
The NID lists the two dams above and four additional dams as being within the NID
classification of a “high hazard” dam. A high hazard dam is one “where failure or misoperation
will probably cause loss of human life.” Those four additional dams are the Hermora Lake Dam
located six miles from Otterville, the Rubydo Lake Dam located 14 miles from Redbird, the
Daum’s Lake Dam located 12 miles from Clinton City, and the Hayes Lake Dam, located in rural
Pettis County. The 2011 Plan Update will not include additional information on these four dams,
but their risk will be re-examined at the next plan update.
The Pettis County Planning Committee determined that because of data limitations and limited
resources, that only the Missouri Class I dams located within the boundaries of the county
would be profiled for the 2011 Update. The next plan update will include an analysis of dams
located out of the county but which could still impact the county should they fail. In addition,
risk profiles of NID Significant Hazard dams will considered.
The table beginning on the next page includes the Missouri DNR listing of the dams located in
the county. The map following the table shows the physical location of the dams within the
planning area.
113
114
115
116
117
Locations affected by dam failure will be low-lying areas that are below dams, near a creek,
stream or river valley. Residents, businesses and infrastructure in the path of the dam waters can
become quickly inundated and destroyed. Refer to Figure 59, located in the Appendix C, for
downstream areas that could be potentially affected.
Probability
Table 33 below summarizes the frequency of dam failures in Missouri. Only four dams have
failed in over 40 years. None were located in the planning area.
Table 33
Recent Dam Failures in Missouri
Community
Date
Lawrenceton
1968
Washington County
1975
Frederickton
1977
Franklin County
(near failure)
1978
Taum Sauk
2005
Various climatic conditions and other situations may result in dam failure natural phenomena
such as floods and landslides during wet weather seasons. These hazards threaten dam structures
and their surroundings. Floods that exceed the capacity of a dam's spillway and then erode the
dam or abutments are particularly hazardous, as is seismic activity that may cause cracking or
seepage. Similarly, debris from landslides may block a dam's spillway and cause an overflow
wave that erodes the abutments and ultimately weakens the structure. For a map of dams in
Pettis County see Appendix C.
According to the Dam and Reservoir Safety Program within the Missouri DNR, a future
occurrence of dam failure in the state is high. The opinion is based on the age and conditions of
dams in Missouri. Failure of a Class I (MDNR) or a high-hazard dam (NID) will result in loss of
life. It must be emphasized that this determination does not mean that these dams are in need of
repair -- these dams could be in excellent condition or they could be in poor condition. "Highhazard" just reflects the dam's potential for doing damage downstream should it fail.
hazard Dam Failure. They rated it ”Likely” or having between 10 percent 100 percent
118
probability of happening in the next year, or happening at least once in the next 10 years. This
Committee members. The table below includes MDNR information on Pettis County dams.
Table 34
High-hazard potential dams exist in every state and affect the lives of thousands downstream.
The current issue and debate is over the increasing number of these high hazard structures--not
because more high-hazard dams are being built, but that more development is occurring
downstream. Dam and reservoir safety regulators generally have no control over local zoning
issues or developers' property rights. So this issue continues to worry regulators as the trend
persists.
Recommendations
The County Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee should institute a dam permitting, inspection
and enforcement program for the county. This would require working with the DNR Dam Safety
Program to identify appropriate mitigation measures. Intersecting almost all the issues above is
the issue of public education about dams. The ordinary citizen is unaware that the beautiful lakes
on which he or she boats, skis, or fishes are only there because of manmade dams. Developers
building homes in dam breach inundation areas could know nothing about potential upstream
dams. In fact, some developers and zoning officials are completely unaware of dams within their
community. Even if citizens understand and are aware of dams, they still can be overly confident
in the infallibility of these manmade structures. Living in dam breach areas is a risk. Many dam
owners do not realize their responsibility and liability toward the downstream public and
environment.
119
Earthquake Hazard Profile
The state of Missouri established the Missouri Seismic Safety Commission (MSSC) through the
authority of the Seismic Safety Commission Act (RSMo Sections 44.225 through 44.237). The
purpose of MSSC is to review Missouri's current preparedness for major earthquakes and to make
recommendations to mitigate their impact. MSSC developed a 1997 plan titled A Strategic Plan for
Earthquake Safety that documented successes, opportunities, and concerns. It included the
following recommendations: 1) educational efforts should continue to be developed and
expanded with the MSSC taking the lead; 2) continued and increased cooperation of State
agencies with nationally funded programs (National Science Foundation funding the MidAmerica Earthquake Center) should occur; 3) stable State funding should be provided for the
Missouri earthquake mitigation and preparedness program; 4) SEMA should hire a person to train
and track the Community Emergency Response Teams [CERT]; and 5) assessment of the impact
of National Hazard Earthquake Reduction Program maps should occur.
The MSSC prepared A Strategic Plan for Earthquake Safety as the result of a legislative mandate,
Senate Bill No. 142 in 1993. This plan will establish goals, initiatives and priorities. Key issues
identified by MSSC are: 1) earthquake threat is real – addressing the problem now will yield
significant long-term benefits; 2) reduction of earthquake risk requires combined efforts of
individuals, businesses, industry, professional and volunteer organizations, and all levels of
government to promote adoption and enforcement of appropriate building codes; 3) strategies
identified in the report for reducing earthquake risk can be implemented through community
participation; and 4) MSSC accepts responsibility for advancing earthquake planning and
mitigation in state at outlined in plan.
Description
An earthquake is sudden slip on a fault line, and the resulting ground shaking and radiated
seismic energy caused by the slip. It can also be caused by volcanic or magmatic activity, or
other sudden stress changes in the earth. The Earth's crust is made up of large plates, also known
as tectonic plates. These plates are the large, thin, relatively rigid plates that move relative to one
another on the outer surface of the Earth. Plate tectonics involves the formation, lateral
movement, interaction, and destruction of the lithospheric plates (lithosphere is the outer solid
part of the earth, including the crust and uppermost mantle. The lithosphere below the crust is
brittle enough at some locations to produce earthquakes by faulting, such as within a subducted
oceanic plate. Much of the earth's internal heat is relieved through this process and many large
structural and topographic features are consequently formed. Continental rift valleys (the nearby
New Madrid Fault Zone in Missouri is considered a buried rift valley). Vast plateaus of basalt
are created at plate break up when magma ascends from the mantle to the ocean floor, forming
new crust and separating mid-ocean ridges. Plates collide and are destroyed as they descend at
subduction zones to produce deep ocean trenches, strings of volcanoes, extensive transform
faults, broad linear rises, and folded mountain belts.
Earthquake induced landslides and dam failure/levee failure are secondary earthquake hazards
that occur from ground shaking. Damage resulting from landslides is similar to that from
earthquakes. Damage resulting from dam failure/levee failure is similar to flash flooding.
120
Severity
The characteristics of earthquakes include the rolling or shaking of the surface of the
ground, landslides, liquefaction and amplification. The severity of these hazards depends on
several factors, including soil and slope conditions, proximity to the fault, earthquake magnitude
and type of earthquake.
Buildings on poorly consolidated and thick soils will typically have more damage than buildings
located on consolidated soils and bedrock. Soils and soft sedimentary rocks near the earth's
surface and landfills can modify ground shaking caused by earthquakes. One of these
modifications is amplification. Amplification increases the magnitude of the seismic waves
generated by the earthquake. The amount of amplification is influenced by the thickness of
geologic materials and their physical properties. Buildings and structures built on soft and
unconsolidated soils can face greater risk. Damage on buildings can range from minor
foundation cracks to complete leveling of the structure. Refer to Figures 41 and 42 below.
Building contents can be broken from being knocked onto the floor or being crushed by the
ceiling, walls and floor failing. Dams and levees have the potential to fail, resulting in the
flooding of downstream regions including residentially populated areas.
Liquefaction occurs when ground shaking causes wet granular soils to change from a solid state
to a liquid state. This results in the loss of soil strength and the soil's ability to support weight.
Buildings and their occupants are at risk when the ground can no longer support these structures.
Damage from liquefaction can destroy the buildings and the foundations the buildings rest on.
Liquefaction has been documented from the New Madrid Fault Zone earthquake activity.
Earthquakes and the resulting landslides have the potential to destroy roads, bridges,
buildings (especially older buildings constructed of masonry or those buildings that are not
designed to seismic standards), utilities (including those that are not designed to seismic
standards) and other critical facilities (including those that are not designed to seismic standards).
Earthquake induced landslides are secondary earthquake hazards that occur from ground
shaking. Damage resulting from landslides is similar to that from earthquakes.
Figure 41
Figure 42
Earthquakes can be measured by intensity or by magnitude. The Richter magnitude scale was
developed in 1935 by Charles F. Richter of the California Institute of Technology as a
121
mathematical device to compare the size of earthquakes. The magnitude of an earthquake is
determined from the logarithm of the amplitude of waves recorded by seismographs.
Adjustments are included for the variation in the distance between the various seismographs
and the epicenter of the earthquakes. On the Richter Scale, magnitude is expressed in whole
numbers and decimal fractions. For example, a magnitude 5.3 might be computed for a
moderate earthquake, and a strong earthquake might be rated as magnitude 6.3. Because of
the logarithmic basis of the scale, each whole number increase in magnitude represents a tenfold
increase in measured amplitude. As an estimate of energy, each whole number step in the
magnitude scale corresponds to the release of about 31 times more energy than the amount
associated with the preceding whole number value. The Richter Scale is not used to express
damage. An earthquake in a densely populated area which results in many deaths and
considerable damage may have the same magnitude as a shock in a remote area that does nothing
more than frighten the wildlife. Large-magnitude earthquakes that occur beneath the oceans may
not even be felt by humans.
The Mercalli Scale is based on observable earthquake damage. From a scientific
standpoint, the Richter scale is based on seismic records while the Mercalli is based on
observable data that can be subjective. Thus, the Richter scale is considered scientifically more
objective and therefore more accurate. For example a level I-V on the Mercalli scale would
represent a small amount of observable damage. At this level doors would rattle, dishes break
and weak or poor plaster would crack. As the level rises toward the larger numbers, the amount
of damage increases considerably. The higher number represents total damage. Refer to Figure
43.
Intensity scales, like the Modified Mercalli Scale measure the amount of shaking at a particular
location. So the intensity of an earthquake will vary depending on where you are. Sometimes
earthquakes are referred to by the maximum intensity they produce. Magnitude scales, like the
Richter magnitude, measure the size of the earthquake at its source. They do not depend on
where the measurement was made.
122
According to the SEMA map above, Pettis County is at risk for a Level VI impact on the
Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale from a 7.6 earthquake (see map on page 122). According to
the Mercalli Scale, all in Pettis County would feel a Level VI impact. People could have
difficulty walking due to motion. Objects could fall off walls. Furniture could move or be
overturned. Weak plaster and masonry could crack. Slight damage could occur in poorly
constructed buildings. Trees and bushes could shake visibly or be heard rustling. A full
description of the severity of a Level VI earthquake appears of page 123 of the Plan Update.
123
124
125
Figure 43
to the hazard Earthquake. The rating was “Critical” or causing damage to 25 - 50 percent of the
jurisdiction, with varying degrees of damage depending on geographical characteristics. This
Committee members.
Location
An earthquake is no more likely to happen in one location in the planning area than in another.
All participating communities are likely to be impacted. Earthquakes occur all the time all over
the world, both along plate edges and along faults. However, it is unlikely that an earthquake of
high intensity will affect Pettis County. Likely locations of earthquakes in Missouri are located
near the New Madrid Fault Zone, the Wabash Valley Fault and the fault zones in the vicinity of
Farmington (including Big River Fault and the St. Genevieve Fault Zone).
Previous Events
According to the USGS Website, Pettis County historical earthquake activity is significantly
below the Missouri state average. It is 95% smaller than the overall U.S. average. The
following minor ground shaking events have been recorded for the planning area.
On 7/31/2005 at 07:07:07, a magnitude 3.3 (3.3 LG, Depth: 3.1 mi, Class: Light,
Intensity: II - III) earthquake occurred 29.1 miles away from the county center
On 5/18/2005 at 19:59:42, a magnitude 3.3 (3.3 LG, Depth: 3.1 mi) earthquake occurred
41.8 miles away from the county center
On 1/21/1992 at 11:36:21, a magnitude 3.1 (2.3 LG, 3.1 MD, Depth: 3.1 mi) earthquake
occurred 58.8 miles away from Pettis County center
Magnitude types: regional Lg-wave magnitude (LG), duration magnitude (MD)
There have been no significant earthquakes in Pettis County.
Probability
Based on the previous events of earthquakes, it is unlikely that an earthquake resulting in
significant damages will occur in the planning area. See also Figure 44 above that shows the
Peak Acceleration (%g) with a 10% probability of exceedance within 50 years for the occurrence
of an earthquake along the New Madrid Fault. As can be seen, Pettis County lies in four peak
acceleration zones running northeast to southwest ranging from a low of 7 in the northwestern
corner to almost 15 %g of severity in the southeastern corner of the county.
Many Midwestern communities are located near the New Madrid fault, an area with a high
126
seismic risk. Estimates of the recurrence intervals of the large 1811-1812 earthquakes are about
500 to 100 years. Most residents are not aware of this risk because the last significant
earthquake occurred in the early 19th century when population density was extremely low.
However, small quakes along this fault continue to occur in Missouri about every 8 days. Based
on the history of the New Madrid Fault and the MDNE January 2003 estimates, there is a
25-40% chance of a New Madrid earthquake of magnitude 6.0 or greater within the next 50
years. Since Pettis County is distant from the New Madrid Fault, small earthquakes along the
fault usually are not noticeable.
hazard Earthquake based on an earthquake of any intensity. They rated it ”Likely” or having
between 10 percent 100 percent probability of happening in the next year, or happening at least
once in the next 10 years. This rating was based on a review of prior events and the personal
knowledge of the Planning Committee members.
Recommendation
Increased education, concern and subsequent action can reduce the potential effects of
earthquakes can be done in conjunction with preparations for other hazards. A program that
recognizes the risk of flooding, landslides and other dangers that incorporate earthquake issues
will be of most benefit to citizens. Individuals and government have roles in reducing earthquake
hazards. Individuals can reduce their own vulnerability by taking actions in their own households.
Local government can take action to lower the threat through the proper use of poor sites, assuring that
vital or important structures (police, fire, school buildings) resist hazards and developing infrastructures
in a way that decreases risk. State agencies and legislature can assist the other levels of action and
provide incentives for minimizing hazards.
Communities and developers coordinate with NRCS, Division of Geology and Resource Assessment
regarding appropriate sittings of subdivisions and other structures
127
WildFire Hazard Profile
The term wildfire is defined as "a highly destructive, uncontrollable fire." It is an unplanned,
unwanted wildland fire caused by unauthorized human-caused fires, escaped wildland fire use
events, escaped prescribed fire projects, and all other wildland fires where the objective is to put
the fire out. It is an uncontrolled fire which threatens to destroy life, property, or natural
resources, and (a) is not burning within the confines of firebreaks, or (b) is burning with such
intensity that it could not be readily extinguished with ordinary tools commonly available.
Description
During a wildfire, the fire produces energy in an amount which is 10 times that of a nuclear
bomb. Fires that burn forest plants can be classified in three ways: ground fires, surface fires,
and crown fires. Ground fires burn the humus layer of the forest floor, surface fires burn forest
undergrowth and surface litter, and crown fires advance through the tops of trees. Atmospheric
factors such as temperature, humidity, and rainfall are important in determining the
combustibility of a given forest.
Humans, either through negligence, accident, or intention, have caused approximately 90% of all
wildfires in the last decade. In the United States, accidental and negligent acts include unattended
campfires, sparks, burning debris, and irresponsibly discarded cigarettes. The remaining 10% of
fires are mostly caused by lightning, but may also be caused by other acts-of-nature such as
volcanic eruptions or earthquakes.
The Missouri Division of Fire Safety urges fire service agencies and local governments to begin
planning for wildfires. The Division advocates adoption of local ordinances to prohibit open
burning during a high fire hazard time period. However, Missouri statutes do not allow the state
to issue a MANDATORY burn ban at the state level.
One responsibility of the Forestry Division is protecting state and private land from the
destructive effects of wildfires. The Forestry Division works closely with rural fire departments to
assist with fire suppression activities. Nearly 900 rural fire departments have mutual aide
agreements with the division. Forestry personnel provide training, equipment and grants to rural
fire departments to help them become a more effective firefighting team.
Statutory authority is given to fire protection districts via RSMo 321.220 (12) to "adopt and amend
bylaws, fire protection and fire prevention ordinances," However, coordination with the county
prosecuting attorney's office is strongly recommended before implementing such an ordinance to
ensure enforcement ability. Voluntary fire service associations should also coordinate similar
efforts at the local level to adopt open burning laws.
Severity
Missouri does not have large conflagrations and crown fires. During these fires, embers from the
fire are thrown a long way from the fire and results in ignition of other dry areas. Damage may
128
result in the burning of outbuildings, homes, and nearby grassy areas. Missouri fires usually
involve only grassy areas, leaves, ground litter, plants, shrubs, and trees. However, as new
housing development occurs in forested rural areas, the likelihood of fires will increase. Missouri
Department of Conservation (MDC) and Public Safety officials recommend that homes in low
density areas of brush and forests not be built with cedar shake shingles. Typically homes catch
on fire when dry brush, bushes and trees are very close to the house. Figure 47 below is a
photograph of forested land involved in a wildfire.
Figure 47
In accordance with Missouri Statue 254.230 and 321.220(12), the state is currently setting up a
central fire reporting system. In the past, it was the responsibility of volunteer, local and district
fire departments are supposed to report wild land fires to the state. However this is rarely done.
MDC is preparing an online central reporting system that will keep track of fires. As a result, a
historical summary of fires was impossible due to the way in which MDC currently has their
records stored.
No Missouri fires are listed among the significant wildfires in the U.S. since 1825. Fires
covering more than 300 acres are considered large in Missouri. Based on limited MDC data, it
was reported that during March and April 2000 all of Missouri sustained devastating fire damage
to thousands of acres resulting from wild land fires. Each year, about 3,700 wildfires burn more
than 55,000 acres of forest and grassland. Missouri’s wildfire season is in the spring and fall,
unlike the Western states that have a summer fire season. Dead vegetation, combined with the
low humidity’s and high wind typical of these season, makes wildfire risk greater at these times.
For the most part the rural fire departments fight their own fires. Some areas of land are not
covered even by volunteer fire departments. In this event, the MDC will cover fires in these
129
areas. Missouri has very few fires that occur as a result from lightning. Most fires result from
arson, campers and from resident that burn trash.
As can be seen in the map below, Pettis County is located in the lowest Fire Danger Class in the
nation, in a nationwide evaluation by the National Interagency Fire Center.
Figure 48
Fire danger is based upon the burning index (81). The burning index takes into account the fuel
moisture, relative humidity, wind speed, temperature and recent precipitation. The burning index
is the basis for fire suppression crew staffing levels.
The vegetative types and fuel types are different than in the western U.S. As compared to the
western U.S., with the humid climate of the Midwest, fuel decomposes much faster. As a result
of this, the wildfires in Missouri are rare and are not as severe as the fires that the western states
experiences.
The MDC relies upon the news media to help warn citizens of high fire danger. A set of
standardized fire danger adjectives has been developed for fire warnings. These adjectives
include a brief description of burning conditions, open burning suggestions for homeowners and
fire crew staffing levels. Residents should always check with their local fire department or
District Forester for local burning conditions.
130
Wildfire fuel includes combustible material in the form of vegetation such as grass, leaves,
ground litter, plants, shrubs and trees The forested areas, combined with dry weather
conditions and/or human error, represent the potential for a disastrous wildfire within the county.
Based on the county's ample supply of wildfire fuel and continuing new development near forest
and grasslands, the future probable severity is shown below.
to the hazard Wildfires. They rated it “Limited” or impacting from 10 percent to 25% of the
jurisdiction. This rating was based on a review of prior events and the personal knowledge of the
Location
Fires typically occur in highway medians and shoulders, near homes and outbuildings. People
who live at the edge of the woods and vegetative debris are at a higher risk of having a fire affect
their homes and property. These areas are called the “Wildland/Urban Interface” (WUI).
Additional information concerning WUIs in the planning area will be obtained for the next plan
update.
The maps on the following pages show the areas in Pettis County that are more at risk to
wildfires. Only the two largest communities are included in the analysis.
131
132
133
Characteristics
134
Previous Events
There is no central resource for information concerning previous wildfire events in the
planning area. No Pettis County forest fires were reported to the Missouri Department of
Conservation. However, the 2010 State Plan includes information by county on wild
fires, which includes both forest fires and grass fires. It states that between the years
2004 and 2008, there were 64 wild fires in the planning area, averaging 12.8 fires
annually. A total of 991.6 acres burned, averaging 198 acres annually. Two buildings
burned during this period. The State Plan assigned a numeric probability rating of from
one to five to each county, with “one” being the lowest. Pettis County received a rating
of “one.”
Other research was conducted in efforts to obtain information about previous wildfire
events in Pettis County. A review of local newspapers revealed an article about the
drought of 2003 resulting in a number of fires in Pettis County. Over 30 grass fires
occurred during the month of August. It was so dry, and vegetation became so
combustible, that one damaging fire was caused by sparks from furniture falling off the
back of a truck. The Planning Committee will continue to research new data sources
before the next plan update.
Probability
Pettis County has had relatively few wildfires compared to rest of Missouri and other states. In
addition, as previously discussed, a conflagration similar to those out West is unlikely. Fires will
possibly occur, but on a much smaller scale. These will consist of grass fires along side roads
and railroad tracks and fires near homes in rural areas.
hazard Wildfire. They rated it ”Likely” or having between 10 percent 100 percent probability of
happening in the next year, or happening at least once in the next 10 years. This rating was
members.
Recommendation
Missouri Department of Conservation and County Fire Districts should develop an
education outreach program for communities. MDC has an ongoing educational effort in
certain at-risk areas. This effort includes visiting schools, local fairs and other events to educate
and pass out fire prevention pamphlets in terms of seasonal or broad fire prevention approach.
Establishing local ordinances to prohibit open burning during hazardous conditions is a proactive
approach to reduce the number of wild land fires in the future.
135
Vulnerability Analysis
Vulnerability is defined by FEMA as the extent to which people will experience harm and/or
property will be damaged from a hazard. Vulnerability is closely linked to the probability that
the hazard event will occur and to the severity which is expected. Vulnerability analyses usually
include damage estimates for each hazard and each participating jurisdiction. For some hazards,
damage estimates can be developed on a planning area-wide basis without doing estimates for
each individual jurisdiction. This is the case with hazards that are generally planning area-wide
when they occur, such as severe thunderstorms. Other hazards will impact participating
jurisdictions differently. An example is flooding, which generally will impact communities with
assets located in SFHAs more often and more severely than communities without SFHAs. For
these hazards, a county-wide vulnerability analysis does not reflect varying risks.
The 2011 Plan Update does not include damage estimates based on data for each hazard because
the limited availability of hazard damage information that is specific to Pettis County. However,
earthquake and flooding damage estimates using a FEMA-developed software program are
included in the 2010 State Plan. These estimates are county-wide, and do not reflect variations
between the participating jurisdictions. Nonetheless, this information has been incorporated into
the Pettis 2011 Update.
The remainder of the hazards have been analyzed on a county-wide basis, for the most part.
They reflect assets that are exposed to damage from a hazard, rather than an estimate of the
damage that would occur. In developing these estimates, the Planning Committee used GIS data
and combined it with HAZUS building count data from the HAZUS Data DVD #2. It was found
that by joining the tables based on census blocks, areas affected by a given hazard were
separated by Incorporated Lands and Unincorporated Lands. Resulting numbers of buildings
and population (2010 census data) figures were categorized by the type of building, and
compared to the total number of buildings and population. Then a percentage of people and
structures exposed to a given hazard was then postulated based on historical event information.
The approximate value was based on average building dimensions and pricing. It was estimated
that all residential buildings are 1,500 sq/ft at $92 sq/ft = $140,000. Commercial buildings were
all 2,200 sq/ft at $165 sq/ft = $360,000. Industrial buildings were all 3,500 sq/ft at $165 sq/ft =
$500,000. Agricultural structures were all 3,200 sq/ft at $20 sq/ft =$60,000. Finally, public
buildings were all 25,000 sq/ft at $165 sq/ft = $2,250,000. The “at risk population” was
estimated by taking the total number of people affected and dividing that by the county wide
population, resulting in a percentage.
Exposure to each hazard was calculated by the Planning Committee by using the following
worksheets. Vulnerability figures were obtained by applying a percentage representing the
number of people and buildings exposed. That percentage was developed by the Planning
Committee based on a review of previous events, damage information, subject matter expertise
of the committee members, and personal knowledge of what has occurred in the planning area.
136
Tornado/Thunderstorm Worksheet
POTENTIAL MAGNITUDE/SEVERITY (Percentage of the jurisdiction that can be damaged):
Catastrophic: More than 50%
Critical: 25 to 50%
Limited: 10 to 25%
x
Negligible: Less than 10
FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE:
Highly Likely: Near 100% probability in next year.
Likely: Between 10 and 100% probability in next year, or at least one chance in 10 years.
X
Possible: Between 1 and 10% probability in next year, or at least one chance in next 100 years.
Unlikely: Less than 1% probability in next 100 years.
SEASONAL PATTERN: All Lafayette County tornadoes since 1958 have occurred between April and September.
AREAS LIKELY TO BE AFFECTED MOST (BY SECTOR): Any location in Lafayette County could be susceptible to
a tornado.
PROBABLE DURATION: Pettis County’s tornadoes have ranged from F0-F2, with one F3. At this level, most are only
on the ground for a few minutes. The F3 and higher could have longer durations.
POTENTIAL SPEED OF ONSET
(Probable amount of warning time):
Minimal (or no) warning.
X
6 to 12 hours warning.
More than 24 hours warning.
EXISTING WARNING SYSTEMS: Weather radios, sirens.
COMPLETE VULNERABILITY ANALYSIS: Note that community-specific analyses are not necessary for
thunderstorms/tornadoes, as the risk does not vary from community to community. The Planning Committee, based on
information from prior events, estimated that 20% of the county would be exposed to the hazard, or 8,448 people, 4,155
buildings, and $708,520,000.
Incorporated Land
Residential
Commercial
Industrial
Agricultural
Public Bulidings
# of People
# of Buildings Approx. Value
3749
1844
$258,160,000
242
119
$42,840,000
30
15
$7,500,000
10
5
$300,000
28
14
$31,500,000
Un-Incorporated Land
Residential
Commercial
Industrial
Agricultural
Public Bulidings
# of People# of Buildings
Approx. Value
3985
1960
$274,400,000
207
102
$36,720,000
96
47
$23,500,000
71
35
$2,100,000
28
14
$31,500,000
137
Flooding Worksheet
POTENTIAL MAGNITUDE/SEVERITY (Percentage of the jurisdiction that can be damaged):
Critical: 25 to 50%
Limited: 10 to 25%
Negligible: Less than 10
x
* Unlikely: Less than 1% probability in next 100 years.
SEASONAL
PATTERN: Flooding occurs most often in the county during the months of April-June and August.
x
AREAS LIKELY TO BE AFFECTED MOST (BY SECTOR): Areas near rivers and streams, SFHAs, low lying areas.
PROBABLE DURATION: Flash flooding can occur within a few hours, and usually recedes within a few hours, but can
last longer. Sustained river flooding can last over several days, weeks, or months.
POTENTIAL SPEED OF ONSET (Probable amount of warning time):
*
EXISTING WARNING SYSTEMS: National Weather Service Watches/Warnings via TV/radio, patrol car sirens.
COMPLETE VULNERABILITY ANALYSIS: Note that the risk of flooding varies from community to community,
depending on structures and infrastructure located in SFHAs. Boundaries for areas prone to flooding are shown in the in
the maps in Appendix C. In addition, flood risk in individual communities is illustrated in the maps included in the
City/Town profiles beginning on page 43. Smithton, LaMonte, and Green Ridge have virtually no SFHAs within their
corporate city limits. “Fingers” of SFHAs extend into some southeastern portions of Sedalia, and there are some
structures located in them. Houstonia may have several structures in the flood plain in a small area of the southeastern
portion of the community. Many areas in the unincorporated county are in SFHAs. However, as these areas are not as
densely populated, fewer structures will be located there. State Plan information states that 14 structures are at risk of
flooding in Pettis County.
Information was taken from the State Plan for Pettis County’s vulnerability analysis of flooding. The State Plan included
information from a software program developed by FEMA, called HAZUS-MH. The State Plan analysis provided the
number of buildings impacted, estimates of the building repair costs, and the associated loss of building contents and
business inventory. Building damage can also cause additional losses to a community as a whole by restricting a
building‘s ability to function properly. Income loss data in the HAZUS analysis accounts for losses such as business
interruption and rental income losses as well as the resources associated with damage repair and job and housing losses.
These losses are calculated by HAZUS-MH using a methodology based on the building damage estimates.
HAZUS flood damage estimates were calculated based on the depth of flooding. For example, a two-foot-deep flood
generally results in about 20 percent damage to the structure (which translates to 20 percent of the structure‘s replacement
value). HAZUS-MH takes into account flood depth when modeling damage (based on FEMA‘s depth-damage functions).
The HAZUS-MH reports capture damage by occupancy class (in terms of square footage impacted) and by damage
percent classes. Occupancy classes in HAZUS-MH include agriculture, commercial, education, government, industrial,
138
religious, and residential. Damage percent classes are grouped by 10 percent increments: 1-10 percent, 11-20 percent,
etc., up to 50 percent. Buildings that sustain more than 50 percent damage are considered to be “substantially damaged.”
The HAZUS displaced population was based on the inundation area. Individuals and households will be displaced from
their homes even when the home has suffered little or no damage either because they have beeb evacuated (i.e., a warning
was issued) or there was no physical access to the property because of flooded roadways. Displaced people using shelters
will most likely be individuals with lower incomes and those who do not have family or friends within the immediate area.
Age plays a secondary role in shelter use in that there are some individuals who will go to a public shelter even if they
have the financial means to go elsewhere. These will usually be younger, less established families and elderly families
(HAZUS-MH Users Manual). HAZUS-MH does not model flood casualties given that flood-related deaths and injuries
typically do not have the same significant impact on the medical infrastructure as those associated with earthquakes.
The State Plan included the following HAZUS results for Pettis County.
Structural damages:$ 5,805,000
Damage to Contents: $ 6,304,000
Inventory Loss: $ 333,000
Total Direct Loss: $ 12,442,000
Total Income Loss: $ 3,032,000
Total direct and Income Loss: $ 15,474,000
Calculated Loss Ratio (Loss ratio of the direct building losses compared to overall building inventory): 0.27%
# of buildings at risk: 14
# of substantially damaged buildings: 1
139
Severe Winter Weather
Worksheet
POTENTIAL MAGNITUDE/SEVERITY (Percentage of the jurisdiction that can be affected):
Critical: 25 to 50%
Limited: 10 to 25%
Negligible: Less than 10%
SEASONAL
PATTERN:
x
Severe winter weather occurs most often in the county during December and January.
AREAS LIKELY TO BE AFFECTED MOST (BY SECTOR):
Severe winter weather events tend to occur on a regional scale, thus likely to affect the entire county.
PROBABLE DURATION:
Dangerous conditions can occur within a few hours. Ice and/or snow can last over several days.
Cascading effects (utility outages, for example) also can last several days.
*
EXISTING WARNING SYSTEMS:
National Weather Service Watches and Warnings via TV and radio.
COMPLETE VULNERABILITY ANALYSIS: This analysis does not include structural damage estimates, as
structures are not customarily impacted to a significant degree by severe winter weather, other than infrastructure such
as roads and utility/communication structures. The Planning Committee plans to try to obtain information about
these kinds of damages for the next plan update.
140
Drought Worksheet
*
Critical: 25 to 50%
Limited: 10 to 25%
SEASONAL
PATTERN:
x
Drought alerts usually are issued in the summer months. However, economic impacts can extend year-round.
AREAS LIKELY TO BE AFFECTED MOST (BY SECTOR):
Severe droughts tend to occur on a regional scale, thus likely to affect the entire county.
PROBABLE DURATION:
Drought conditions can last several months to several years.
More than 24 hours warning. Drought conditions can develop within just three months or several
months.
*
The DNR uses several indices to monitor precipitation and other drought factors. The PSDI is the main indicator.
COMPLETE VULNERABILITY ANALYSIS: Drought losses generally do not include damage to structures. The
planning area would sustain agricultural losses. The Planning Committee will try to obtain damage estimates for
drought for the next plan update.
141
Wildfire Worksheet
Critical: 25 to 50%
Limited: 10 to 25%
*
SEASONAL PATTERN: Wildfires are more likely between February and May.
x
AREAS LIKELY TO BE AFFECTED MOST (BY SECTOR): In forested areas and grasslands along the
transition area between urban and rural development.
PROBABLE DURATION: Wildfires can last a few minutes to several weeks.
POTENTIAL SPEED OF ONSET (Probable amount of warning time):
*
The Conservation Department relies on air surveillance and calls from the general public.
COMPLETE VULNERABILITY ANALYSIS: The Planning Committee reviewed previous event data and
combined it with the personal knowledge of committee members. They determined that 75% of the county was
exposed to the risk of wildfires. Currently at risk (75% of the county): 31,989 people, 5,875 buildings, and
$904,690,000 potential loss. The Planning Committee will try to obtain more fact-based damage estimates for the
next plan update in five years.
Incorporated Land
Residential
Commercial
Industrial
Agricultural
Public Bulidings
# of People # of Buildings Approx. Value
11026
5004
$700,560,000
6128
141
$50,760,000
4483
29
$14,500,000
2232
11
$660,000
4751
17
$38,250,000
Un-Incorporated Land
Residential
Commercial
Industrial
Agricultural
Public Bulidings
# of People # of Buildings Approx. Value
1432
650
$91,000,000
652
15
$5,400,000
1082
7
$3,500,000
203
1
$60,000
0
0
$0
142
Heat Wave Worksheet
*
Critical: 25 to 50%
Limited: 10 to 25%
SEASONAL
PATTERN: Heat waves occur June-August, also sometimes in September.
x
AREAS LIKELY TO BE AFFECTED MOST (BY SECTOR): Heat waves tend to occur on a regional scale, thus
likely to affect the entire county.
PROBABLE DURATION: Extreme heat conditions can last several days.
More than 24 hours warning. Extreme heat conditions can develop within just two or three days of high
temperatures.
*
The National Weather Service uses the Heat Index to alert the public via TV and radio.
COMPLETE VULNERABILITY ANALYSIS: There is no central location for information on damages caused by
extreme heat. The NCDC information includes reported deaths, injuries, and losses for the events. However, the
information is not location-specific, instead it is episode-specific, and therefore cannot be the basis for county
estimates. The Planning Committee will look for additional sources of drought damage information for the next plan
update.
143
Earthquake Worksheet
Critical: 25 to 50%
*
Limited: 10 to 25%
SEASONAL
PATTERN: Earthquakes are not affected by climatic conditions.
x
AREAS LIKELY TO BE AFFECTED MOST (BY SECTOR): The impacts of an earthquake are felt on a regional
scale, thus likely to affect the entire county.
PROBABLE DURATION: Earthquakes usually last from a few to several minutes, after-shocks can follow
sometimes as severe as the original earthquake for several days or weeks.
*
EXISTING WARNING SYSTEMS: Earthquake prediction is far from accurate. There are no warning systems in
place.
COMPLETE VULNERABILITY ANALYSIS: In the Missouri State Plan, HAZUS-MH MR4 (August 2009) was used to
analyze earthquake vulnerability and estimate losses by county. HAZUS is a loss estimation software package
developed by FEMA that uses inventory data based on the 2000 census adjusted to 2006 numbers. It uses the Dun
& Bradstreet Business Population Report. Inventory values reflect 2006 valuations, based on RSMeans (a supplier
of construction cost information) replacement costs. Population counts are 2008 estimates from the U.S. Census
Bureau.
All HAZUS-MH analyses used the default inventory data associated with the August 2009 release of HAZUS-MH
MR4, which includes 2006 building valuations. An annualized loss scenario that enabled an “apples to apples”
comparison of earthquake risk for each county was run. The following vulnerability analyses pertained to Pettis
County as a whole. Note that the county ranked 71 out of 105 counties in the state for the percentage of damage
that would occur. Source: HAZUS-MH MR4
County
Building Loss Total ($)
Loss Ratio %*
Income Loss Total ($)
Total Loss ($)*
Loss Ratio Rank in Missouri
Pettis County
$87,000
0.003%
$41,000
$127,000
71
*Loss ratio is the sum of structural and nonstructural damage divided by the entire building inventory value within a
county
144
Dam Failure Worksheet
Critical: 25 to 50%
Limited: 10 to 25%
X
SEASONAL
PATTERN: Dam failure would most likely be caused by heavy rains or extended periods of drought. Therefore,
x
the most risk might be April-August.
AREAS LIKELY TO BE AFFECTED MOST (BY SECTOR): Larger, older dams (high hazard) pose significant risk to
downstream populations. See Dam map.
PROBABLE DURATION: Dam failure duration depends on the severity of the failure and the acre-feet of water.
*
EXISTING WARNING SYSTEMS: A few dams are regulated by DNR. All other dams are not regulated nor inspected.
Generally, a dam could fail without warning.
COMPLETE VULNERABILITY ANALYSIS: The Planning Committee calculated the people and structures at risk to damage
from dam failure. This was done by estimating the structures located in dam breach inundation areas at 2% of the total in the
county. These figures do not represent damages, but instead represent exposure to loss.
Dam and Levee Failure
# of Pe opl e
# of Bui l di ngs
Approx. Va l ue
Re s i de nti a l
1017
500
Comme rci a l
26
13
$70,000,000
$4,680,000
I ndus tri a l
12
6
$3,000,000
Agri cul tura l
8
4
$240,000
Publ i c Bul i di ngs
6
3
$6,750,000
145
Section 3
County Capability Assessment Mitigation Management Policies
To better serve the community, Pettis County, and the City of Sedalia, Missouri merged
emergency management responsibilities in 1969. Pursuant to Pettis County commission order,
Sedalia municipal ordinance (chapter 9), and RSMo chapter 44, the agency is responsible for:
Developing and maintaining a Emergency Operations Plan (EOP)
Perform duties outside the jurisdiction in accordance to Memorandums of
Understanding (MOU), the Missouri State Emergency Management Agency, and
reciprocal mutual aid agreements
Coordinate homeland security initiative
Coordinate local emergency plans, exercises, and disaster readiness preparations
Public warning systems
Maintaining the Sedalia-Pettis County Emergency Operations Center (EOC)
Additional responsibilities include:
Damage Assessment
Maintain the Mobile Command Center (MCC)
Floodplain management for Pettis County and Coordination of the Pettis County Geospatial
Information Systems is the responsibility of the Pettis County Technology Department Director.
These responsibilities, and additional unforeseeable duties, are intended to prepare Sedalia and
Pettis County emergency responders to plan for, mitigate, respond to, and recover from natural
and manmade disasters and acts of terrorism. Furthermore, the EMA is responsible for
conducting community emergency preparedness education and all-hazards sheltering.
Existing Plans
Principles from the Pettis County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan Update will be
incorporated into existing local planning documents. Incorporation of the 2005 Plan did not occur
because none of the existing plans were updated between 2005 and 2011. Pettis County and the
City of Sedalia currently have two comprehensive plans: watershed and storm water runoff.
Sedalia water supplies are drawn from the Spring Fork Lake reservoir, and numerous deep-wells.
The Sedalia Water Department, in cooperation with state and federal agencies, has identified a
watershed problem that adversely affects Spring Fork Lake. A joint city/county task force has
been formed to address and correct the watershed problem.
The City of Sedalia has been taking action to correct an undesirable combined storm water
runoff/sewage problem. The City of Sedalia utilizes two separate underground storm water
runoff and sanitary sewage systems. When built over 100 years ago, the systems worked as
planned. However, as the city grew, the volume of storm water runoff increased and now—
during periods of heavy rain—mixes with sewage in an isolated region in the north- central
146
region. The city is actively pursuing corrective measures to illuminate storm water runoff from
mixing with sewage in the problem area. Activity to correct this problem has been based on
principles contained in the Hazard Mitigation Plan.
The Sedalia-Pettis County Emergency Operations Plan (EOP) is a broad all-hazards guideline,
which was updated in August 2009. The 2009 Update included review of the previously
approved 2005 Hazard Mitigation Plan. The EOP is divided into annexes and appendixes that
outline mitigation and response techniques for use during times of crisis or emergency.
Legislation at the county and city level requires the Emergency Management Director (EMD) to
annually brief chief elected officials’ emergency response and public warning capabilities. In
addition, the ordinances require the elected chief to review the EOP in July of each year.
Mitigation Programs
County Capabilities (Organization, Staffing, Training)
The capabilities of emergency management, fire protection, law enforcement, and emergency
medical services are detailed at the end of Section I.
Emergency Operations Centers
The Sedalia-Pettis County primary EOC is located at 319 South Lamine, Sedalia, Missouri.
Located in the basement of the sheriff’s department, the EOC has the following capabilities:
Operate 24-7 for extended periods of time
External emergency electrical power unit
ADA accessible restrooms
Hot and cold running water
Galley
Executive staff conference room
Message center
Radio center
Internet, facsimile, and telephone services
In the event the primary EOC is unusable then the mobile command post would serve as the
emergency EOC.
Communications & Warning Systems Communications
The Sedalia-Pettis County Emergency Management Agency utilizes redundant communications
systems, which are available to all emergency response agencies within the county and City of
Sedalia. The EMA operates a variety of communications listed below:
VHF two-way radio (includes all agencies operating in the city and county, as well as
select state agencies e.g., Missouri State Emergency Management Agency-SEMA)
VHF Ham or Amateur two-way radio (ARES, PACKET, MARS)
Networked high-speed Internet capable computers with email and SEMA E-TEAM
147
capabilities
Public service facsimile
EMA Mobile Command Center (MCC) capabilities are as follows:
Satellite telephone, Internet, and facsimile
Cellular telephone, Internet, and facsimile
Programmable VHF radio
JPS ACU-T (interoperable radio patch working device)
Interoperable communications: JPS ACU-T patch-working device
MCC support capabilities:
Two (onboard) 8 KW Diesel powered electrical generators
KVH satellite tracking unit
Computerized leveling system
Complete galley
Conference room
Full, on-board restroom facility
Propane and electric heating systems
Forward and aft air conditioning systems
Shower facility
Pneumatic 25' main antenna tower system
Multiple ground-plane antenna system
Full 360 degree scene lights
Pneumatic flood light system
Network (telephone-computer) jack system through the unit
Full emergency light and siren system
Television-DVD system
Quick-Raise telescoping light system
On-board fax and copier
Public Warning
The EMA operates and maintains twenty-six outdoor warning sirens that are strategically located
within the cities of Sedalia, Smithton, La Monte, Green Ridge, Houstonia, Hughesville, and
outlying subdivisions. All sirens are activated by radio from the county warning point (Sedalia
Police Department) and, as a backup, the EMA EOC. Sirens are tested on the first Wednesday of
each month.
Additionally, the Sedalia Police Department and the EMA EOC have the capability to set off toneactivated monitors, which are placed in all schools, major industries, retirement homes and
Bothwell Regional Health Center. These monitors emit a loud tone followed by an audio message
explaining the emergency situation. The tone activated monitor system is also tested on the first
Wednesday of each month
148
Sedalia and Pettis County's primary Emergency Alert System (EAS) radio station is KDRO (AM)
and WOW (FM). Other radio and print medias support EAS activities. However; KDRO and
KPOW have live 24-hour broadcasters; KSIS (AM) and KSDL (FM) radio station does not.
The Pettis County community is in effective range of two NOAA Weather Radio transmitters, one
located in the Clinton area and the other in the Carrolton area. The signal for these transmitters
operates on 162.500 MHZ. NOAA Weather Radios are installed in all public buildings in Pettis
County, to include the Missouri State Fair. The EMD has the authority to contact the National
Weather Service Forecast Office, Pleasant Hill, Missouri, to request broadcast of emergency
information when necessary.
Hazardous Materials Response Team (HAZMAT)
The Sedalia Fire Department Hazardous Material (HAZMAT) team is comprised of 16 team
members, and is recognized as a fully qualified response unit.
SKYWARN program
Sedalia and Pettis County is geographically in a region of the United States that is prone to
severe thunderstorms and tornadoes. Since 1950, more than 22 tornadoes have struck the area
resulting in heavy damage, hundreds of injuries, and one death. Severe thunderstorms have
caused millions in damage and flash flooding has killed 12 persons during the period. About 15
volunteers have participated in the SKYWARN severe weather spotter program. All have been
radio equipped and received annual training by the National Weather Service and in-house
programs. These spotters have been accredited by the Missouri Senate and House of
Representatives for saving untold numbers of lives over the last 30 years. The EMA
communications and operations center is fully staffed when SKYWARN spotters deploy across
the county (678 square miles). Radio repeater systems provide a stable communications
platform for spotter and community safety.
Pettis County Cares Program
The Pettis County Cares Program was developed in 2002. The primary focus of this program is
to address emergency situations and our community's homebound, isolated senior and special
needs persons. The EMA maintains a database of approximately 50 senior or special needs
participants who live alone without the assistance of nearby relatives or friends who can check on
them. The database also includes unique information about the participants, e.g., dependant on
external oxygen source. In addition, the participant receives a packet that includes instructions
and colored cardstock, each card contains large print text:
Bright Red
Yellow
Green
White
Need help immediately
Need help, but not an emergency
No help needed
No electrical power
149
During or after an emergency event, participants are instructed to place the cardstock in a
window that is visible from the nearest roadway. In addition, during or following an emergency,
Citizen Corps volunteers attempt to make telephone contact with the participants (if service is
available) and if the participant has a telephone. If not, Citizen Corps volunteers travel to
participant's homes to physically insure their well-being.
Critical Utilities Protection Plan (CUPP)
After the terrorist attacks in September 2001, each community established Citizen Corps. These
volunteers are trained to observe thirty key public and private utilities sites on 24-hour bases.
These sites include public water reservoirs, pipelines (connects east and west coasts), electrical
substations (some supply Whiteman Air Force Base), natural gas lines, and telephone switching
facilities. They are trained to relieve emergency service personnel.
Damage Assessment Technicians
All Citizen Corps volunteers are qualified American Red Cross Damage Assessment
Technicians. They are trained annually by the Red Cross to retain their proficiency. From time
to time during the year, in-house instruction is provided to fine-tune their damage assessment
skills. This is especially critical due to the region's high vulnerability to severe weather events,
and need for rapid damage assessment for appropriate assistance from state and federal agencies.
Responsibilities and Authorities
City and county governments have the following:
the legal basis for authorization to order an evacuation, redirect funds for emergency use,
order a curfew, and commandeer facilities and/or equipment and materials;
authorized lines of succession for the chief elected officials with power to initiate
necessary emergency activities;
substantially safeguarded vital records, although limited for records needed to
reconstitute local government;
a substantial analysis of the possible impacts of potential disasters;
a multi-hazard emergency operations plan;
limited completion of mutual aid agreements with neighboring jurisdictions; and
substantial protection of people with special needs.
Laws, Regulations and Policies Related to Development in Hazard-Prone Areas
Pettis County and the city of Sedalia have city and county codes and regulations that prohibit
construction in the flood plain. The ordinance is designed to safeguard health, safety and
property in times of flood; restrict avoidable increases in flood height or velocity; mitigate losses
at the time of construction of public facilities; and protect individuals from buying land unsuited
for the intended use due to flood hazards.
150
County Laws, Regulations and Policies Related to Hazard Mitigation in General
Current hazard mitigation policies in effect include building codes in the City of Sedalia under
Sedalia Municipal Ordinance 31-1 and the Flood Plain Management Program under Sedalia
Municipal Ordinance 6-166.
How Local Risk Assessments are Incorporated and Prioritized into Local Planning
Risk assessments from the approved Hazard Mitigation Plan are also used in local planning. The
county has recognized the danger and economic impact of severe winter storms. Clearing snow
and ice from roadways is the main priority during winter storms. The County Road and Bridge
Department clears all county-maintained roads to reduce accidents and to ensure access to
employment. Additional warning capabilities are being studied to mitigate the impacts of flash
flooding, tornadoes, and severe thunderstorms.
Integration of Hazard Mitigation with the City/County Department’s Plans
City or county EOPs incorporate information from the Hazard Mitigation Plan in updating local
zoning, subdivision, and building code ordinances. They are integrated to mitigate damages,
prevent avoidable disasters, and reduce vulnerability of people and property to the effects of
disasters is reduced.
How the County Determines Cost-Effectiveness of Mitigation Programs
The cost-effectiveness of proposed mitigation actions is considered on a case-by-case basis. It is
dependent upon the scope of damages, estimated savings in future hazard events, the type of
mitigation project, and the probable hazard to human life in future events. A FEMA cost/benefit
analysis analysis is required for FEMA funded projects.
How Governments Meet Requirements for Hazard Mitigation Funding Programs
Governments will meet the requirements for hazard mitigation funding programs if the project
conforms to Missouri’s Hazard Mitigation Plan. Any project must provide a beneficial impact
on the disaster area, it must meet environmental requirements, solve the problem independently,
and must be cost-effective. Adoption of the Resolution of Intent to Participate in All-Hazard
Mitigation will insure that a county or municipality meets the requirements for hazard mitigation
program funding.
Areas Where Improvement is Needed
Sedalia and Pettis County have long histories of severe weather related events. Since 1950, at
least thirty-six (36) tornadoes have struck the community, two (2) of which were federally
declared disasters. The tornadoes resulted in millions in damage, hundreds of injuries, and three
(3) deaths. In addition, twelve (12) persons died as a result from flash flooding during or after
severe thunderstorms, which also caused millions in property damage. During the middle 1960s,
151
public schools, churches, and private organizations opened their basements to the public when
tornado conditions existed. However, since that time, liability issues forced this practice to
cease. Further aggravating the circumstances, Sedalia hosts the Missouri State Fair each year
during the month of August. For the most part, the fair is an outdoors event, which exposes fair
patrons and employees to possible severe weather. On busy weekends, more than 50,000 people
visit the 300-plus acre exposition. No public underground shelters are available. Severe
thunderstorms have caused numerous injuries and property damage in the past, and, in August
1952, a tornado all but destroyed the fairgrounds and killed one person.
The Sedalia-Pettis County Emergency Management Agency maintains twenty-six (26) outdoor
sirens, which are strategically positioned in the cities of Sedalia, Smithton, Green Ridge, La
Monte, Hughesville, and Houstonia, as well as selected unincorporated subdivisions. All sirens
are activated by radio signals originating from the Sedalia Police Department (Pettis County
Warning Point) and the EMA Emergency Operations Center (EOC). Local chief elected officials
approved a plan to replace the aging sirens. The plan commenced in 2000, however, due to
budget restraints, the plan has been suspended. Three (3) sirens were replaced under that
program with new, advanced technology sirens, which are equipped with a battery backup
system. The newer model sirens double the range of the older units.
During the spring of 2003, a violent outbreak of tornadoes slashed across a multi-state area
killing more than forty people. A weak tornado and numerous severe thunderstorms struck Pettis
County. No deaths occurred, but the severe weather caused considerable property damage.
Pettis County was included in a federal declaration of disaster. Pettis County became eligible for
federal disaster assistance. The EMA presented a mitigation project to Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) that included replacing the remainder of the outdoor sirens and
the construction of twelve (12) public shelters. The shelters were to be constructed on the
fairgrounds and all municipalities in the county. FEMA declined to approve the siren project,
but approved the shelter plan. However, the funds were a 75% federal and 25% local match.
Regretfully, state fair, city, and county budgets could not support the 25% match. Although, the
projects did not get off the ground, the need is clear. Local officials continue to explore ways
and means of fund the projects.
County and Municipal Policies and Development Trends
The table below shows the jurisdictions that have zoning, building regulations, storm water
regulations, earthquake regulations, and floodplain regulations.
152
Table 48
Table 49
153
154
Funding Sources
There are several sources of funding for both pre- and post-disaster hazard mitigation policies
and projects. All mitigation techniques will likely save money by avoiding losses. However, the
cost of implementing mitigation efforts can be substantial and well beyond the local
government’s capacity to fund. There are federal and state funding programs that can be utilized
for funding assistance. Following is a list of some sources of funding presently available. This
list is not comprehensive. New programs will be developed, and existing programs will be
eliminated or modified.
Federal Sources
PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PROGRAM
Through 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, overseen by FEMA, provides funding
to states and communities for cost-effective hazard mitigation activities that complement a
comprehensive mitigation program, and reduce injuries, loss of life, and damage and destruction
of property.
FLOOD MITIGATION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
FEMA’S Flood Mitigation Assistance Program (FMA) provides funding to assist states and
communities in implementing measures to reduce or eliminate the long-term risk of flood
damage to buildings, manufactured homes, and other structures insurable under the National
Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). 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. FMA is a pre-disaster grant program, and is made available to states on an annual basis.
This funding is exclusively available for mitigation planning and implementation of mitigation
measures.
Criteria: Community must be a participant in NFIP; the project must be cost effective, beneficial
to the NFIP fund, and technically feasible. The project must conform to the minimum standards
of the NFIP Floodplain Management Regulations, the applicant’s Flood Mitigation Plan, and all
applicable laws and regulations.
HAZARD MITIGATION GRANT PROGRAM
FEMA’s 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.
155
Criteria: Project must conform to State’s Hazard Mitigation Plan, provide a beneficial impact on
the disaster area, meet environmental requirements, solve a problem independently, and be costeffective.
MITIGATION TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS (MTAP)
There are three major mitigation technical assistance programs (MTAPs) that provide technical
support to state/local communities through FEMA Regional and Headquarters Mitigation staff in
support of mitigation initiatives. These programs include the Hazard Mitigation Technical
Assistance Program (HMTAP), the National Earthquake Technical Assistance Program
(NETAP), and the Wind and Water Technical Assistance Program (WAWTAP). They provide
the technical support that is necessary to mitigate against potential loss of lives and minimize the
amount of damage as a result of a disaster.
The HMTAP provides assistance to FEMA’s Headquarters and Regional Mitigation Staff. This
multi-hazards program was designed to provide architectural, engineering, and other mitigation
related technical assistance in support of post disaster mitigation initiatives.
The NETAP is a technical assistance program created to provide ad hoc short-term architectural
and engineering support to state/local communities as they are related to earthquake mitigation.
The program was designed to enhance the state/local communities’ ability to become more
resistant to seismic hazards. This assistance cannot be used for actions that are covered under the
State’s/Territories Performance Partnership Agreement (PPA). This program assists in carrying
out the statutory authorities of the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act of 1977, as
amended.
The WAWTAP is a technical assistance program created to provide ad hoc short-term assistance
in support of the hurricane and flood programs. The program was designed to enhance the
state/local communities’ ability to become more resistant to hazards related to flooding and
hurricanes. This assistance cannot be used for actions that are covered under the
State’s/Territories Performance Partnership Agreement (PPA). This program assists in carrying
out the statutory authorities of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 and the Flood Disaster
Protection Act of 1973.
Criteria: State participation in the Flood Program
SBA DISASTER ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
The purpose of the Pre-Disaster Mitigation Loan Program is to make low-interest, fixed rate
loans to eligible small businesses for the purpose of implementing mitigation measures to protect
business property from damage that may be caused by future disasters. The program is a pilot
program, which supports FEMA’s Pre-Disaster Mitigation Program. SBA’s Pre -Disaster
Mitigation Program is available to businesses whose proposed mitigation measure conforms to
the priorities and goals of the mitigation plan for the community, as defined by FEMA, in which
the business is located. Because the program has been approved only for limited funding,
156
approved loan requests will be funded on a first-come, first-served basis up to the limit of the
program funds.
Criteria: A Presidential disaster declaration or an SBA administrative declaration must be made.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANTS
HUD’s Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program provides grants to local
governments for community and economic development projects that primarily benefit low-and
moderate-income people. The CDBG program also provides grants for post disaster hazard
mitigation and recovery following a Presidential disaster declaration.
Criteria: CBDG eligible communities (generally communities with under 50,000 population and
counties under 200,000 population) located within a Presidential disaster declaration area.
DISASTER MITIGATION PLANNING AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE
Administered by the Department of commerce, Economic Development, these grants are
primarily designed for economic development initiatives, but are applicable to hazard mitigation
when the focus is on creating disaster resistant jobs and workplaces. Also, these monies are
applicable because often projects related to developing infrastructure are also making the
community more disaster resistant.
EMERGENCY WATERSHED PROTECTION
The Department of Agriculture’s National Resources Conservation Service administers this
program. Emergency Watershed Protection Program (EWP) provides financial assistance to
sponsors and individuals in implementing emergency measures to relieve imminent hazards to
life and property created by a natural disaster. Activities include providing financial and
technical assistance to remove debris from streams, protect destabilized stream banks, and the
purchase of flood plain easements. The program is designed for installation of recovery
measures. It is not necessary for a national emergency to be declared to be eligible for assistance.
WATERSHED SURVEYS AND PLANNING PROGRAM
The Department of Agriculture’s Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) heads this
program. It provides financial assistance for watershed planning activities and cooperative river
basin surveys and investigations. Types of plans include flood hazard analyses, and flood plain
management assistance, with a focus on identifying solutions that use conservation practice and
nonstructural measures to solve resource problems.
157
State Sources
WATER AND SEWER GRANT PROGRAMS
MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF ECONMIC DEVELOPMENT
The Department of Economic Development offers grants to enhance infrastructure such as water
and sewer lines. These grants might be particularly helpful in protecting against drought by
connecting disparate water sources and thereby providing multiple water sources to isolated
communities. These monies might also be helpful in providing adequate protection of sewage
treatment plants from the risk of flood or separation of storm water from combined sewer lines.
EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT/MITIGATION TRAINING
STATE EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
The State Emergency Management Agency (SEMA) offers grants for training jurisdictions in
hazard mitigation, preparedness, and planning. These funds are used for training appropriate staff
in identifying projects best suited for mitigation.
PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PROJECT IMPACT
SEMA funds are provided to assist communities with technical assistance in the development of
a sustained pre-disaster mitigation program. Funds can be used for planning mitigation initiatives
and providing technical “know-how” in the construction of mitigation projects.
HAZARD MITIGATION GRANT PROGRAM
SEMA funds are available to communities for implementing long-term hazard mitigation
measures following a disaster declaration. It is thought that after a major disaster, communities
will be able to identify where things can be done to prevent losses in the future.
PUBLIC ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
These SEMA grants are designed to provide funds to repair damaged infrastructure and public
facilities. Funds can also be used to reinstate government services impacted by a natural hazard
event. This program can fund the repair of damaged components of a structure.
DISASTER RECOVERY INITIATIVE
MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
The Missouri Department of Economic Development (DED) provides this grant program to
bridge funding gaps in recovery assistance after a disaster. These funds can also be used to fund
gaps in a mitigation development program.
158
SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION PROGRAM
MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
The Missouri Department of Natural Resources (DNR), through the Soil and Water Conservation
Program, offer grants, cost share programs, and low interest loans to agencies and property
owners to plan and implement best practices to reduce soil erosion and improve water quality.
Practices that facilitate slower release of water upstream mitigate downstream flood hazards. The
programs are generally applicable to rural and agricultural environments.
Local Sources
Municipal and county governments can provide funds for projects through their general revenue
fund and through a dedicated capital improvement and/or transportation sales/use tax. Special
taxing districts, such as a Neighborhood Improvement District (NID), can be formed if practical,
to assess property owners for a portion of the cost of improvements.
Non-governmental
Other potential sources of revenue for implementing local mitigation projects are monetary
contributions from nonprofit organizations such as the American Red Cross, community relief
funds, churches, charitable trusts, and land trusts.
Conclusion
There are many sources of funding available for hazard mitigation projects. Those identified
here, while they are significant, do not comprise all potential sources. It should be noted that new
programs can become available, and existing programs can be modified or dropped. Many funds
available are leveraged with “local” matching funds at various contribution percentages.
Diligence in keeping abreast of changes in funding opportunities will be necessary to institute
hazard mitigation projects that take advantage of non-local funds.
159
Section 4
This section is organized with general goals that are to be met by accomplishing the
accompanying objectives, actions and subsequent strategies. An action matrix has been included
for Pettis County. It provides a reference for the jurisdiction during the implementation process.
It identifies each goal, objective and strategy, identifies the hazards addressed by each strategy,
type of strategy, target completion date, responsible party/organization for implementation,
potential funding source, prioritization, as well as monitoring and evaluation indicators. Specific
information on potential funding sources is found in Section 3 of the Pettis County Hazard
Mitigation Plan Update.
Introduction to Mitigation
Pettis County is subject to many types of hazards: flooding, tornado/severe windstorm, winter
storm, earthquake/landslide, dam failure, drought, heat wave, and an occasional wildfire. Allhazard mitigation planning is the process associated with devising strategies needed to mitigate
the damages associated with these disasters.
Definition of Mitigation
Mitigation is defined as “sustained action that reduces or eliminates long-term risk to people and
property from hazards and their effects.” It describes the ongoing efforts at the Federal, State,
local and individual levels to lessen the impact of disasters upon family homes, jurisdictions and
the economy.
Mitigation includes not only avoiding the development of hazard prone sections of the
jurisdiction, but also making existing development in hazard prove areas safer. Certain areas in
some jurisdictions are susceptible to damage from hazards. As such, steps are taken to make
these areas less vulnerable through flood buyouts.
Jurisdictions can steer growth to less risky areas, through non-structural measures such as
avoiding construction in flood-prone areas. Keeping buildings and people out of harm’s way is
the essence of mitigation. Incorporating mitigation into decisions relating to a jurisdiction’s
growth can result in a safer, more resilient jurisdiction, and one that is more attractive to families
and businesses.
Categories of Mitigation
Mitigation categories are grouped into six categories.
Prevention
Prevention measures are intended to keep a hazard risk problem from getting worse; it
ensures future development does not increase losses. Some examples include: planning
160
and zoning, open space preservation, land development regulations, and storm water
management.
Property Protection
These measures are used to modify buildings and other surroundings subject to hazard
risk or their surroundings, rather than prevent the hazard from occurring. These measures
protect people and property at risk. Some examples include: acquisition/public
procurement and management of lands that are vulnerable to damage from hazards;
relocation/permanent evacuation of hazard prone areas to safer areas; rebuilding and
modifying structures to reduce damage by future hazard events; flood proofing or
protection of flood prone buildings, using various methods.
Natural Resource Protection
These measures are intended to reduce the intensity of hazard effects and to improve the
quality of the environment and wildlife. Parks, recreation, conservation agencies and
similar organizations implement these activities. Some examples of this mitigation
measure include: erosion and sediment control, and wetlands protection.
Structural Projects
These measures directly protect people and property at risk. They are called structural
because they involve construction of manmade structures to control hazards. Structural
projects for flood control include reservoirs, levees/floodwalls, diversions, channel
modifications, and storm sewers.
Public Information
Public information activities inform and remind citizens about hazardous areas and
measures needed to avoid damage and injury. This information is directed to present and
future property owners, present and future business owners, and visitors. Some examples
of public information activities include providing hazard maps and other information;
outreach hazard mitigation programs through newspapers, radio/TV/videotape, mass
mailings, notices/displays, property owner handbook, presentations; real estate
disclosure, public library, technical assistance, and school age and adult education
classes.
Mitigation Versus Preparedness
Mitigation differs from preparedness in that mitigation is designed to address long-term activities
that reduce or eliminate a hazard and/or a hazard’s damages. Examples include development and
implementation of a hazard mitigation plan, promoting/developing tornado safe rooms,
promoting/developing business continuity plans, rerouting transportation of HAZMAT materials,
development/enforcement of building/fire seismic and flood codes, and promoting flood buyouts
or retrofit projects. Preparedness activities occur at the pre-disaster stage and addresses response
and recovery activities. These activities include an inventory of local resources,
161
development/implementation of training citizens, design/conduct and evaluate responder
exercises; development of resource lists and procurement resources; development of unified
incident command agreements and development of mutual aid agreements
Mitigation Versus Response and Recovery
Mitigation differs from response/recovery in that mitigation addresses long-term activities that
reduce or eliminate a hazard and/or a hazard’s damages, such as explained in the above
paragraph. Response and recovery activities occur at the disaster’s onset and during the postdisaster time frame. Response activities include immediate actions that save lives, protect
property and stabilize the situation. They include alerting, securing and aiding the public,
mobilizing emergency personnel and equipment, implementing plans and protective actions,
assessment of the disaster, activating the incident command system and response and react to the
disaster’s effects. Recovery activities occur after the disaster has occurred. Activities ensure
that all systems return to normal. Such activities include damage assessment, removal of debris,
and development of after action reports and disaster assistance grants.
Mitigation Plan Benefits
Hazard mitigation planning offers many benefits. These include saving lives and property;
meeting the needs/policies of each specific jurisdiction; educating officials, public and partners;
reducing vulnerability to future hazards; guiding and speeding post disaster recovery; enhancing
funding opportunities (HMGP, flood mitigation plan credit for FMA and CRS programs,
NOAA/NWS Storm Ready credit, NRCS/DNR/COE/CDBG grants); promoting public
participation; placing mitigation projects in the budget; helping keep projects and spending on
track; focusing jurisdiction disaster mitigation efforts; guiding post disaster recovery; employing
pro-active approaches to minimize adverse effects of disasters; evaluating hazards and risks; and
determining mitigation needs and capabilities, solutions, activities and projects.
National Flood Plain Insurance Program
The following communities participate in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP):
NFIP – Table 50
CID
290823
290701
290823
290526
290575
Jurisdiction
Pettis
County
La Monte
Sedalia
Smithton
Houstonia
Map Date
1984
1994
1996
1984
1976
Ordinance
Compliance
w/NFIP
Update
Needed
No
No
No
No
No
CRS
Member
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
Table 50
162
None of the jurisdictions that participate in the NFIP are currently in the Community Rating
System. Green Ridge and Hughesville do not participate in the NFIP because they do not have
any designated SFHAs. In order to continue compliance with the NFIP, participating
jurisdictions in Pettis County take the following actions:
Continued enforcement of floodplain ordinance
Regulation of development in the floodplain
Encouragement of public awareness
Encourage local government to buy out Repetitive Loss Properties (Mainly in Sedalia)
Floodplain identification and mapping (integration of floodplain management and GIS
departments)
Pettis County Hazard Mitigation Goals, Objectives, Strategies
The development of the updated goals, objectives, and actions for the 2011 Plan Update began
with review of the previously approved plan’s goals, objectives, and actions. These strategies
promoted hazard mitigation, impact reduction, and other hazard mitigation goals. The 2011
Update will address mitigation strategies for flooding, tornado/severe windstorm, winter storm,
earthquake, dam failure, drought, heat wave and wildfire, which were the same hazards
addressed in the previously approved plan. Pettis County’s mitigation goals in the 2005 plan
were derived from conferences with emergency managers, jurisdiction stakeholders as well as
the key planning documents (i.e. Emergency Operations Plan, Official Master Plan, floodplain
and building ordinances and the meetings and workshops conducted on June 13 and October 17,
2003 during the development of the Regional All-Hazard Mitigation Plan. It was determined
that the three 2005 plan goals remained valid for inclusion in the 2011 Plan Update, with
addition of a fourth goal with objectives and actions.
The mitigation goals in the 2005 Plan included the following:
o Protect the lives and livelihood of all citizens.
o Manage growth through sustainable principles and practices.
o Ensure continued operation of government and emergency functions in a disaster.
The goal that was added to the Plan Update was to “preserve and maintain property,
infrastructure, businesses and jurisdiction vitality.” It was added in order to preserve and
maintain property, infrastructure, businesses and jurisdiction vitality. Several objectives and
actions were added to the new goal to ensure accomplishment of the goal. These were property
protection education, encouragement of additional underground power lines, utilization of GIS in
future planning, updated codes to be developed around hazard mitigation, and coordination of
emergency communication plans.
The goals, objectives, and actions from the 2005 Plan were as follows:
GOAL 1: Protect the lives and livelihoods of all citizens.
Objective 1.1: Provide sufficient warning systems.
163
Action 1.1.1: Identify geographic areas in need of additional warning systems and
acquire needed equipment.
Action 1.1.2: Improve flood alerting system capabilities.
Objective 1.2: Decrease the occurrence and impact of flooding.
Action 1.2.1: Encourage property owners and occupants in hazard areas to participate
in mitigation policy formulation.
Action 1.2.2: Target any remaining repetitive flood loss properties for buyout.
Action 1.2.3: Promote environmentally-sound watershed and storm water practices to
decrease flash flooding.
Action 1.2.4: Strengthen floodplain regulations.
Objective 1.3: Increase knowledge of safety measures among employers and the general public.
Action 1.3.1: Promote the use of hazard area maps by the public.
Action 1.3.2: Identify ways to promote FEMA safety tips and mitigation techniques.
Objective 1.4: Increase and maintain appropriate emergency equipment.
Action 1.4.1: Review and upgrade, as needed, policies for identifying and budgeting
additional emergency equipment.
Action 1.4.2: Execute and maintain mutual aid agreements with all relevant agencies.
Action 1.4.3: Review and upgrade redundancies for the 911 Center/EOC.
Objective 1.5: Protect residential structures.
Action 1.5.1: Decrease wildfire risk in areas where development is adjacent to forests or
grasslands by incorporating buffer zones into subdivision regulations.
Action 1.5.2: Promote the use of environmentally-sound, fire-resistant materials.
Action 1.5.3: Identify existing mechanisms to promote NFIP policies and earthquake/
seismic insurance.
Objective 1.6: Protect employment and commercial facilities:
Action 1.6.1: Encourage construction of tornado safe rooms.
Action 1.6.2: Encourage up-to-date commercial and industrial disaster plans that are
coordinated with community disaster plans.
Action 1.6.3: Encourage operation and infrastructure backup systems for commercial
and industrial businesses.
GOAL 2: Manage growth through sustainable principles and practices.
Objective 2.1: Reduce and prevent degradation of, or conflicts with, natural resources.
Action 2.1.1: To reduce the effects of flash flooding and drought, promote construction
and use practices that facilitate rainwater percolation into local water tables.
Action 2.1.2: Encourage best practices for drought-resistant farming.
Action 2.1.3: Implement measures to increase the county’s CRS status.
Action 2.1.4: Resolve any existing environmental conflicts and take steps to prevent
future conflicts.
Action 2.1.5: Work with DNR to identify primary maintenance techniques for earthen
dams and encourage their use.
GOAL #3: Ensure continued operation of government and emergency functions in a disaster.
Objective 3.1: Strengthen critical structures and infrastructures.
Action 3.1.1: Review, prioritize, institute and monitor needed upgrades or retrofits for
critical buildings and infrastructures.
Action 3.1.2: Review emergency access routes and evacuation routes and mitigate any
problem areas.
164
Objective 3.2: Strengthen multi-jurisdictional cooperation among emergency agencies.
Action 3.2.1: Identify, review, and implement mechanisms to foster collaboration among
jurisdictions, agencies and special districts.
The Planning Committee reviewed the above strategy for progress since the approval of the 2005
Plan. Overall, there were a number of successful mitigation actions that were accomplished from
2004 to 2010. A tornado warning siren was installed in the City of Houstonia to provide
adequate notification for residents to seek shelter (Action 1.1.1). The County also participated in
the “Ready in 3” program with the Missouri Department of Health and Human Services
(Objective 1.3). The program encourages residents to (1) develop a plan for hazard
preparedness, (2) preparation of a hazard kit, and (3) listening for broadcasted information
relating to hazard events. The program ensures that residents are ready for potential hazards that
have been identified in this plan. Several community tornado safe rooms have also been
constructed in the County, as indicated in Table 51 below (Objective 1.6).
Table 51
Shelter
Sq. Ft
Capacity
La Monte
Address
City
300 W. Front
St.
La Monte
5,000
1,000
Houstonia
305 W. Tuck
Houstonia
3,000
800
Maplewood
3174 Hwy TT
Sedalia
5,000
1,000
Hughesville
16215 Hwy H
Hughesville 3,000
800
Smithton
105 E Marvin
Smithton
5,000
1,000
Greenridge
401 W. Pettis
Greenridge
2505 W 32nd
St.
Sedalia
3,000
800
7,500
1,800
200 E Clay
7,500
1,800
Skyline
North
Sedalia
Sedalia
Several additional mitigation actions were proposed for the Update, and discussed by all
participants. Certain mitigation goals, objectives, and actions were added to or removed from
the previously approved 2005 plan. In order to determine the status of implementation of the
2005 mitigation strategy, discussion was held during public meetings and conversations with
local officials were conducted. The 2005 goals, objectives, and actions were reviewed
individually. It was determined that the mitigation strategy would include one new goal, and
several new objectives, while eliminating a few actions from the 2005 Plan.
Items changed from the previously approved 2005 mitigation action plan include:
Action 1.1.2 was changed from “Improve flood alerting system capabilities” to “Acquire
flood alerting system capabilities.” This was done because the county needs to acquire a
165
new flood alerting system.
Action 1.1.3 was added to the plan to reflect local activity in the “Ready in 3” program.
Action 3.1.3 was added in order to encourage-up-to-date mapping of critical facilities.
Action 1.5.1 was in the previously approved plan was as follows: “Decrease wildfire risk
in areas where development is adjacent to forests or grasslands by incorporating buffer
zones into subdivision regulations.” That action was deleted from plan due to the small
risk of wildfire in the planning area and the fact that development trends are occurring
mainly east of Sedalia.
Action 1.5.3 was stated in the previously approved plan as “Identify existing mechanisms
to promote NFIP policies and earthquake/seismic insurance.” This was changed to
eliminate “earthquake/seismic insurance” because of the limited risk of earthquakes in
the County.
All other goals and objectives from the 2005 Plan were deemed viable to continue mitigation of
natural hazards. Most goals, objectives, and actions are continuing and ongoing, and were
carried over to the updated plan.
The goals, objectives, and actions identified in the previously approved plan and the 2011
Update were developed through a multi-step process.
o Hazard identification and analysis (identification of the hazards most prevalent of
the area and following the area).
o Area vulnerability assessment (identification the areas of the jurisdiction most
vulnerable to the previously identified hazards).
o Jurisdictional capability assessment questionnaire (assessment identified the steps
the jurisdiction had taken toward reducing their vulnerability to hazards by
reviewing the jurisdiction’s legal, institutional, political, technical and fiscal
capability. This step identified the jurisdiction’s capability to implement future
mitigation measures.)
The Planning Committee established a final list of goals, objectives, and actions for participants
of the 2011 Plan Update. They are listed as follows.
GOAL 1: Protect the lives and livelihoods of all citizens.
Objective 1.1: Provide sufficient warning systems.
Action 1.1.1: Identify geographic areas in need of additional warning systems and
acquire needed equipment.
Action 1.1.2: Acquire flood alerting system capabilities.
Objective 1.2: Decrease the occurrence and impact of flooding.
Action 1.2.1: Encourage property owners and occupants in hazard areas to participate in
mitigation policy formulation.
Action 1.2.2: Target any remaining repetitive flood loss properties for buyout.
Action 1.2.3: Promote environmentally-sound watershed and storm water practices to
decrease flash flooding.
166
Action 1.2.4: Strengthen floodplain regulations.
Objective 1.3: Increase knowledge of safety measures among employers and the
general public.
Action 1.3.1: Promote the use of hazard area maps by the public.
Action 1.3.2: Identify ways to promote FEMA safety tips and mitigation techniques.
Action 1.3.3: Utilize the “Ready in 3” program to ensure enhanced public awareness of
disaster situations
Objective 1.4: Increase and maintain appropriate emergency equipment.
Action 1.4.1: Review and upgrade, as needed, policies for identifying and budgeting
additional emergency equipment.
Action 1.4.2: Execute and maintain mutual aid agreements with all relevant agencies.
Action 1.4.3: Review and upgrade redundancies for the 911 Center/EOC.
Objective 1.5: Protect residential structures.
Action 1.5.1: Promote the use of environmentally-sound, fire-resistant materials.
Action 1.5.2:
Identify existing mechanisms to promote NFIP policies and
earthquake/seismic insurance.
Objective 1.6: Protect employment and commercial facilities:
Action 1.6.1: Encourage construction of tornado safe rooms.
Action 1.6.2: Encourage up-to-date commercial and industrial disaster plans that are
coordinated with community disaster plans.
Action 1.6.3: Encourage operation and infrastructure backup systems for commercial
and industrial businesses.
GOAL 2: Manage growth through sustainable principles and practices.
Objective 2.1: Reduce and prevent degradation of, or conflicts with, natural resources.
Action 2.1.1: To reduce the effects of flash flooding and drought, promote
construction and use practices that facilitate rainwater percolation into local water
tables.
Action 2.1.2: Encourage best practices for drought-resistant farming.
Action 2.1.3: Implement measures to increase the county’s CRS status.
Action 2.1.4: Resolve any existing environmental conflicts and take steps to prevent
future conflicts.
Action 2.1.5: Work with DNR to identify primary maintenance techniques for
earthen dams and encourage their use.
GOAL 3:
disaster.
Ensure continued operation of government and emergency functions in a
Objective 3.1: Strengthen critical structures and infrastructures.
Action 3.1.1: Review, prioritize, institute and monitor needed upgrades or
retrofits for critical buildings and infrastructures.
167
Action 3.1.2: Review emergency access routes and evacuation routes and
mitigate any problem areas.
Action 3.1.3: Encourage up to date mapping of critical facilities for official and
public review
Objective 3.2: Strengthen multi-jurisdictional cooperation among emergency
agencies.
Action 3.2.1: Identify, review, and implement mechanisms to foster collaboration
among jurisdictions, agencies and special districts.
Goal #4: Preserve and maintain property, infrastructure, businesses and jurisdiction
vitality.
Objective 4.1 Reduce or prevent impacts from hazards on private properties
Action 4.1.1: Educate residents on property protection from hazards
Action 4.1.2:
Encourage utilities, communications developers to construct
undergrounds lines
Action 4.1.3: Jurisdiction planning departments encouraged to use hazard maps with
developers, home buyers, construction and engineers
Objective 4.2
Action 4.2.1: Encourage jurisdictions to adopt new codes and enforce current codes
and ordinances for all hazards
Action 4.2.2: Encourage emergency response agencies and districts to relocate
facilities away from geographically redundant areas
Action 4.2.3: Encourage jurisdiction agencies to coordinate communications plans
The following table provides an analysis of the County’s proposed 2011 Plan mitigation actions.
Each action was reviewed according to the STAPLEE criteria. STAPLEE criteria include:
Social, Technical, Administrative, Political, Legal, Economic and Environmental considerations.
The asterisks in the columns on the right indicate the action would have a positive effect. Note
that the Planning Committee that all actions positively impacted each element of the STAPLEE
criteria. The next plan update will include a more detailed prioritization of actions that will be
specific to each participating jurisdiction.
Table 51
168
169
Strategic implementation
The goals, objectives, and actions steer the plan toward group involvement of individual
communities, chambers of commerce, large employers, etc. All actions shown above were found
to be cost-effective, environmentally sound, and technically feasible. An economic evaluation
was also performed in order to select higher priority actions from among the many competing
ones. The Planning Committee assessed the economic impact of one action compared to
another, compared varying costs, examined possible available funding to achieve the actions, and
examined the actions for adherence to local economic goals for each community. The results of
this activity and the STAPLEE analysis are illustrated in the tables beginning on page 171.
The following set of underlying operating principles will improve fiscal and operational
efficiency, help maintain a focus on the greater goal of overall community well-being, and help
ensure implementation. Local government will be responsible for reviewing on at least an
annual basis the natural hazard mitigation plan during city council meetings. The annual review
will ensure that development and ordinance revision occurs with incorporation of mitigation
actions when appropriate. The public will have the opportunity to review the Plan Update on the
Pioneer Trails Regional Planning website and at their local emergency management office.
Public input into plan maintenance will be encouraged at city council meetings during the course
of the plan update cycle.
Each action will be implemented according to the following strategies.
Incorporate mitigation objectives into existing and future plans, regulations, programs and
projects.
Promote and encourage collaboration between disparate agencies and departments to create a
synergism that results in benefits that would not be possible through a single agency.
Employ sustainable principles and techniques in the implementation of each objective to
attain maximum benefits. For example, watershed protection decreases the incidence and
severity of flood.
Create and implement an action prioritization process that includes monetary, environmental,
and sociological considerations in the event of a disaster.
170
Ensure implementation through inclusion in adoption resolution
The county’s Hazard Mitigation Plan will be implemented by the Pettis County Commission and
its delegates. The implementation process will include coordination among county departments.
It will be coordinated with other relevant agencies or districts through the county’s Emergency
Management Agency. The county will set up a system to monitor progress and evaluate the
effectiveness of implemented actions with revisions as needed. Every five years, the county will
review the plan and include any needed updates. The updated plan will be submitted for
SEMA/FEMA approval.
In addition, the plan will continually be reviewed for any necessary updates following any major
disasters that occur within the county.
Analysis and prioritization of mitigation actions
Pettis County’s mitigation actions promote and/or support the development of local hazard
mitigation plans, projects and activities. Examples include encouraging inclusion of hazard
mitigation principles in local building codes, emergency operation plans, master plans, planning
and zoning ordinances, floodplain ordinances, local disaster plans, local mitigation plans, and
commercial/industrial disaster plans.
The following matrix provides an analysis and prioritization of the county’s natural hazard
mitigation goals, objectives, and actions. The matrix also illustrates the relationship between the
state’s identified hazards and the county’s mitigation actions. All actions will be coordinated,
where applicable, with Missouri’s mitigation actions.
Criteria for prioritization, in addition to the previously stated elements of the STAPLEE analysis,
areas follow:
Historically, Pettis County has been most affected by tornado/thunderstorms followed in
severity by flooding, severe winter storm, drought, and heat wave. The risk of earthquake,
dam failure, and wildfire must be addressed even though the county has not yet experienced
these hazards; and
Some actions may be high priorities, but will require a lengthy process of preparatory steps
(for example, researching alternative techniques or education for community acceptance).
Therefore, these types of actions will show up as a “high” priority with a somewhat distance
future target date for completion.
NOTE: All actions affect the county jurisdiction in some way. Therefore, county involvement is
assumed for all of the items on the following Action Matrix.
Following are definitions for some of the terms used in the tables beginning on page 171.
Priority: High – to be completed within the next 2 years
Medium – to be completed within the next 5 years
Low – to be started within the next 5 years
171
One of the last columns in the tables beginning on page 171 is labeled “Evaluation.” This
column sets forth how progress in action implementation will be evaluated.
Certain hazards can impact individual participating jurisdictions more than the county as a
whole. In the table below, the column on the far left designated “Community” lists the
communities that have chosen to accept the listed action. They are coded as follows:
Sd = Sedalia
Gr = Green Ridge
Ho = Houstonia
Hu = Hughesville
Sm = Smithton
Lm = La Monte
A = Every incorporated area could be affected or involved
172
Warning coverage maps
Emergency
Services
Revised from the
2005 Plan
Low; Continuing
EMA Director; County
Flood Plain Manager
govt. program
funds/private funding
Warning coverage maps
X
Public Information
Same action from
2005 Plan
High; Continuing
Flood Plain Manager
Attendance records
X
Same action from
2005 Plan
Same action from
2005 Plan
X
X
X
Wildfire
govt. program
Dam Failure
EMA Director
Evaluation
Earthquake
Medium;
Continuing
Potential Funding
Sources
Heat Wave
Same action from
2005 Plan
Probable Lead
Organizer
Drought
Emergency
Services
Priority Rank
and Current
Status
Winter
Type of Strategy
Flood
Action
Natural Hazards
New to the
Update, Revised
from the 2005
Plan, Same as
2005 Plan
Tornado
Community
Pettis County Hazard Mitigation Update Actions Matrix
Goal 1: Protect the lives and livelihoods of
all citizens
Objective 1.1: Provide sufficient warning systems
HO
Action 1.1.1: Identify geographic areas in need of
additional warning systems and acquire needed
equipment
A
Action 1.1.2: Acquire flood alerting system
capabilities
Objective 1.2 Decrease the occurrence and impact
of flooding
Action 1.2.1: Encourage property owners and
occupants in hazard areas to participate in
mitigation policy formulation
Action 1.2.2: Promote environmentally-sound
watershed and storm water practices to decrease
flash flooding
A
Action 1.2.3: Strengthen floodplain regulations
Public Information
Property
Protection
A
Objective 1.3 Increase knowledge of safety
measures among employers and the general public
Action 1.3.1: Promote the use of hazard area maps
and community shelter area maps by the public
Natural Resource
Protection
A
A
Low
County Floodplain
Manager
County Floodplain
Manager
Govt. program funds
govt. program
Flooding reports
Updates completed/revisions
adopted
Same action from
2005 Plan
Low
EMA Director
Internal Funds
Data Collection and publication
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Public Information
Same action from
2005 Plan
Low
EMA Director
Internal Funds
Seasonal information distributed
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Public Information
New
Medium;
Continuing
EMA Director
Internal Funds
Installation and training with
program
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Emergency
Services
Same action from
2005 Plan
High; Continuing
EMA Director
Govt. program funds
Policy drafted and approved
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
High; Continuing
EMA Director
Internal Funds
Agreements in place and/or
removed
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Internal Funds
Backups have been installed
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
High; Continuing
A
Action 1.3.2: Identify ways to promote FEMA safety
tips and mitigation techniques
Action 1.3.3: Utilize the Ready in 3 program to
ensure enhanced public awareness of disaster
situations
Objective 1.4 Increase and maintain appropriate
emergency equipment
1.4.1: Review and upgrade, as needed, policies for
identifying and budgeting additional emergency
equipment
A
1.4.2: Execute and maintain mutual aid agreements
with all relevant agencies
Emergency
Services
Same action from
2005 Plan
SD
1.4.3: Review and upgrade redundancies for the
911 Center/EOC
Emergency
Services
Same action from
2005 Plan
High; Continuing
EMA Director; 9-1-1
Director
Property
Protection
Same action from
2005 Plan
Low; Continuing
EMA Director; Jurisdiction
Building Enforcement
Internal Funds
Added to building regulations
Property
Protection
Revised from 2005
Plan
Low; Continuing
County Floodplain
Manager; Jurisdiction
Floodplain Managers
Internal Funds
Added to floodplain regulations
A
A
A
A
Objective 1.5 Protect residential structures
Action 1.5.1: Promote the use of environmentallysound, fire-resistant materials
Action 1.5.2: Identify existing mechanisms to
promote NFIP policies and continue to participate in
the NFIP if currently a participant [this is a
requirement for all HM Plans].
X
X
X
X
173
Objective 1.6 Protect employment and commercial
facilities
Structural Projects
Same action from
2005 Plan
Medium; 2011
EMA Director
Govt. program funds
Completed construction and
operation
X
Emergency
Services
Same action from
2005 Plan
Low; Continuing
EMA Director; City EMA
Director
Internal Funds
All facilities contacted and
procedure set in place
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Emergency
Services
Same action from
2005 Plan
Low; Continuing
EMA Director; City EMA
Director
Internal Funds
All facilities contacted and
procedure set in place
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Objective 2.1 Reduce and prevent degradation of,
or conflicts with, natural resources
Action 2.1.1: Reduce the effects of flash flooding
and drought by promoting construction and use
practices that facilitate rainwater percolation into
local water tables
Natural Resource
Protection
Same action from
2005 Plan
Low; Continuing
Floodplain Manager
Govt. program
Practices incorporated into
subdivision regulations
Action 2.1.2: Encourage best practices for droughtresistant farming.
Natural Resource
Protection
Same action from
2005 Plan
Medium;
Continuing
EMA Director
Govt. program
Workshops held and practices
publicized
Action 2.1.3: Implement measure to increase the
County's Community Rating System Status
Property
Protection
Same action from
2005 Plan
Medium; 2012
EMA Director
Internal funds
CRS status improved
X
Natural Resource
Protection
Same action from
2005 Plan
Medium; 2012
Floodplain Manager
Internal funds
Reduction in Existing Conflict
X
X
X
A
Action 2.1.4: Resolve any existing environmental
conflicts and take steps to prevent future conflicts
Action 2.1.5: Work with MO DNR to identify
primary maintenance techniques for earthen dams
and encourage their use
Natural Resource
Protection
Ongoing
Medium; 2011
EMA Director
Govt. program
Priorities set in place and Dam
owners contacted
A
Goal 3: Ensure continued operation of government
and emergency functions in a disaster
Objective 3.1 Strengthen critical structures and
infrastructures
Action 3.1.1: Review, prioritize and monitor needed
upgrades or retrofits for critical buildings and
infrastructures
Same action from
2005 Plan
High; Continuing
EMA Director
Govt. program funds/
private funding
Annual review/upgrade
A
Action 3.1.2: Review emergency access routes and
evacuation routes and mitigate any problem areas
Emergency
Services
Same action from
2005 Plan
High; Continuing
EMA Director
Internal funds
Annual review/upgrade
A
Action 3.1.3: Encourage up to date mapping of
critical facilities for official and public review
Public Education
New
Medium;
Continuing
EMA Director
Internal funds
Annual review/upgrade/publication
Emergency
Services
Same action from
2005 Plan
High; 2013
EMA Director
Internal funds
Public Education
New
Medium
EMA Director
Internal Funds
A
A
A
Action 1.6.1: Encourage construction of tornado
safe rooms
Action 1.6.2: Encourage up to date commercial and
industrial disaster plans that are coordinated with
community disaster plans
Action 1.6.3: Encourage operation and
infrastructure backup systems for commercial and
industrial businesses
Goal 2: Manage growth through sustainable
principles and practices
SD,
LM,
GR
HU,
SM,
GR
A
A
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Increase in agreements
X
X
X
X
X
X
Workshops held and practices
publicized
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Objective 3.2 Strengthen multi-jurisdictional
cooperation among emergency agencies
A
Action 3.2.1: Identify, review and implement
mechanisms to foster collaboration among
jurisdictions agencies and special districts
Goal 4: Preserve and maintain property,
infrastructure, businesses and jurisdiction vitality
Objective 4.1 Reduce or prevent impacts from
hazards on private properties
A
Action 4.1.1: Educate residents on property
protection from hazards
X
X
174
A
Action 4.1.2: Encourage utilities, communications
developers to construct underground lines
Prevention
New
Medium
EMA Director
Govt. program
Coordinate with utility compnaies
X
A
Action 4.1.3: Jurisdiction planning departments
encouraged to use hazard maps with developers,
home buyers, construction and engineers
Property
Protection
New
Low
County Commissioners and
Planners
Internal Funds
Coordinate planning departments
and publish maps
X
Property
Protection
New
Medium
City Commissioners
Internal funds
X
A
Objective 4.2 Reduce or prevent impacts from
hazards on public properties
Action 4.2.1: Encourage jurisdictions to adopt new
codes and enforce current codes and ordinances for
all hazards
Action 4.2.2: Encourage emergency response
agencies and districts to relocate facilities away
from geographically redundant areas
Prevention
New
High
EMA Director
Internal Funds
A
Action 4.2.3: Encourage jurisdiction agencies to
coordinate communications plans
Emergency
Services
Internal Funds
Communication plan
updated/completed
A
New
High
EMA Director
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
175
Some of the sources of federal funding for hazard mitigation projects are listed on the following
pages.
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 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 Declaration. The HMGP can be used to fund projects to protect
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:
www.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: www.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 the 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. The state then 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 funding
may be provided from in-kind contributions. More information on this program is available at:
www.fema.gov/government/grant/fma/
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: www.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 NFIP severe repetitive loss (SRL)
properties. 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 is available at: www.fema.gov/government/grant/srl/
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG)
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.
Monitoring, Evaluating, and Updating the Plan
For the 2011 Plan Update, Pettis County has developed a method to ensure regular review and
update of the Hazard Mitigation Plan. The Sedalia/Pettis County Emergency Management
Director (EMD) will include discussion of hazard mitigation objectives in the weekly meeting
with the County Commission as needed. If there is a need for a new Planning Committee to
work on the plan, the County Commission will appoint such. As planning and implementation
begins for each proposed action, the public will be encouraged to participate. The county will
publicize the various objectives and actions at hand by way of media coverage and published
reminders.
The County Commission and the EMD was responsible for monitoring and evaluating the
progress of the mitigation strategies in the previously approved 2005 plan. Regularly scheduled
monitoring activities were difficult to accomplish during the years after the 2005 plan. This was
because of limited resources, and the occurrence of presidentially declared disasters involving
177
the planning area. It is hoped that regularly scheduled monitoring activity will be possible after
approval of the Update.
The County Commission will continue to be responsible for monitoring and evaluation of the
2011 Update. They will review each goal, objective, and action to determine the relevance to
changing situations in the county. They will also be responsible for monitoring changes in State
or Federal policy, and to ensure that the plan is addressing current and expected conditions. The
Commission will review the risk assessment portion of the plan as warranted to determine if this
information should be updated or modified. The parties responsible for the various
implementation actions will report on the status of their projects and will include the
implementation processes that worked well, any difficulties encountered, how coordination
efforts were proceeding, and which strategies should be revised.
All meetings of the County Commission, City Councils, and Boards of Aldermen are public and
posted per the Sunshine Law of the State of Missouri. Pioneer Trails Regional Planning
Commission will continue to host any hazard mitigation announcements or information, as well
as posting a copy of the latest plan on the PTRPC website (http://www.trailsrpc.org).
It is planned that activities for updating the 2011 Plan will begin a year in advance of the
expiration of that plan. 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.
178
Appendix A: Signed Adoption Resolutions
179
Appendix B: Government Building/Facility Repetitive Loss Listings
180
Appendix C: Maps
181
Appendix D – Definitions
Building Regulations – These can be ordinances or codes that include four categories: zoning,
property maintenance, building rehabilitation and building construction. These codes govern the
use and maintenance of existing buildings (housing and fire codes). They also address health,
safety and welfare in existing buildings that are undergoing improvements. They also address
construction codes (building, mechanical, plumbing, and electrical standards) to ensure health,
safety and welfare. Building regulations are designed to ensure that buildings withstand natural
disasters including certain wind speeds as well as fire, flood and seismic hazards.
Emergency Operations Plan - A document prepared by the emergency management director of
a jurisdiction. The plan sets forth roles and responsibilities of all emergency responders in the
event of an emergency or disaster that may affect the area. The plan establishes a coordinated
approach to best utilize available resources and to incorporate State and Federal assistance, if
necessary.
Five hundred-year flood - A flood that has a 0.2 percent chance of occurring in any given year.
If a person lived for a thousand years, one might expect to see two floods of this magnitude.
Flood – Over bank flows of river water, when too much water is present to be confined to the
normal channel of the river. This may occur from headwater flows, heavy rains, snow melt or
backwater, as when a larger river, downstream is flooding. Lakes can flood, as when too much
water accumulates to drain off in the usual amount of time, so that shorelines are inundated. The
FEMA definition goes further and includes “inundation of normally dry land areas by water from
any source.” This would include stormwater puddling/ponding and rise of groundwater.
Floodplain - The area on either side of a river bed or channel, subject to inundation.
Floodplain Regulations - Regulations designed to protect human lives and property by
restricting the construction of buildings within the floodplain. The most important responsibility
of local governments that participate in the National Flood Insurance Program is that of adopting
and enforcing local floodplain management regulations Enactment of a floodplain management
ordinance is essential for participation in the program. It is the sine qua non for federal disaster
relief after a devastating flood. Accordingly, most jurisdictions within the United States that have
any sizable watercourse or water body, have a floodplain ordinance that severely restricts what
property owners can do in the floodplain.
The minimum standards that a local community must adopt are set out as very specific criteria,
and contained in Title 44 Code of Federal Regulations, (CFR) Chapter 1, Section 60.3, Parts (a),
(b), (c), (d), and (e). These required standards are cumulative and mandatory. They provide the
basis for the ordinance that is adopted by each community participating in the National Flood
Insurance Program, throughout the country.
The local floodplain ordinance is usually (but not always) incorporated into the zoning
ordinance. It may be modeled on a canned version published by the Federal Emergency
182
Management Agency as a mock-up for use by localities needing to adopt a floodplain
management ordinance in order to comply with the requirements of Title 44.
Gage - Spelling used for river or stream gauges, either staff gages, that measure stage; flow
gages, that measure discharge (volume) or water quality gages.
Levee - An earthen embankment constructed to keep or control water out of a given area. Levee
is a French word and means the same as dike.
Master Plan – A document prepared by a jurisdiction by which policy regarding the needs,
priorities, social, governmental, economic and physical development of the city is laid out and
defined. The plan contains statements of the jurisdiction’s objectives, standards and principles.
The plan is prepared to promote general welfare and prosperity of the residents and to be utilized
as a point of reference guidance document in making effective, long term strategic planning
recommendations.
One-hundred year flood - A flood that has a one percent statistical chance of occurring in any
year. Statistically, it is assumed that floods are entirely random events. This is also termed the
“base flood” for flood insurance purposes.
Regulatory floodway - The area either side of a stream channel which must be kept clear for the
passage of flood flows without increasing 100-year flood stages more than one foot (insurance
definition). As an administrative tool, the delineation of a floodway on a map helps local permitgranting authorities determine if a development proposal will increase flood stages more than the
FEMA maximum limit, without having to do a study. It is presumed that the floodway fringe, the
part of the flood plain beyond the floodway will eventually be filled in or protected by a levee.
The floodway is intended to carry deep and fast moving water; hence, it is usually the part of the
flood plain that is most dangerous for any kind of development.
Stage - The elevation of the surface of a river or a lake or reservoir or of floodwater at a given
location; the height reached by a flood at a given point in time. It may be measured by a staff
gage or a recording gage, usually in feet above an historic “zero point” (known as the datum).
Zero on the gage usually is at or near the bottom of the channel and is given in feet above mean
sea level (MSL).
Storm water Regulations – Polluted storm water runoff is a leading cause of impairment to the
nearly 40 percent of surveyed U.S. water bodies which do not meet water quality standards. Over
land or via storm sewer systems, polluted runoff is discharged, often untreated, directly into local
water bodies. When left uncontrolled, this water pollution can result in the destruction of fish,
wildlife, and aquatic life habitats; a loss in aesthetic value; and threats to public health due to
contaminated food, drinking water supplies, and recreational waterways.
Mandated by Congress under the Clean Water Act, the NPDES Storm water Program is a
comprehensive two-phased national program for addressing the nonagricultural sources of storm
water discharges that adversely affect the quality of our nation's waters. The Program uses the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permitting regulation mechanism to
183
require the implementation of controls designed to prevent harmful pollutants from being washed
by storm water runoff into local water bodies.
Subdivision Regulations - A subdivision is a tract of land divided by the owner, known as the
subdivider, into blocks, building lots and streets according to a recorded subdivision plat, which
must comply with local ordinances and regulations (a.k.a. subdivision regulations). These
regulations provide for design standards including lots, streets, blocks, utilities, sidewalks, water
access, buffer areas, and access easements. These regulations are designed to promote the orderly
development of a local street system that provides interconnection between developed or
developing properties, as well as standards for recreation and open space.
Watershed - A drainage area, extended from high ground at the edges to a valley and stream
along a central axis. Also called a basin, it may have a sub watershed or sub basin. Rain or snow
falling within a watershed drains to the central drainage way, brook, creek, stream or river.
Smaller watersheds are parts of larger watersheds. The largest watershed in the United States is
the Mississippi River basin. Sub watersheds of the Mississippi River include the Missouri and
Meramec River basins.
Zoning Regulations - it continues to be at the heart of today's land-use issues. A simple
definition of a zoning regulation is a locally enacted law that regulates and controls the use of
private property. It divides the jurisdiction into districts, or zones, for different uses and
determines which uses are allowed. It regulates lot sizes, building heights, impacts on adjacent
land uses, and other specifics.
184
Appendix E: 2010 Plan Update Changes
185
Appendix F – Directory, Bibliography, and Acronyms
2000 Missouri Drought Plan
Archaeological Survey of Missouri
Center for Earthquake Research and Information at the University of Memphis (CERI),
Central U.S. Seismic Map, November 1996, http://www2.semo.edu/ces/CES2.HTML,
http://folkworm.ceri.memphis.edu/recenteqs/Quakes/nmhwb0219a.html,
http://www.sws.uiuc.edu/html/WxFAQ5.htm
East Central Missouri Transportation Study, final report, prepared for MODOT District 3 by
Wilbur Smith Associates
Federal Emergency Management Agency, http://www.fema.gov/hazards/
FEMA District V newsletter, November 14, 2001, article by Pat Glithero
Midwestern Climate Center
Missouri Works! Labor Market Information, Department of Economic Development,
Covered Employment and Wages Program (ES-202) Data
Missouri Department of Conservation,
http://www.conservation.state.mo.us/conmag/1999/03/1.html,
http://www.conservation.state.mo.us/news/out/1996/out07056.html#New%20Tactics,
http://www.conservation.state.mo.us/forest/fire/,
http://www.conservation.state.mo.us/forest/fire/adject.htm
Missouri Department of Natural Resources,
http://www.dnr.state.mo.us/geology/wrp/WR69.pdf,
http://www.dnr.state.mo.us/geology/dir_ltr.htm
Missouri Department of Natural Resources, Dam Safety Program, Rolla, Mo.,
http://www.dnr.state.mo.us/geology/damsft/bkgrd.htm
Missouri Department of Transportation
National Climate Data Center, http://www4.ncdc.noaa.gov/cgiwin/wwcgi.dll?wwEvent~Storms
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, http://www.nws.noaa.gov/om/windchill
NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service,
http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/ws_reinvent/dams_in_danger/20_DAMS/Missouri.pdf
Missouri Press Association: www.mopress.com
National Register of Historic Places, http://www.nationalregisterofhistoricplaces.com
NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
http://www.crh.noaa.gov/lsx/event.php
Stemming the Tide of Flood Losses, Missouri State Emergency Management Agency
United States Army Corps of Engineers, http://www.mvs.usace.army.mil/
United States Department of Agriculture,
http://www.nass.usda.gov/census/census92/atlas92/datafile/moc109.txt, acres of farmland by
county (plus average market values per farm)
United States Fish and Wildlife Service, http://midwest.fws.gov/endangered/lists/missourispp.html, http://midwest.fws.gov/endangered/lists/missouri-spp.html
Anonymous (1888). History of southeast Missouri, Goodspeed Publishing Co., Chicago.
186
Bolt, B. A. (1972). San Fernando Rupture Mechanism and the Pacoima Strong-Motion
Record, Bull. Seism. Soc. Am. 62, 1039-1047.
Braatz, D.T. (1994). "Hydrologic Forecasting for the Great Flood of 1993," Water
International, Volume 19, No.4, pp. 190-198.
Crandell, F. (1949). Ground Vibration Due to Blasting and its Effects Upon Structures, J
Boston Soc. Civil Eng. 36, 222-245.
Dam and Reservoir Guidelines for Community and County Emergency Action
Planning,Missouri Department of Natural Resources, Division of Geology and Land Survey,
Dam andReservoir Safety, 1989
Davison, C. (1936). Great Earthquakes, Thomas Murby and Co., London.
Draft, USCOE, Flood Plain Management Assessment of the Upper Mississippi and
LowerMissouri Rivers and their Tributaries (FPMA).
Drew, John D. and DuCharme, Charles B., The Record Flood of 1993, an Open File
Report(OFR-93-95-WR) of the Division of Geology and Land Survey (DGLS), Missouri
Department of Natural Resources
Faber, Scott, The Real Choices Report: America’s Flood Control Policy Failures, American
Rivers, 1994.
Fujita, T., 1981: Tornadoes and Downbursts in the context of generalized planetary scales. J.
Atmos. Sci., 38, 1511-1534.
Fuller, M. L. (1912). The New Madrid Earthquake, U. S. Geol. Surv., Bull. 494,
Washington,D.C.
Galway, J. G., 1977: Some Climatological Aspects of Tornado Outbreaks. Mon. Wea. Rev.,
105, 477-484.
Gordon, D. W., T. J. Bennett, R. B. Herrmann, and A. M. Rogers (1970). The South Central
Illinois Earthquake of November 9, 1968; Macroseismic studies, Bull. Seism. Soc. Am. 60,
953-971.
Grazulis, T. P., 1993: Significant Tornadoes 1680-1991. A Chronology and Analysis of
Events. Environmental Films, Tornado Project, St. Johsnbury, VT.
Guidelines for Determining Flood Flow Frequency, Bulletin 17B, March 1982, Office of
Water Coordination, U.S. Department of the Interior.
187
Gutenberg, B. and C. F. Richter (1956). Earthquake magnitude, intensity, energy, and
acceleration (second paper), Bull. Seism. Soc. Am. 46, 105-143.
Hales, J.E., 1993: Biases in the severe thunderstorm database: Ramifications and solutions.
Preprints, 13th Conf. Weather. Forecasting and Analysis, Vienna, VA, AMS (Boston), 504507.
Hart, J.A., 1993: SVRPLOT: A New Method of Accessing and Manipulating the NSSFC
Severe Weather Data Base. Preprints, 17th Conf. On Severe Local Storms, St. Louis, AMS
(Boston), 40-41.
Humphreys, A. A. and Abbot, H. L. (1861). Report upon the Physics and Hydraulics of the
Mississippi River by the Corps of Topographical Engineers, U.S. Army, J. B. Lippincott and
Co., Philadelphia.
Johnston, Larry R, and Monday, Jacquelyn L., Floodplain Management in the United States:
An Assessment Report, The Federal Interagency Flood plain Management Task Force, 1992.
Josephson, D.H. (1994). "The Great Midwest Flood of 1993," Natural Disaster Survey
Report, Department of Commerce, NOAA, National Weather Service, Silver Spring,
Maryland.
Kelly, D.L., J.T. Schaefer, and C.A. Doswell, III, 1985: Climatology of Nontornadic Severe
Thunderstorm Events in the United States. Mon. Wea. Rev. 113, 1997-2014.
Kisslinger, C. and 0. W. Nuttli (1965). The earthquake of October 21, 1965 and
Precambrian structure in Missouri, Earthquake Notes 36, 32-36.
Kusler, Jon, and Larson, Larry, Beyond the Ark, A New Approach to U.S. Floodplain
Management, In Environment, June 1993.
Larson, L.W. (1993). "The Great Midwest Flood of 1993," Natural Disaster Survey Report,
National Weather Service, Kansas City, Missouri.
Lawson, A. C. (1908). Atlas of maps and seismograms accompanying the Report of the State
Earthquake Commission upon the California Earthquake of April 18, 1906,
Washington, D.C. (Reprinted by the Carnegie Institution of Washington, 1970).
Mal, A. K. (1972). Rayleigh waves from a moving thrust fault, Bull. Seism. Soc. Am. 62, 741752.
Mateker, E. J. (1968). Earthquakes in Missouri, Wash. Univ. Mag. (St. Louis, Mo.) 39, 46-51.
McDermott, J. F. (1949). Old Cahokia, St. Louis Historical Documents Foundations, St.
Louis.
188
Missouri Department of Natural Resources, Division of Geology and Land Survey, Dam and
Reservoir Safety, Maintenance, Inspection and Operations of Dams in Missouri, 1991.
Myers, Mary Fran and White, Gilbert F., The Challenge of the Mississippi Flood, in
Environment, December 1993.
Meteorological Drought, Weather Bureau Paper No. 45, National Weather Service, NOAA,
Silver Spring, 1965
Missouri Department of Natural Resources, DGLS, Water Resources Report #54, Flood
Report Analysis, 1996, Dick Gaffney
Missouri Drought Response Plan, Water Resources Report No 44. Missouri Department of
Natural Resources, 1995; Don Miller and Charlie Hays
Mitchell, B. J. (1972). Radiation and attenuation of Rayleigh waves from the southeastern
Missouri earthquake of October 21, 1965 (submitted to J. Geophys. Res.).
National Climatic Data Center Technical Report No 2000-02; A Climatology of Recent
Extreme Weather and Climate Events, Tom Ross and Neal Ott (October, 2000).
National Flood Policy in Review-1994 by Association of State Floodplain Managers
(ASFPM)
National Inventory of Dams Methodology, State and Federal Agency Manual, Version 2.0,
November, 2001, Headquarters, USACE, Civil Works Engineering Division, Association of
State Dam Safety Officials, U.S. Army Topographic Engineering Center.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 1959-1995: Storm Data. Vols. 1-37, Nos.
1-12, National Climatic Data Center, Asheville, NC.
Neumann, F. (1959). Seismological aspects of the earthquake engineering problem, Proc.
Northwest Conif. Structural Engrs., 3rd, State College of Washington, Pullman, Wash., 9 23.
Nicholls, R. R., C. J. Johnson, and W. I. Duvall (1971). Blasting vibrations and their
effectson structures, U.S. Bur. Mines, Bull. 656, Washington, D.C.
Nuttli, 0. W. (1973). Seismic wave attenuation and magnitude relations for eastern North
America J. Geophys. Res. 78, (in press).
Nuttli, O. W. (1973). The Mississippi Valley Earthquakes of 1811 and 1812 Intensities,
Ground Motion and Magnitudes, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America. Vol. 63,
No. 1, pp. 227-248 February 1973.
189
Ostby, F. P., 1993: The Changing Nature of Tornado Climatology. Preprints, 17th Conf. On
Severe Local Storms, St. Louis, AMS (Boston), 1-5.
Parrett, Charles; Melcher, Nick B and James, Robert W, Flood Discharges in the Upper
Mississippi River Basin, 1993, U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1120-A, 1993.
Rasch, Kenneth M, Editorial on Flooding and Flood Plain Management in Land and Water,
July/August, 1994
Richter, C. F. (1958). Elementary Seismology, W. H. Freeman and Co., San Francisco.
Schaefer, J. T. and R. Edwards, 1999: The SPC Tornado/Severe Thunderstorm Database.
Preprints, 11th Conf. On Applied Climatology, Dallas, AMS (Boston), 215-220.
State Emergency Management Agency, The Response, Recovery and Lessons Learned from
the Missouri Floods of 1993 and 1994, the Missouri Section 409 Plan etc.; January 1995.
Sharing the Challenge: Floodplain Management into 21st Century-the Report of the
Interagency Floodplain Management Review Committee to the Administration
(Whitehouse) Floodplain Management Task Force; A Blueprint for Change, June
1994.
Simich, Frederick, The Great Mississippi of 1927” in the National Geographic Magazine,
September 1927, Vol. 52, No. 3
Stauder, W. and 0. W. Nuttli (1970). Seismic studies: south central Illinois earthquake of
November 9, 1968, Bull. Seism. Soc. Am. 60, 973-981.
Swenty, Brian, 1989, Engineering Analysis of Dams, Missouri Department of Natural
Resources, Division of Geology and Land Survey, Dam and Reservoir Safety.
Technical Procedures Bulletin, Series No. 358, Drought Severity (Palmer) Index,
National Weather Service, NOAA, Silver Spring, MD, 1985.
Tibbetts, John, “Waterproofing the Midwest”, in Planning, American Planning Association,
April, 1994.
The 1993 Mississippi River Floods, World Wildlife Fund, 1994.
The Floods of ’93, State of Missouri-the federal Interagency Hazard Mitigation Team,
Report for the three Presidential Disaster Declarations in Missouri, April, 1994, as set
up by FEMA under 1988 Stafford Act.
The Report and Recommendations of the Governor’s Task Force on Flood Plain
Management on behalf of Governor Carnahan, July, 1994.
190
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, The Great Flood of 1993 Post-Flood Report, North Central
Division, September, 1994.
Missouri Highway and Transportation Department, Water Over Road,1994.
Wiggins, J. H., Jr. (1964). Construction of strong motion response spectra from magnitude
and distance data, Bull. Seism. Soc. Am. 54, 1257-1269.
Williams, Ted, The River Always Wins, Audubon, July/August, 1994.
The Great Flood of 1993, a Natural Disaster Survey Report of the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) of the U.S. Department of Commerce, 1994.
Wyss, M. and J. N. Brune (1968). Seismic moment, stress and source dimensions for
earthquakes in the California-Nevada region, J. Geophys. Res. 73, 4681-4694.
Acronyms
County and Regional
PTRPC Pioneer Trails Regional Planning Commission
EMA Emergency Management Agency
Missouri
GSRAD Geological Survey and Resource Assessment Division
MACOG Missouri Association of Councils of Government
MCC Midwestern Climate Center
MDC Missouri Department of Conservation
MDNR Missouri Department of Natural Resources
MoDOT Missouri Department of Transportation
SEMA Missouri State Emergency Management Agency
SHPO State Historic Preservation Office
UMC University of Missouri-Columbia
Federal
BLM Bureau of Land Management
CDBG Community Development Block Grant
CERI Center for Earthquake Research and Information
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CPD Climate Prediction Center
CRS Community Rating System
CUSEC Central United States Earthquake Consortium
DOI Department of the Interior
191
DMA 2000 Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
HAZUS Hazards U.S. software program
HMGP Hazard Mitigation Grant Program
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
NCDC National Climate Data Center
NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agency
NWS National Weather Service
NEHRP National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program
NRHP National Register of Historic Places
NRCS National Resource and Conservation Service
PDM Pre-Disaster Mitigation Program
SBA Small Business Administration
USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers
St. Louis County Hazard Mitigation Plan xii
USDA United States Department of Agriculture
USFS United States Forest Service
USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service
USGS United States Geological Survey
Technical
ASFPM Association of State Floodplain Managers
A-zone Flood map area showing 100-year flood inundation
BFE Base Flood (100-year Flood) Elevation (stage)
EO Executive Order
FIA Federal Insurance Administration (part of FEMA)
FIRM Flood Insurance Rate Map
FPM Flood Plain Management
GIS Geographic Information System
LOMA Letter of Map Amendment from FIA/FEMA
LOMR Letter of Map Revision, from FIA/FEMA
MHTD Missouri Highways and Transportation Department
MSL Mean Sea Level (May be NGVD or NAVD)
NAVD North American Vertical Datum, 1988
NGVD National Geodetic Vertical Datum, 1929
192
Appendix G: Documentation of Public Input (Meeting Notices, Agendas, Newspaper
Articles, Meeting Summaries, Sign-in Sheets)
193

Pettis County - Pioneer Trails Regional Planning Commission

Transcription

Similar documents

Platinum | Gold | Silver | Bronze | Table

(MSDS) Kukui Nut Oil RBDW

Kleer Koat Table Top Epoxy MSDS

Clubman Lime Sec

Jim Gills, Lake County Engineer

HAZCOMM/Environmental Safety Awareness

Full report

Y HAPP HAP YP HOUR HOUR

Pamphlet - Hydro

Building the Vision of Our Future