Johnson County - Pioneer Trails Regional Planning Commission

Transcription

JOHNSON COUNTY
HAZARD
MITIGATION PLAN
Created by Pioneer Trails Regional Planning Commission
802 S. Gordon
P.O. Box 123
Concordia, MO 64020
660-463-7934 phone
660-463-7944 fax
Author
Rich Buford
Johnson County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update
Table of Contents
Introduction
5
Assurance statements of compliance with Federal Regulations
Basis for planning authority
Adoption by local governing bodies
Planning process
Participants and Jurisdictions represented
Review of Previously approved 2005 plan
8
8
8
9
10
12
Section 1
16
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
Labor Force, average wage rate and unemployment
Primary Industries
Access to employment: in commuting
Codes and regulations
Existing community plans
Land use information
Development Trends
Floodplain Management
Wetland issues
NFIP participation
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
Emergency Medical services
16
17
18
19
19
19
19
20
21
21
22
23
24
24
25
25
27
27
27
27
30
32
32
34
34
34
35
36
36
36
36
37
37
2
Fire Protection
Emergency Services (911)
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
Large industrial or commercial centers
Recreational facilities
Inventory of housing structures
Total inventory of structures
City/Town Profiles
Centerview
Chilhowee
Holden
Kingsville
Knob Noster
Leeton
Warrensburg
Whiteman
Johnson County
37
40
40
41
41
41
44
44
46
47
47
48
48
49
49
50
52
54
56
58
60
62
64
66
Section 2
68
Risk Assessment
Hazard identification and elimination process
Community wide hazard profile and list of hazards identified
Hazards not included and reasons for elimination
Identified natural hazards
Tornadoes and Thunderstorms
Floods
Severe Winter Weather
Drought
Heat Wave
Earthquake
Dam Failure
Wildfires
Multi-jurisdictional Vulnerability Analysis
68
68
68
69
70
70
89
100
109
117
123
131
148
158
Section 3
165
City/County capability Assessment
Mitigation Management policies
Existing Plans
Mitigation programs
County Capabilities (Organization, Staffing, Training)
Responsibilities and Authorities
Intergovernmental and Interagency Coordination
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
165
165
165
165
166
167
167
167
167
167
168
168
3
Current Criteria Used to Prioritize Mitigation Funding
Integration of Hazard Mitigation with the City/County Department’s Plans
Mitigation Funding Options
Governments Meet Requirements for Hazard Mitigation Funding Programs
Recommendations for Improvements
County and Municipal Policies and Development Trends
Johnson County Community Capability Assessment
168
168
169
169
169
170
171
Section 4
177
Introduction to Mitigation
Definition of Mitigation
Categories of Mitigation
Mitigation Versus Preparedness
Mitigation Plan Benefits
177
177
177
177
178
County Hazard Mitigation Goals, Objectives, Strategy and Coordination
2005 Plan Goals
Johnson County Proposed Mitigation Action Evaluation
Strategic Implementation
Insuring Implementation through Inclusion in Adoption Resolutions
Analysis and Prioritization of Mitigation Actions
Johnson County’s Proposed Five-Year Matrix
Monitoring, evaluation and updating the plan
178
178
180
185
186
186
188
193
Appendix A: Signed Adoption Resolutions
Appendix B: Newspaper Articles
Appendix C: Acronyms
Appendix D: Definitions
Appendix E: Multi-Hazard Mitigation Resource Directory and Bibliography, and Acronyms
Appendix F: FEMA List of Repetitive Losses for Flooding
Appendix G: Documentation of Public Input (Meeting Notices, Agendas, Meeting Summaries, Signin 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 Johnson County Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan Update is an effort to reduce the
impact of natural hazards on citizens and property 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 Johnson 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 Johnson 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. This plan
was updated in 2010, building off the framework of the 2004 version of this plan.
The Johnson County Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan Update was prepared by Rich
Buford 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 by nature 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
providing sound advice to its membership and working for coordination of various
planning and infrastructure needs among the various 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 in future development plans. Proactive
mitigation planning will help reduce the cost of disaster response and recovery to the
community and its property owners by protecting critical facilities, reducing liability
exposure, and minimizing overall community impacts and disruption.
5
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 for
multiple hazards. This city/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 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 include:
Johnson County
City of Centerview
City of Chilhowee
City of Holden
City of Kingsville
City of Knob Noster
City of Leeton
City of Warrensburg
***It should be noted that since the 2005 Hazard Mitigation Plan for Johnson County, the
Village of La Tour disbanded its formal government and has become part of the
unincorporated county area.
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.
This 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
6
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 Johnson County is subject to many
hazards, access to these programs is vital.
The DMA 2000 also provides specific criteria for the preparation and adoption of multijurisdictional mitigation plans by local governments to meet these requirements. The
Johnson 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.
DMA requirements specify that the following elements must be included in the plan:
•
•
•
•
•
•
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 an explanation 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
Provisions for reviewing, monitoring and evaluating progress for the plans
implementation.
The plan must be updated every five years and re-approved.
Adoption by the local governing body. The plan must include documentation that
the local governing body has 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 Federal Regulations
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.
To provide further involvement this plan will implement specific parts of a jurisdictions
emergency operations plan (or a similar plan) if it is currently being used by the
jurisdiction. We will also meet with the various jurisdictions and see if any of this plan
can be used and implemented into their existing plan for further use. Although the
mitigation strategies were not incorporated into local governments plans (as many lack a
comprehensive plan) this can be a starting point for many communities for their comp
plan.
8
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 Johnson 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
Pioneer Trails website and press releases were issued in the most widely distributed
newspapers in the County. Notifications were also sent to Emergency Managers of
Johnson 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 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. Jurisdictions were also provided with the option of authorizing the County
Emergency Management Director to participate and make decisions on their behalf.
Executed letters of authorization can be found in Appendix B.
Participation in the plan update is defined as assisting PTRPC with data collection, 2005
plan review, draft review, meeting with PTRPC staff to discuss hazard events, emails,
completing worksheets or authorizing a separate party to represent a jurisdiction.
Three Planning Committee public meetings were held in December and January
Public Meeting #1
Monday, December 14, 2009
Warrensburg/Johnson County Emergency Management Office
122 Hout Street
Warrensburg, 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 FEMA-386, worksheet packets were generated and provided to
attendees. The worksheets outlined:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Hazard Rankings
Hazard Information
Infrastructure Inventory
9
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.
Public Meeting #2
Thursday, January 20th, 2010
122 Hout Street
Warrensburg, MO
The second Planning Committee public meeting reviewed the resources available in
Johnson 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 2004 plan to discuss actions that were accomplished. In
addition, goals, objective, 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.
Public Meeting #3
Friday, April 9, 2010
122 Hout Street
Warrensburg, MO
The third public meeting reviewed the hazard mitigation plan update draft to review
errors made in the past submission as well as finalize review of goals and objectives as
well as mitigation strategies. 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.
Hazard Mitigation Participation by Jurisdiction
Participating
Jurisdiction
Participant
Title
/Agency
Johnson
County
Steve Moody
Gloria Michalski
Larry Jennings
Dee Bennett
Raymond James
EMA/Warrensburg
EMA/Johnson Cnty
Chief/JCFD
Ass. Chief/JCFD
JC Health Dept.
Evelyn Woodward
City Clerk
Mike Hanes
Police Department
Michael Wakeman
Fire Department
City
Clerk
City of
Centerview
City of
Chilhowee
City of Holden
City of
Kingsville
City of Knob
Noster
City of Leeton
City of
Warrensburg
Sharron Johnson
Doug Kermick
City Administrator
Darryl Smithson
Andy Kohl
Bryan Pettingill
Sam Hafley
Bruce Howey
Phil Johnston
Police Department
Wbg School Super
UCM/EMD
Wbg/Police Chief
Wbg/Fire Chief
Public
Meeting
12/14/09
X
X
Public
Meeting
1/20/10
X
X
Public
Meeting
4/9/10
X
X
X
X
X
Phone
Email
Formal Plan
Adoption
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
X
X
X
10
X
X
X
X
X
Letter of Authorization
x
Key Participants in the Planning Process and the roles that they played on the Planning
Committee are included in the following table.
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.
Stephan B. Moody, Johnson County Emergency Management Agency
Gloria Michalski, Johnson County Emergency Management Agency
Andy Kohl, Warrensburg R-VI School District
Bryan Pettingill, Warrensburg R-VI School District
Larry Jennings, Johnson County Fire Protection District
Dee Bennett, Johnson County Fire Protection District
Sam Hafley, University of Central Missouri
Bruce Howey, Warrensburg Police Department
Raymond L. James, Johnson County Health Department
Phil Johnston, Warrensburg Fire Department
Table 1
Johnson County Participating Jurisdiction
Jurisdiction
Johnson County
City of Centerview
City of Chilhowee
City of Holden
City of Kingsville
City of Knob Noster
City of Leeton
City of Warrensburg
New Participant
Continuing Participant
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Not Participating
*For future planning of this document more public involvement is necessary this
document will be posted on Pioneer Trails Regional Planning Commission’s
website for public display. Also planning meetings that coordinate with the
Regional Homeland Security meetings will have more support as the majority of
emergency planning officials (EMD, Police Chiefs, etc..) will be in attendance.
Also inviting the school districts to attended meetings.
11
The following table sets forth the timeline for public participation and development of the
2011 Plan Update.
Timeline for preparation
Table 2
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
12
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.
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, Warrensburg, 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 Johnson County. Out of the twenty five disaster
declarations (not including the 2011 flooding and tornado declarations) since the
beginning of the Johnson County plan development in 2004, only six involved the
planning area. Those six were as follows.
•
March 16, 2006 - DR # 1631 was declared for Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and
Flooding – Johnson County was approved for Individual Assistance (IA) only.
•
December 12, 2007 – DR # 3281 was declared for Severe Winter Storms –
Johnson County was approved for PA only.
13
•
June 25, 2008 – DR # 1773 was declared for Severe Storms and Flooding –
Johnson was approved for Individual Assistance (IA) only.
•
January 30, 2009 – DR # 3303 was declared for Severe Winter Storms – Johnson
County was approved for Public Assistance (PA) only.
•
February 3, 2011 – DR # 3317 was declared for Severe Winter Storms – Johnson
County was approved for Public Assistance (PA) only.
•
March 23, 2011 – DR # 1961 was declared for Severe Winter Storm and
Snowstorm – Johnson County was approved for Public Assistance (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
The Great Flood of 1993 was Johnson County’s largest disaster within the past 50 years.
Tornados and severe thunderstorms as well as severe winter storms, drought and heat
wave also have affected the county within that same timeframe. Earthquakes, wildfires
and dam failures have not occurred within Johnson County in the past 50 years; however,
data and expert opinions indicate the possibility of occurrence in the future.
Natural hazard risks to Johnson County are ranked in descending order. The flood hazard
is followed by tornadoes/thunderstorms, severe winter storms, 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; and (3) ensure uninterrupted government and emergency functions in a disaster.
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.
14
*For future planning of this document more public involvement is necessary this
document will be posted on Pioneer Trails Regional Planning Commission’s website for
public display. Also planning meetings that coordinate with the Regional Homeland
Security meetings will have more support as the majority of emergency planning officials
(EMD, Police Chiefs, etc..) will be in attendance.
15
SECTION 1
Community Profiles
County profile
Johnson County was named in honor of Richard Mentor Johnson, a distinguished soldier
in the Indian wars, a United States Senator and later Vice President of the United States.
The county was originally part of Lafayette County. By act of the General Assembly of
Missouri the county was organized December 13, 1834. Johnson County first comprised
four townships, Jackson, Washington, Jefferson and Madison.
The first settlement was made near the present town of Columbus in 1833 with Nicholas
Houx building the first house. Later in 1833, Richard Huntsman settled near Fayetteville.
He planted a large number of fruit tree cuttings brought from Tennessee.
Early attention was paid to the education of the young, and schools were established as
rapidly as means were available. The first church in the county was established by the
Methodist of Columbus.
Many unpleasant scenes were enacted during the Civil War, the sentiment being sharply
divided, but no notable conflicts occurred within the borders of this county.
Figure 1
16
Johnson County’s population slowly declined from the turn of the century until 1950 and
then endured a growth spurt until 1960. From 1960 to the present a steady increase in
population growth at an average rate of 13% has been experienced in Johnson County.
Today, 49% of the population lives in rural areas. However, only 5.1% of the total
population actually lives on a farm. These statistics and the accompanying population
density map indicate a strong presence of sprawl.
Johnson County
Population, 2010
52,595
Population, percent change, 2000 to 2010
+8.99%
Population, 2000
48,258
Jurisdiction
City of Centerview
City of Chilhowee
City of Holden
City of Kingsville
City of Knob Noster
City of Leeton
City of Warrensburg
Unincorporated Area
Johnson County
1980
223
349
2,195
365
2,040
604
13,807
19,476
39,059
1990
214
335
2,389
279
2,261
632
15,244
21,160
42,514
2000
249
329
3,496
257
2,462
619
16,340
24,506
48,258
2010
267
325
2,252
269
2,709
566
18,838
27,369
52,595
% Change 1980 - 2008
+19%
-6.8%
+2.5%
-26%
+32%
-6.2%
+36%
+40%
+35%
Source: MSDC 2010 Census
Geography, geology and Climate
Johnson County is located in the west-central part of Missouri. Bordering counties are
Lafayette (north), Pettis (east), Henry (south), Jackson and Cass (west).
The land area for Johnson County is 824 square miles with a population of 52,595,
according to the 2010 U.S. Census update. Warrensburg (pop. 18,838) is the county seat
and the largest community in the county. Other communities in the county include
Holden, Knob Noster, Leeton, Chilhowee, Kingsville, and Centerview.
17
FIGURE 2
Source http://www.dnr.state.mo.us/geology/adm/publications/TopoMo.pdf
The consistent pattern of climate in Johnson County is one of cold winters and long, hot
summers. Heavy rains occur mainly in spring and early in summer, when moist air from
the Gulf of Mexico interacts with drier continental air. Even though the annual rainfall is
normally adequate for corn, soybeans, and all grain crops in most years, yields are
reduced because of the absence of rain during July and August.
Form of government
The county government, as related to disaster mitigation, primarily consists of the County
Commission, Assessor, County Clerk, Sheriff, Emergency Management, Public Health,
Coroner, and Road and Bridge. Johnson County operates as a second class county. The
county government has authority to administer county structures, infrastructures, and
finances as well as a master plan, zoning code, subdivision regulations, floodplain
regulations and storm water regulations. The three-member County Commission
generally is the final authority on county issues.
18
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
Although the county’s rural character remains strong, large-lot subdivisions continue to
sprawl into the countryside as new residents emigrate from the metropolitan areas. More
and more farmers have begun to weigh the benefits of farming against the benefits of
selling their land to a developer.
County officials realize they must retain the rural
character that attracts new residents while avoiding the negative effects of sprawl.
Public awareness
The initial meeting for Johnson County was held December 9, 2002. Representatives
from the county and all incorporated areas were invited to learn about the benefits of
creating hazard mitigation plans as well as the planning process. The advantages of
hazard mitigation were presented to all local civic leaders at the meeting. The local
newspapers carried reports of the meeting.
Media relations
The Daily Star Journal is the official newspaper of Johnson County. In addition, the
Warrensburg Gazette, Holden Image Progress, Knob Noster Item and the Whiteman
Spirit cover news throughout Johnson County. The Daily Star Journal most adequately
provides coverage of planning issues such as natural hazard mitigation.
Three radio stations are based in Johnson County, two are broadcasted in FM only and
the third is broadcasted in AM and FM. These stations occasionally cover local issues in
depth. The Kansas City broadcast media provide weather reports and warnings that detail
specific cities and counties at risk. The list of pertinent media outlets is included below.
Newspapers
News radio stations
KTBG (90.9 FM) – Warrensburg
Daily Star Journal – Warrensburg
Holden Image-Progress/Penny Saver –
Holden
Knob Noster Item – Knob Noster
Whiteman Spirit – Whiteman AFB
KIX (105.7 FM) – Sedalia
KLRQ (96.1 FM) – Clinton
KMZU (100.7 FM) – Carrollton
KPOW (97.1 FM) – Sedalia
19
KMBC (ABC), Channel 9 – Kansas City
KMOS (PBS), Channel 6 – Warrensburg
KSHB (NBC), Channel 41 – Kansas
City
WDAF (FOX), Channel 4 – Kansas City
KSDL/KSIS (92.1 FM, 1050 AM) –
Sedalia
KYRV (88.1 FM) – Warrensburg
KOKO (1450 AM) - Warrensburg
Television stations
KCTV (CBS), Channel 5 – Kansas City
News releases are distributed by the Johnson County public information officer as the
particular situation warrants. 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.
Demographic information
The 2010 U.S. Census was used to construct a profile of the average Johnson County
resident. Statistically, this average person is between age 35 and 44, has a household
income of $43,069 and is married, living in a rural home worth $96,339 and drives to
work alone. This person has at least a high school diploma, lives and works in Johnson
County.
Although Johnson County remains predominantly white in the 2010 Census, the diversity
of the population has increased for all ethnic groups except blacks. Historically, diversity
has been scarce. However, the 2010 Census showed the presence of non-white races
currently makes up 7.6% of the total population. The portion of the county’s Native
Hawaiian, Alaskan, and American Indian populations particular grew significantly.
Between 1990 and 2000, the county’s Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander population
20
increased from 56%, while the American Indian and Alaskan Native population increased
by 52%. However, the black population in the county decreased by 15%. Table 2 presents
a more detailed look at the county’s diversity.
•
Roughly 86% of Johnson County’s 25-plus population are high school graduates
or higher.
•
The county’s age brackets in Table 3 show that 62% the population is of labor
force age; 79% of the workforce is age 25-54. Typical vulnerable populations
include those age 65 and over at 9.4% as well as those age 14 and under at 20.7%
of the general population.
Economy, employment, and industry
Labor force, average wage rate, unemployment rate
The 2000 U.S. Census (the most current information for most of this breakdown of data)
reported the county had a labor force (workers 16 and over) of 23,238, or 62% of the
county’s total population. The average earnings of males with income for 2000 were
$26,520, while the average earnings of females were $16,063. Nearly 14.9% of the
population, or 6,666 persons, were below the federal poverty level. The 2000
21
unemployment rate for Johnson County was 6.1% compared to Missouri’s 2000 rate of
4.7%.
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. Continued automation in the manufacturing process has helped drive
up the demand for the higher wages of skilled labor while requiring less employees to
operate the systems. Johnson County’s primary products include aluminum, and
lawnmower fabrication, batteries, retail trade, agricultural goods, electronic components
and developmental disabilities services. The table below is from the 2010 Census, and
presents a picture of the Johnson County economy.
Business QuickFacts
Johnson County
Missouri
Private nonfarm establishments, 2009
Private nonfarm employment, 2009
Private nonfarm employment, percent change 2000-2009
Nonemployer establishments, 2009
1,020
9,477
-4.8%
3,017
150,892
2,358,706
-1.7%
375,075
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
4,928
S
F
S
F
F
28.5%
501,064
4.9%
0.6%
1.9%
0.1%
1.2%
26.1%
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
D
D
412,938
$7,940
56,687
110
587,836
110,907,604
81,032,913
76,575,216
$12,957
11,070,634
9,699
67,372,613
Johnson County, Missouri
Number
Percent
Civilian employed population 16 years and over
21,947
26.9%
Agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting, and mining
Construction
388
1,917
36.1%
17.5%
Manufacturing
Wholesale trade
2,584
426
14.7%
20.7%
Retail trade
2,442
4.7%
22
Transportation and warehousing, and utilities
Information
1,104
364
3.4%
22.0%
Finance and insurance, and real estate and rental and leasing
Professional, scientific, and management, and administrative and
waste management services
Educational services, and health care and social assistance
1,018
953
30.1%
27.6%
6,040
52.5%
Arts, entertainment, and recreation, and accommodation and food
services
Other services, except public administration
2,135
17.8%
839
9.1%
Public administration
1,737
30.5%
The February, 2012 unemployment rate for Johnson County was 8.20%, which was lower
than the statewide rate of 9.60% on the same date.
Employment within the county by industry, as of Census 2000, consists of 16.1%
education, 15.6% manufacturing, and 12.1% retail trade, 9.1% healthcare and social
services. The remaining 46% includes finance, insurance, real estate, transportation,
public utilities, wholesale trade, agricultural, forestry, fishing and mining.
Access to employment: in commuting
More than 2,900 persons commute into Johnson County to work. An equally greater
number commute outside the county to the Kansas City Metro area to work as well.
FIGURE 3
Johnson County Incommuting Pattern
(Number of Worker)
Cass
233
8%
Clay
96
3%
Benton
89
3%
Pettis
897
31%
Lafayette
380
13%
Henry
580
20%
Jackson
657
22%
23
Codes/regulations such as building, storm water, fire, zoning
Missouri state law dictates the powers and structure of county governments. Johnson
County operates as a second-class county and has limited powers in regard to building
regulations.
There are no active codes or regulations in the unincorporated areas of Johnson County
with the exception of any building located in zone A flood plain as depicted on the
FEMA FIRM map.
Restrictions on hazardous waste storage, treatment and disposal are based upon current
Federal and State regulations. The county’s Community Impact Statement requires
protection of soils, vegetation, wildlife, water quality, ecology, air and noise quality,
significant archaeological/historical issues, cultural and aesthetic impact, transportation
issues, and economic impacts.
The only existing code that needs additional mitigation measures is the county flood plain
ordinance that provides the depiction of the location of the flood plain on county plat
maps.
The county is in the process of updating the existing flood plain ordinance during the
summer of 2004
Existing community plans
Johnson County has developed a County Emergency Operations Plan. The purpose of the
Johnson County Emergency Operations Plan (EOP), published in 1989, and updated in
2004, is to “reduce or prevent the loss of lives and damage to property in Johnson
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.
Johnson 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 human services. The plan 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 obtaining temporary use of
facilities. The EOP is reviewed annually and revised as needed.
State Transportation Improvement Plan (STIP): Development of plan to construct a
Highway 13 expansion for the city of Warrensburg. No other major projects within
Johnson County currently are listed on the STIP.
24
Land use information
Near half of the county (48%) is non-native, cool-season grasslands, followed by row and
close grown crops (26%), and then deciduous upland mixed invasive forest (10%), and
lastly warm season grassland (6%). The remainder is urban development.
Development trends
Johnson County’s significant population growth over the past three decades is projected
to continue at a substantial rate in all age groups through 2020 at an average rate of 22%.
The county’s population growth primarily is due to its proximity to the Kansas City
metropolitan area and low transportation costs. Many factors contributed to growth in
Johnson County. Over the past few decades, a robust national and regional economy led
to low unemployment and reasonable interest rates. These growth factors more recently
have been dampened by the economic slowdown. The Highway 50 corridor will
continue to provide accessibility to the major markets/employment centers in the Kansas
City metropolitan area. In particular, Independence and the Kansas City metropolitan
area workers may continue to migrate into Johnson County in search of a lower cost of
living. While Johnson County and the cities of Warrensburg, Holden and Knob Noster
have grown over the last 10 years some of the small communities have not grown or
remained the same.
Fifty-one percent of the county’s housing is considered by the Census to be urban
housing. These units are located primarily in or near Warrensburg, Holden, Kingsville,
Knob Noster and Whiteman AFB. Smaller concentrations exist in Centerview,
Chilhowee, Leeton.
25
26
Floodplain management
Floodplain regulations were revamped in 2004 to reduce the flood potential. Within
floodplain Zone A, new construction and improvements are not allowed without
extensive mitigation requirements. 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.
Wetlands issues
The topography and soil content are not conducive to formation of large wetlands.
However, numerous small wetlands exist in varying degrees of quality.
NFIP participation
The county participates in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). The Floodplain
Manager administers the program for Johnson County. There are no repetitive loss
properties listed in the County. The table below shows the NFIP status of communities in
the planning area. Centerview, Chilhowee, and Kingsville are not participants. Note that
“NSFHA” means that the community has no Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHAs).
Communtiy
Name
CID
290714#
290809#
290724#
290194#
290562#
HOLDEN, CITY
OF
JOHNSON
COUNTY *
KNOB NOSTER,
CITY OF
WARRENSBURG,
CITY OF
LEETON, CITY
OF
Identified
Curr Eff
Map Date
Sanction
Date
Tribal
County
Init FHBM
Identified
Init FIRM
JOHNSON
4/9/1976
3/1/2001
07/04/11(M)
3/1/2001
No
4/2/1990
7/4/2011
10/26/1990
No
JOHNSON
JOHNSON
6/27/1975
11/7/2001
7/4/2011
11/7/2001
No
JOHNSON
JOHNSON
COUNTY
12/17/1973 9/18/1985
7/4/2011
9/18/1985
No
(NSFHA)
08/24/12
No
09/12/75
07/04/11
Environmental concerns
Within Johnson County the EPA regulates activities involving commercial or private
organizations activities as they relate to the environment such as: airborne releases of
chemicals, wastewater discharging, possession of hazardous waste, and toxic releases of
chemicals.
27
Air Releases- the following table represents the 19 facilities in Johnson County that are
registered with the EPA as releasing pollutants into the air.
FACILITY NAME
INERSYS
GETS GLOBAL SIGNALING
STAHL SPECIALTY COMPANY
WEST CENTRAL AGRISERVICES LLC
LEETON ELEVATOR
LIMPUS QUARRIES INCORPORATED
WHITEMAN AIR FORCE BASE
LAFARGE CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS
HILTY QUARRIES INCORPORATED
WARRENSBURG
SHOW ME REGIONAL AUTOSHRED
LANDFILL
JOHNSON COUNTY MEMORIAL
HOSPITAL
W J MENEFEE CONSTRUCTION
ASSOCIATED ELECTRIC
COOPERATIVE INC
WHISTLE REDI MIX-HOLDEN
WARRENSBURG READY MIX
KEYSTONE QUARRY
SLOAN CHEVROLET CADILLAC - GEO
MARR CONSTRUCTION CO
TABLE 8
ADDRESS
617 NORTH RIDGEVIEW DRIVE
601 NORTH MAIN STREET
1301 STAHL DR.
103 SOUTH MAIN STREET
101 EAST RAILROAD STREET
ROUTE 3, BOX 7000
930 ARNOLD AVENUE
275 SOUTHEAST AB HIGHWAY
4 M SOUTH RT 13
CITY
WARRENSBURG
WARRENSBURG
WARRENSBURG
CENTERVIEW
LEETON
HOLDEN
WHITEMAN AFB
KNOB NOSTER
WARRENSBURG
SIC CODE
3692
3743
3361
2041
5153
1422
9711
1422
1422
230 SOUTHEAST 421
WARRENSBURG
4953
BURKARTH & E GAY
WARRENSBURG
8062
JUNCTION RTS AB & D
100 SOUTHWEST STATE
ROUTE 131
511 SW HWY 131
ROUTE #3
435 SOUTHEAST HWY 13
150 NW US HIGHWAY 50
RT 1
KNOB NOSTER
HOLDEN
3273
4911
HOLDEN
WARRENSBURG
WARRENSBURG
WARRENSBURG
KNOB NOSTER
3272
3273
1422
5511
2951
Wastewater Discharge- The following table represents the 74 facilities in Johnson
County that are registered with the EPA as releasing wastewater into the environment.
FACILITY NAME
HAWKER ENERGY PRODUCTS
INCORPORATED
LEETON ELEVATOR
LAFARGE CONSTRUCTION
MATERIALS
HILTY QUARRIES INCORPORATED
WARRENSBURG
SHOW ME REGIONAL AUTOSHRED
LANDFILL
ASSOCIATED ELECTRIC
COOPERATIVE INC
WARRENSBURG E WWTP
MDNR, KNOB NOSTER ST PARK
TABLE 9
ADDRESS
CITY
SIC CODE
WARRENSBURG
3692
1301 STAHL DR.
101 EAST RAILROAD STREET
WARRENSBURG
LEETON
3361
5153
275 SOUTHEAST AB HIGHWAY
KNOB NOSTER
1422
4 M SOUTH RT 13
WARRENSBURG
1422
230 SOUTHEAST 421
WARRENSBURG
4953
HOLDEN
4911
WARRENSBURG
KNOB NOSTER
4952
5171
100 SOUTHWEST STATE
ROUTE 131
441 NE 300 ROAD
873 SE 10
28
WHISTLE REDI MIX-HOLDEN
SKYHAVEN FASTOP & MOTEL
SHOWTIME LOUNGE
CRABTREE LAGOON SYSTEM
OAK GROVE ESTATES
L.S. MOBILE HOME ESTATES
POWELL GARDENS WWTF
WILLOW ACRES HOMES ASSOC
CASEY'S GENERAL #1122
SKYHAVEN ESTATES
JLC TAILER COURT
CREST RIDGE HIGH SCH WWTF
MILLION DOLLAR FANTASY
JOHNSON CO EGG FARM,LLC
WHISPERING PINES MHP
CAMP PALESTINE WWTF
COUNTRY AIRE MOBI HOM EST
STATE PARK VILL WWTP
M & M MOBILE HOME PARK
COUNTRY HOME ESTATES
STATESIDE PLAZA
DML ESTATES
LAKEWOOD MH COMMUNITY
WHITEMAN MHP
JOHNSON CO PWSD3, HICKORY
HOLDEN WWTF
KNOB NOSTER WWTF
CHAPMAN SEPTIC SERVICE-LA
MFA, WARRENSBURG BULK STO
BAILE, CLIFTON
USAF, WHITEMAN AFB WTP
LAFARGE CONSTRUCTION MATE
GREEN MEADOWS SUBD
CENTERVIEW WWTF
HARMON IND.-ELEC SYS DIV
FULL CIRCLE AUTO RECYCLER
DELLWOOD ESTATES MHP
WARRENSBURG N LAGOON
KNOB NOSTER TRAILER PARK
VILLAGES AT WHITEMAN
RAINBOW ACRES SUBDIVISION
RIEBOLD LAGOON
LEETON WWT LAGOON
RIVERWOOD II ESTATES
SOUTH FORK SUBDIVISION
CHILHOWEE MUNICIPAL WWTF
511 SW HWY 131
311 NW U.S. HWY. 50
317 NW HWY 50
141 NORTHWEST 181
878 SE 130
129 NW 21 ROAD
1609 NW HWY 50
115 NW 331
RR 7, BOX 430-A
312 NW HWY 50
248 SW HIGHWAY 13
92 NW 58 HWY
82 NW 151
1275 SOUTHWEST Y HWY
555 SE Y HWY
396 SW 730 ROAD
176 SE HWY Y #13
113 SE 611
42 NW 215
183 SE HWY 13
1305 SOUTH STATE ST
1064 100 NE 75
38 SE HWY J
17 SE HWY 23
106 SE 421 ROAD
900 SOUTH VINE
218 NORTH STATE STREET
599 TADLOCK ROAD
NW 128, HWY 50
280 SE 200
247 NE DIV
271 SOUTHWEST 50
206 SOUTH MAIN
1300 JEFFERSON COURT
130 NW 251
HWY 13 & RT BB
103 NE 175 ROAD
ROUTE 2
HIGHWAY D
RAINBOW ACRES
HWY 13
PO BOX 87
PO BOX 897
WARRENSBURG
PO BOX 183
29
HOLDEN
WARRENSBURG
WARRENSBURG
WARRENSBURG
KNOB NOSTER
WARRENSBURG
KINGSVILLE
WARRENSBURG
WARRENSBURG
CENTERVIEW
WARRENSBURG
CENTERVIEW
WARRENSBURG
KNOB NOSTER
WARRENSBURG
CHILHOWEE
WARRENSBURG
WARRENSBURG
WARRENSBURG
WARRENSBURG
KNOB NOSTER
KNOB NOSTER
KNOB NOSTER
KNOB NOSTER
WARRENSBURG
HOLDEN
KNOB NOSTER
OAK GROVE
WARRENSBURG
WARRENSBURG
KNOB NOSTER
WARRENSBURG
WARRENSBURG
CENTERVIEW
BLUE SPRINGS
WARRENSBURG
WARRENSBURG
WARRENSBURG
KNOB NOSTER
KNOB NOSTER
KNOB NOSTER
WARRENSBURG
LEETON
WARRENSBURG
WARRENSBURG
CHILHOWEE
3272
7011
5813
4952
6515
6515
181
4952
5411
6515
6515
8211
5813
252
6515
7033
4952
4952
6515
4952
6512
6515
6515
6515
4952
4952
4952
4953
5541
213
4941
1422
4952
4952
3672
5015
6515
4952
6515
4952
6552
6512
4952
4952
6552
4952
SOUTHERN HILLS STF
VALLEY VIEW SUBD
KINGSVILLE WW STAB. LAG
HUNT MIDWEST, WARRENSBURG
KINGSVILLE LIVESTOCK AUCT
FISCHER PROPERTIES-WARREN
CMSU SKYHAVEN AIRPORTS
DOUBLE D RECYCLE
DOUBLE D RECYCLING
JIMS AUTOMOTIVE
DIKES AUTO SALVAGE
KINNEYS AUTO SALVAGE
MFA AGRI SERVICE-CENTERVI
NEOSHO BOX & WOOD PROD
SKYHAVEN AIRPORT
CAMP PALESTINE
USAF, F-10
TRUNINGER BRO SEPTIC-JOHN
HOLDEN WTP
SE 150TH RD, ROUTE 7
WARRENSBURG
PO BOX 13
102 S. MARR DRIVE
HIGHWAY 58 EAST
2300 CLINTON ROAD
WARRENSBURG
WARRENSBURG
KINGSVILLE
WARRENSBURG
KINGSVILLE
SEDALIA
WARRENSBURG
CENTERVIEW
CENTERVIEW
KINGSVILLE
CENTERVIEW
CENTERVIEW
CENTERVIEW
KNOB NOSTER
WARRENSBURG
WARRENSBURG
WINDSOR
PLEASANT HILL
HOLDEN
4952
4952
4952
1422
751
1422
4581
5093
5093
5015
5015
5015
5191
2491
1629
1629
9711
4952
4941
Hazardous Waste- The following table represents the 4 facilities in Johnson County that
are registered with the EPA as possessing hazardous waste.
FACILITY NAME
HAWKER ENERGY PRODUCTS INC
WARRENSBURG CHRYSLER
TABLE 10
ADDRESS
601 NORTH MAIN STREET
1301 STAHL DR.
1111 STAHL DR
CITY
WARRENSBURG
WARRENSBURG
WARRENSBURG
WARRENSBURG
SIC_CODE
3692
3743
3361
5511
Toxic Release- The following table represents the 3 facilities in Johnson County that are
registered with the EPA as releasing toxic chemicals.
FACILITY NAME
HAWKER ENERGY PRODUCTS INC
TABLE 9
ADDRESS
601 INDUSTRIAL DRIVE
1301 STAHL DR.
CITY
WARRENSBURG
WARRENSBURG
WARRENSBURG
SIC CODE
3692
3743
3361
Endangered species, historic properties/districts, archaeological sites
Endangered and threatened species within Johnson County include the Northern Harrier,
Greater Prairie Chicken, and the Black Tailed Jackrabbit. No plant species currently are
listed for the county.
30
The National Registry of Historic Places includes 18 places in Johnson County and they
are displayed in the table below.
TABLE 11
Places in Johnson County on the National Register of Historic Places
Name
Address
City
Listed
Adams, John A., Farmstead
Historic District
431 SE Y Hwy.
Warrensburg
7/7/1994
Other
Listings
No
Camp Shawnee Historic District
SW of Knob Noster
Knob Noster
3/4/1985
Yes
Chilhowee Historic District
Roughly Walnut and Main
Sts.
222 W. Gay St.
Chilhowee
6/2/1988
No
Warrensburg
10/12/1995
No
Jct. of MO 13 and Co. Rd.
215NW
Warrensburg
4/8/1994
No
Howard School
400 W. Culton St.
Warrensburg
2/14/2002
No
Johnson County Courthouse
Courthouse Sq.
Warrensburg
4/7/1994
No
Johnson County Courthouse
Old Public Sq.
Warrensburg
6/15/1970
No
Magnolia Mills
200 W. Pine St.
Warrensburg
10/3/1996
No
Masonic Temple
101-1-3 W. Market St., and
301-303 N. Holden St.
Warrensburg
12/24/1998
No
Montserrat Recreation
Demonstration Area Bridge
MO 132
Knob Noster
3/4/1985
Yes
Demonstration Area Dam and
Spillway
Demonstration Area Entrance
Portal
Montserrat Recreational
Demonstration Area Rock Bath
House
Montserrat Recreational
Demonstration Area Warehouse
#2 and Workshop
Pleasant View School
SW of Knob Noster
Knob Noster
3/4/1985
Yes
Off MO 132
Knob Noster
3/4/1985
Yes
SW of Knob Noster
Knob Noster
3/4/1985
Yes
Off MO 132
Knob Noster
3/4/1985
Yes
674 SW 131 Highway
Medford
8/5/1999
No
201 S. Warren St.
Warrensburg
12/13/1996
No
Cress, Herbert A. and Bettie E.,
House
Garden of Eden Station
Warren Steet Methodist Episcopal
Church
31
Figure 4
The Archaeological Society of Missouri has recorded 437 archaeological sites in Johnson
County. The exact locations cannot be shown in order to protect the individual resources.
The categories discussed above may require special attention in the mitigation planning
phase, depending on the locations. Historic sites are shown on the map below in
conjunction with hazardous material sites, and confined animal feeder operations
(CAFOs).
Identified assets
This section provides a survey of existing fixed assets such as infrastructures, critical
facilities, employment centers, commercial centers and recreation centers as major factors
in disaster mitigation.
Inventory of infrastructures
Infrastructures include transportation, communications, water/sewer, electricity and
natural gas, solid waste disposal, law enforcement, fire protection, emergency medical
services and emergency management.
32
Figure 5
33
Roadways
Roadways continue to be the main source of transportation within the region to support
the movement of people and goods along 1,566 miles of road. The Missouri Department
of Transportation (MoDOT) provides and maintains all federal and state roadways, 384
miles of road, within the county while Johnson County maintains more than 1070 miles
of roadway in unincorporated areas. Roughly 86% are either soil or gravel roads.
Incorporated areas maintain a total of 112 miles of roads within their jurisdictions.
Railroads
Missouri Pacific, Chicago Rock Island and Pacific, Missouri-Kansas-Texas, as well as St.
Louis Southwestern Railways all have railroad lines across the county. Amtrak provides
passenger service in Johnson County through the Warrensburg Station.
Airports
According to the FAA there are 7 airports located throughout Johnson County,
predominately in the central and southern portions of the county. Of the 7 airports, two
are public and four are privately owned. Additionally, there is a heliport located in
Warrensburg at the Western Missouri Medical Center, as well as one in the city of
Holden. Max B. Swisher Skyhaven Airport is located along Highway 50, 4 miles west of
downtown Warrensburg; Max B. Swisher Skyhaven is the largest airport in Johnson
County and is owned by University of Central Missouri, however the facility is public.
The Fletcher Field Airport is located just north of Centerview off of Highway 50 and is a
private operation. The Fender JH Airport is located 3 miles west of Holden and roughly 3
miles south of Kingsville and remains a private entity. Ten miles southeast of downtown
Warrensburg is the Lake Sexton Airport, which is a private installation. The Ferguson
Farms airport is located 5 miles east of Leeton and 5 miles south of the Lake Sexton
Airport. Ferguson Farms airport is also a private entity.
Commercial airline travel is accessible 62 miles from the center of Johnson County at
Kansas City International Airport (KCI).
The table below gives a more detailed description of each airport.
34
TABLE 12
Airport
Johnson County Airports*
Ownership Associated City
Runway Type
Max B Swisher
public
Skyhaven
Fletcher Field
private
Fender JH
private
Whiteman
USAF
Lake Sexton
private
Short
private
Ferguson Farms
private
* Registered with the FAA
Warrensburg
asphalt (lights)
House
Aircraft
yes
Centerview
Kingsville
Knob Noster
Warrensburg
Warrensburg
Windsor
turf
turf
concrete (lights)
turf/gravel
turf
turf
yes
yes
yes
no
yes
no
Figure 6
Johnson County Airports Runway Lengths
14,000
12,400
12,000
10,000
8,000
Distance (feet)
6,000
4,000
2,700
2,800
2,200
2,600
3,000
1,100
2,000
0
Max B.
Swisher
Skyhaven
Fletcher Field
Fender JH
Whiteman
Lake Sexton
Short
Ferguson
Farms
Airport Name
Public transportation
Public transportation in the county is provided by OATS, Inc. as well as Old Drum.
These publicly-funded systems 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.
35
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.
Telecommunication Service Providers
Southwestern Bell
CenturyLink
Long Distance Carriers
AT&T
MCI
Sprint
Wireless Communications Companies
AT&T Wireless Services
Cingular Wireless
Nextel Communications
Sprint PCS
T-Mobile
Verizon Wireless
T-Mobile
Internet Service Providers
CenturyTel (T-1 lines and DSL)
Charter Communications (cable access)
Numerous dial-up service providers
Sewer and water facilities
The county continues to improve its ability to service residents and businesses with
public water and sewer.
Public water and sewer service is available within Centerview, Chilhowee, Leeton,
Holden, Knob Noster, and Warrensburg. Water service in Kingsville is provided by
PWD #2, and Centerview is provided by PWD #1. Within the county, there is a large
rural population that is served by private wells.
Wastewater needs are serviced by individual septic tanks, lagoons or private sewer
systems. The Missouri Department of Natural Resources (DNR) and the U.S.
Department of Economic Development (EDA) also have contributed to funding water
and sewer projects.
Electricity and natural gas
Ameren UE, Kansas City Power and Light (KCP&L), Consolidated Support Service Inc.,
and West-Central Electric Co-op Inc. all provide electrical service within the county.
Ameren UE, KCP&L, Williams Gas Pipelines Central Inc., and Missouri Gas Energy
supply natural gas to some of the incorporated areas within Johnson County.
Solid waste disposal
The county’s solid waste is collected by Waste Corporation of Missouri, Brooks
Disposal, Ellsworth Collins Sanitation Service, Vic’s Disposal, and Ryans Hauling. Most
waste is trucked to the Show-Me Regional Landfill in Warrensburg.
36
Law enforcement
The Johnson County Sheriff’s Department includes the sheriff, 6 detectives, and 32
deputies. The department participates in mutual aid agreements with all incorporated
areas within the county. The Sheriff’s office is located in Warrensburg. Additionally, the
communities of Holden, Knob Noster, and Warrensburg all maintain municipal police
departments.
Emergency medical services
The Johnson County Ambulance District (JCAD) serves nearly the entire county with the
exception of a northeast portion of the county that is covered by Concordia, and a south
east portion of the county covered by Windsor. Johnson County Ambulance District has a
staff of 26 full-time and 17 part-time employees. The district provides advanced life
support, with both EMT’s and paramedics on staff. Medical control is primarily through
Western Missouri Medical Center in Warrensburg. Air support systems are available
through AirEvac. The helipad also is used by other air ambulance services in the area.
Fire protection
There are eight 10 fire departments serving Johnson County:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Warrensburg (Headquarters)
Leeton
Chilhowee
Knob Noster
Centerview
Valley City
Columbus
Fayetteville
Coirnelia
Warrensburg
There are five (5) departments that serve the Johnson County Fire Protection District #2:
•
•
•
•
•
Kingsville
Elm
Pittsville
Madison
Rosehill
Except for WAFB, these fire services are dispatched through the Johnson County 911
system. These fire departments all participate in the State Fire Marshall's Mutual Aid
System. Search and rescue for Johnson County are primarily provided by the fire
departments, with support from the local law enforcement agencies and Highway Patrol.
37
The districts that service the County provide the following resources are listed in Table
13 below.
TABLE 13
Holden
Fire and Rescue Resources
JCFPD#1 JCFPD#2 Knob
Noster
Warrensburg
Total
Personnel
Paid
0
0
0
0
24
14
Volunteer
20
115
41
25
30
219
1
9
5
1
2
17
Pumpers
2
9
5
1
3
20
Aerials
0
0
0
0
1
1
Tankers
0
5
3
0
0
8
Brush Units
0
7
4
1
0
12
Rescue Units
1
0
0
0
1
2
Cmd Units
0
0
0
0
1
1
Ambulances
0
0
0
0
0
0
Base
1
0
0
0
2
2
Mobile
3
22
0
2
11
33
Handheld
6
7
1
11
25
33
Cell Phone
0
0
0
0
3
1
Air Bottles
11
50
20
8
48
121
Cascade
Systems
Portable
0
0
0
0
1
0
Fixed
1
0
1
0
1
3
#Electric
0
0
1
0
5
6
#Gas
1
2
0
2
4
5
5
0
5
150
0
260
Stations
# of
Vehicles
Communication
Equipment
Fire fighting
Equipment
Exhaust Fans
Foam
Gals/AFFF
38
Gals/ATC
0
0
0
0
120
0
Gals/Protein
0
0
0
0
15
15
Folda-Tank
1
2
3
0
0
6
Flashlights
20
30
0
6
24
80
Portable floods
1
0
1
0
12
6
0
2
0
0
0
2
-Cutters
1
0
0
0
1
1
-Rams
1
0
0
0
3
4
-Spreaders
1
0
0
0
1
1
Manual Sets
0
0
0
1
2
3
Portable Pumps
1
7
0
1
0
9
Generators
1
0
1
1
5
8
Chain Saws
1
0
0
0
2
3
Lights
Rescue
Equipment
Air Bags
Hydraulic Tools
Other
The primary fire protection services for rural Johnson County are provided by the
Johnson County Fire Protection District (JCFPD) and JCFPD #2. These two districts
maintain stations in the following locations:
Any development within five miles of a station and
1,000 feet of a hydrant is given an ISO rating of 8.
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.
39
TABLE 14
Johnson County Fire
Protection Districts station
locations
JCFPD
JCFPD #2
Warrensburg
Kingsville
(headquarters)
Centerview
EIM
Columbus
Pittsville
Fayetteville
Madison
Valley City
Rosehill
Knob Noster
Leeton
Cornelia
Chilhowee
Emergency services (911)
Emergency calls are taken by Johnson County Central Dispatch operated by the Johnson
County Emergency Management Board. This 911 center then dispatches for the
ambulance, fire and law enforcement departments that serve Johnson County. Updating
the current 4-digit 911 addressing system to 5-digits has been identified as a growing
need. As the number of homes in Johnson County continues to grow, so will the need to
bring all residences into the same 5-digit system, as responsive and high quality service
depends on the ability of emergency services to locate residences quickly and efficiently.
Johnson County has an emergency operation plan. Both Johnson County Public Health
Department and Johnson County Environmental Services officials take steps to prevent
contamination and other health concerns in emergencies and disasters. All water
distribution centers also have emergency operation plans for their water distribution
systems.
Underground Infrastructure
Due to homeland security concerns, underground utilities are not mapped in this plan.
According to the Missouri One Call System, Inc. as of April 4, 2003, the following
companies maintain underground utility lines within Johnson County. Emergency
information concerning these utility lines is contained in the county’s Emergency
Operations Plan updated in 2010.
The following companies have underground lines running through Johnson County:
BP Products North America
Phillips Pipeline
SBC
K.C. Power and Light
Sprint (long distance)
Village Water and Sewer
City of Warrensburg
Wiltel Communications
West Central Electrical Co-op
Southern Star Central Gas
Level 3 Communications
Sprint
KCP&L
Cass County Telephone
Citizen Telephone
CenturyTel
Charter Communications
Conoco Pipeline Henry County Public
Water Supply District #4
Jackson County Public Water Supply
District #15
Johnson County Public Water Supply
District #1
Lafayette County Public Water Supply
District #1
Lafayette-Johnson County Public Water
Supply District #2
Missouri Gas Energy
Missouri-American Water
Missouri Network Alliance
MCI Worldcom
Panhandle Eastern Pipeline
40
The Missouri One Call utility location telephone number is 800-344-7483.
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
TABLE 15
Medical Services of Johnson County
Facility name
Address
District III Agency on Aging
106 W. Young St.
Johnson County Ambulance
Highway 13
District
Missouri Veteran’s Home
1300 Veteran’s Rd.
Western Missouri Medical
403 Burkarth Rd.
Whiteman AFB – Medical
331 Sijan Ave.
Group
Johnson Co. Community
429 Burkarth Rd.
Health
City
Warrensburg
Warrensburg
Warrensburg
Warrensburg
WAFB
Warrensburg
Schools
More than 16,000 students attend various preschool, elementary, middle, junior high or
high schools in the area. The Warrensburg Public Schools is the largest school system in
the county. It has eleven separate schools ranging from Early Childhood through Senior
High School. University of Central Missouri located in Warrensburg enrolls more than
11,000 students per semester. The table below lists education facilities in the planning
area.
TABLE 16
School name
R-1 School District:
Admin/Kingsville School
Kingsville High School
Kingsville Elementary
Schools of Johnson County
Address
City
101 Adratic St.
101 East Adriatic
Street
101 East Adriatic
41
Enrollment
(6/2010)
Kingsville
Kingsville
316
134
Kingsville
148
Street
Administration
Holden High School
Holden Middle School
Holden Elementary School
Admin/Chilhowee School
Chilhowee High School
Chilhowee Elementary School
Administration
Martin Warren Elementary
School
Gateway Education Center
Ridge View Elementary
School
So. East Elementary School
Warrensburg Middle School
Sterling Elementary School
Warrensburg High School
Warrensburg Detention Center
Warrensburg Area Career
Center
Reese School
Administration
Crest Ridge Elementary
Crest Ridge High School
Crest Ridge Middle School
Administration
Middle School
Knob Noster Elementary
School
Whiteman Elementary School
Senior High School
Administration
Leeton High School
Leeton Grade School
Leeton Middle School
900 S. Market
1901 S. Main St.
301 Eagle Dr.
1901 S. Market
Holden
Holden
Holden
Holden
1561
456
322
660
101 Hwy. 2
101 SW State Route
2
101 SW State Route
2
Chilhowee
Chilhowee
164
69
Chilhowee
95
438 E. Market St.
105 S. Maquire St.
Warrensburg
Warrensburg
3645
388
301 W. Market St.
215 S. Ridgeview
Dr.
415 E. Clark St.
640 E. Gay St.
522 E. Gay St.
1411 S. Ridgeview
Dr.
135 W. Market St.
205 S. Ridgeview
Dr.
-
Warrensburg
Warrensburg
380
Warrensburg
Warrensburg
Warrensburg
Warrensburg
262
741
483
1026
Warrensburg
Warrensburg
5
-
Warrensburg
52
92 NW 58 Hwy
92 NW 58 Hwy
92 NW 58 Hwy
92 NW 58 Hwy
Centerview
Centerview
Centerview
Centerview
727
307
201
141
401 E. Wimer St.
211 E. Wimer St.
405 E. Wimer St.
Knob Noster
Knob Noster
Knob Noster
1665
324
414
Whiteman AFB
540 S. Washington
St.
Knob Noster
356
400
500 N. Main St.
500 N. Main St.
500 N. Main St.
500 N. Main St.
Leeton
Leeton
Leeton
Leeton
374
121
172
83
42
FIGURE 7
Johnson County School Districts
Johnson County contains 11 school districts educating more than 23,000 students
attending various preschool, elementary, middle, junior high, and high schools in the area
(including University of Central Missouri). (See the above map for more specific
information.)
Long-term care facilities are likely to be more impacted in a natural disaster. These
facilities fulfill a range of needs including retirement, assisted living, and intermediate
care and continuing care. Residents may have mobility and/or cognition issues that
present special problems. Day care centers represent yet another population that needs
special consideration. Most centers cater to children ages 2-5 although some day care
centers serve older adults. These facilities represent specialized mitigation needs. The
following table and map show a current population of 13,582 in schools, day care,
preschools, and residential facilities. This list of schools and other facilities is deemed
“Facilities Requiring Special Consideration” for evacuation purposes in the Johnson
County EOP.
43
Long-term care facilities
The table below includes a current listing of long-term care facilities located in the
planning area
TABLE 17
Facility name
Bristol Manor
Holden Manor Care Center
Bristol Manor
County Club Care Center
Harmony Gardens
Johnson Co. Comm. Health
Center
Johnson Co. Care Center
Mooreview
Ridge Crest Nursing Center
Warrensburg Manor Care
Center
Western Missouri Medical
Center
Long-Term Care Facilities
Address
City
nd
501 W. 2 St.
Holden
2005 S. Lexington
Holden
603 Creach
Warrensburg
503 Regent Dr.
Warrensburg
503 Burkarth Rd.
Warrensburg
429 Burkarth Rd.
Warrensburg
Beds
12
52
12
91
80
10
122 E. Market
130 West Culton
706 S. Mitchell St.
400 Care Center Dr.
Warrensburg
Warrensburg
Warrensburg
Warrensburg
87
20
120
92
403 Burkarth Rd.
Warrensburg
100
Relevant facilities include medical facilities, schools, long-term care facilities, day care
centers, and government structures. These facilities represent resources for care and
shelter as well as populations requiring a higher level of care and installations critical to
community services.
Day care centers
The table below includes a current listing of recognized day care facilities located in the
planning area.
TABLE 18
Center/operator name
Jeanie Anstine
Ruth A. Davis
Marjorie Hall
Beverly Marsh
Day Care Centers
Address
1211 S. Lexington
407 W. 8th St.
1613 S. Market St.
706 S. Clay St.
44
City
Holden
Holden
Holden
Holden
Licensed
Children
10
10
10
10
Melinda Sechrest
Janelle Powell
Vicki Watterson
CMSU Central Village C.C.C.
CMSU C.C.C.
CMSU Child Development
Center
Mini Adventures C.C.C.
Stepping Stones C.D.C.
The Playhouse
Warrensburg Day Care Center
Wee Care Learning
Ronda Kendrick
Lori Papez
Leslie Brandes
Sandra Davis
Lois Dillingham
MVHR Head Start Center
Carrie Kutz
Pats Day Care & Preschool
Melissa McConnell
Nancy McLaughlin
Carol Sue Stoneking
Carolyn Walker
Bonnie Wolfe
Shirley Fritz
Little Stars Child Dev. Center
Jeannette Golson
Lori Kendrick
Can Do Castle
Kids World
Ready Set Grow C.C.C.
Marjorie Palmer
Elaine Rau
Cheryl Stockton
Janet Murray
Christina Adair
Christina Pelk
Tracy Waters
MVHR Head Start Center
Becky S. Pedrow
One Step Beyond
Leeton Early Childhood
1403 S. Vine St.
607 St. Charles St.
605 W. 5th St.
Holden @ Cent.
Village
Foster Knox Clark St.
CMSU Clark St.
Holden
Holden
Holden
Warrensburg
10
10
10
49
Warrensburg
Warrensburg
99
20
505 A N. Burkarth
Rd.
728 PCA Rd.
610 Burkarth Rd.
700 S. Mitchell &
Jeff.
598 SE DD Hwy #6
39 NE 221 Rd.
802 East Clark
1408 Rockford
706 Canterbury
911 Vest Dr.
330 E. Gay
732 E. Culton St.
600 Wren Way
804 Anderson St.
1019 Fox Run Dr.
106 North Marr Dr.
411 S. Main St.
407 East Hale Lake
Rd.
306 Knoll Dr.
1095 S. Mitchell
266 SE 101
802 East Clark
113 NW 191
17 NE J Hwy.
403 Angus Lane
101 N. Harrison
633 Valley Hill
708 West Salem
38-88 SE J Hwy
176 NE 23 Hwy
107 S. Washington
305 E. McPherson
502 East Lucas
1067 NW 425
592 NW AA Hwy
500 N. Main
Warrensburg
57
Warrensburg
Warrensburg
Warrensburg
44
36
61
Warrensburg
Warrensburg
Warrensburg
Warrensburg
Warrensburg
Warrensburg
Warrensburg
Warrensburg
Warrensburg
Warrensburg
Warrensburg
Warrensburg
Warrensburg
Warrensburg
52
10
10
10
10
10
38
20
10
10
10
10
10
10
Warrensburg
Warrensburg
Warrensburg
Warrensburg
Warrensburg
Knob Noster
Knob Noster
Knob Noster
Knob Noster
Knob Noster
Knob Noster
Knob Noster
Knob Noster
Knob Noster
Knob Noster
Centerview
Kingsville
Leeton
20
36
10
10
20
60
30
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
40
10
53
42
45
Government-owned structures
County buildings include county and city government centers, police stations, fire
stations, ambulance bases, and the county’s 911 Emergency Operations Center. The
following table detail these facilities.
TABLE 19
Government-Owned Structures Within Johnson County
Location
Structure
Warrensburg
City Hall
Warrensburg
Fire Station
Warrensburg
Fire Station
Warrensburg
Police Station
Warrensburg
Sheriffs Office
Warrensburg
Post Office
Warrensburg
Library
Warrensburg
County Highway barn
Warrensburg
State Highway Barn
Warrensburg
State Highway Barn
Warrensburg
City Highway Barn
Warrensburg
City Highway Barn
Warrensburg
Water Treatment Facility
Warrensburg
Wastewater Treatment Facility
Warrensburg
Social Security Office
Warrensburg
Social Services Office
Warrensburg
USDA/FSA Office
Warrensburg
Department of Revenue
Warrensburg
Courthouse
Warrensburg
Criminal Justice Facility
Warrensburg
Rham building
Warrensburg
Court System Facility
Warrensburg
Divers Test Facility
Kingsville
Fire Station
Kingsville
Post Office
Kingsville
Holden
City Hall
Holden
Fire Station
Holden
Police Station
Holden
Post Office
46
Holden
Holden
Holden
Holden
Holden
Holden
Centerview
Centerview
Centerview
Centerview
Chilhowee
Chilhowee
Chilhowee
Chilhowee
Chilhowee
Leeton
Leeton
Leeton
Leeton
Leeton
Leeton
Leeton
Other
Other
Other
Other
Other
Other
Other
Other
Other
Other
Other
Other
Library
County Highway barn
State Highway Barn
City Highway Barn
City Hall
Post Office
City Hall
Post Office
State Highway Barn
City Hall
Fire Station
Post Office
County Highway barn
City Highway Barn
Fire Station
Fire Station
Fire Station
Fire Station
Fire Station
Fire Station
Fire Station
Fire Station
Fire Station
Fire Station
Fire Station
* Does not include recreational facilities, maintenance facilities or storage facilities
Inventory of large employment, commercial and recreation centers
Relevant facilities include those that concentrate large groups of people together in a
single location.
Large industrial/commercial centers
Several major manufacturing plants, a mix of both national and local companies, are
located within the county. These plants employ a minimum of 50 employees. The table
below also includes the area’s retail and commercial centers.
47
TABLE 20
Johnson County Employers, 50 or More Employees
Company Name
Product
City
GTE Industries
Railroad and Elec. Equip.
Stahl Specialty Company
University of Central Missouri
Aluminum Castings
Education
Hawker Energy
Batteries
Whitman AFB
Gilcrest Equipment Co.
Military
Construction Manufacture
Co.
Retail Store
Wal-Mart
Warrensbur
g
Kingsville
Warrensbur
g
Warrensbur
g
Whiteman
Warrensbur
g
Employee
s
367
627
1645
500
6,698
50
425
Source Warrensburg Economic Development, 5-10-04
Three industrial parks exist within the county, located in Warrensburg, Holden, and one
in development in Centerview.
Large recreational centers
County and municipal events include, the Community Center, Johnson County Country
Club, and the Pertle Springs golf course all in Warrensburg; Knob Noster State Park in
Knob Noster; the Hope Coalition and Holden Reservoir in Holden and the Johnson
County Fairgrounds near Holden.
Inventory of housing
structures
TABLE 21
Johnson County 2010 Census
Housing Types
Occupied
The Johnson County housing supply is Vacant
generally tight; especially for homes at
Urban
or below the $129,600 average singlefamily house. Of the total 17,410 Rural
housing units, 51% are rural units, Total Housing Units
92% are occupied, 61.5% are owner- Source: 2010 U.S. Census
occupied, 66.3% are single-family
units, 14.6% are mobile homes, and 3.3% are lacking telephone service.
48
Number
Percent
19,311
92%
2,217
8%
10,548
49%
10,979
51%
21,528
100%
With a total of 17,390 households and 1,476 vacant units, the county would have a 9%
margin in dwelling units to accommodate changing residential needs. Of the county’s
18,886 residential structures, 84% were built after 1950. The average housing structure in
Johnson County is 29 years old.
Figure 8
Johnson County Housing Structures Assessment
4,000
3,636
3,305
3,500
3,000
2,500
2,257
2,180
2,105
2,023
1,891
Housing Units 2,000
1,500
798
1,000
691
500
0
1939 or
Earlier
1940 - 1949 1950 - 1959 1960 - 1969 1970 - 1979 1980 - 1989 1990 - 1994 1995 - 1999
1999 to
March 2000
Year Built
Total inventory of structures
The total Johnson County assessed valuation for 2003, including both real estate and
personal property, was $406,618,787, according to Johnson County Clerks Office.
Therefore, the average assessed valuation was $13,993 per parcel. Rural parcels totaled
$136,984,411 or 34% of the county’s assessments. Urban assessed values were
$149,466,258 or 37% of the county’s assessments. Tax-exempt parcels and state
assessed utilities accounted for the remaining 29%.
City/town/village profiles
The tables below provide a comparison of characteristics within Johnson 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.
49
Centerview
Total population
Classification
Incorporation date
Leadership structure
Median household income, 1999
Total housing units
Housing unit, median year built
Median gross rent
Average 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
267
Fourth class
1960
Mayor/Council
$28,333
107
1960
N/A
$44,167
no
yes
no
no
yes
no
no
Centerview
Centerview
Aquila
JCFPD #1
JCAD
None
SW State Hwy. 58, and VV
50
Figure 9
51
Chilhowee
Total population
Incorporation date
Classification
Average household income, 1999
Total housing units
Housing unit, average year built
Average gross rent
Master plan
Zoning regulations
Water service
Sewer service
Electric service
Fire service
Ambulance service
Rivers, streams
Major arterials
325
1907
Forth class
Mayor/Council
$32,033
165
1960
$270
$41,883
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
Chilhowee
Chilhowee
Aquila
JCFPD
JCAD
None
SW State Hwy. F, 2 Hwy
52
Figure 10
53
Holden
Total population
Classification
Incorporation date
Total housing units
Average gross rent
Master plan
Zoning regulations
Water service
Sewer service
Electric service
Fire service
Ambulance service
Rivers, streams
Major arterials
2,252
Third class
1861
Mayor/Council
$34,520
1,089
1959
$436
$62,576
no
no
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
Holden
Holden
Aquila
Holden
JCAD
East Branch Pine Oak Creek
SW State Hwy. 58, State Hwy. 131, Missouri Pacific
Railroad
54
Figure 11
55
Kingsville
Total population
Classification
Incorporation date
Total housing units
Average gross rent
Master plan
Zoning regulations
Water service
Sewer service
Electric service
Fire service
Ambulance service
Rivers, streams
Major arterials
269
Fourth class
1885
Mayor/Council
$43,210
117
1964
$488
$56,579
no
no
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
Public Water District #2
Own
Aquila
JCFPD #2
JCAD
None
SW State Hwy. W, SW State Hwy. 58, SW State
Hwy. T, Missouri Pacific Railroad
56
Figure 12
57
Knob Noster
Total population
Classification
Incorporation date
Total housing units
Average gross rent
Master plan
Zoning regulations
Water service
Sewer service
Electric service
Fire service
Ambulance service
Rivers, streams
Major arterials
2,709
Fourth class
1890
Mayor/Council
$39,139
1,092
1970
$424
$86,600
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
City of Knob Noster
City of Knob Noster
Aquila,
JCFPD, City of Knob Noster
JCAD
Clear Fork
NE US Hwy. 50, NE Hwy. 23, Union Pacific
Railroad
58
Figure 13
59
Leeton
Total population
Classification
Incorporation date
Total housing units
Housing unit average year built
Average gross rent
Master plan
Zoning regulations
Water service
Sewer service
Electric service
Fire service
Ambulance service
Rivers, streams
Major arterials
566
Fourth class
1946
Mayor/Council
$35,879
277
1959
$347
$50,725
no
no
yes
yes
yes
no
yes
City of Leeton
City of Leeton
Aquila
JCFPD
JCAD
None
SE State Hwy. 2, St. Louis SW Railway
60
Figure 14
Warrensburg
Total population
18,838
61
Classification
Incorporation date
Total housing units
Average gross rent
Master plan
Zoning regulations
Water service
Sewer service
Electric service
Fire service
Ambulance service
Rivers, streams
Major arterials
Third class
1855
Mayor/Council
$37,980
6,380
1970
$506
$99,694
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
Mid-American Water Co.
City of Warrensburg
KCP&L
City of Warrensburg
JCAD
N/A
NW US 50, SE State Hwy. 13, Missouri Union
Pacific Railroad
62
Figure 15
63
Whiteman AFB
Total population
Classification
Incorporation date
Total housing units
Average gross rent
Master plan
Zoning regulations
Water service
Sewer service
Electric service
Fire service
Ambulance service
Rivers, streams
Major arterials
2,556
NA
CDP*
$39,322
982
1964
$546
NA
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
Whiteman
Whiteman, JCAD
Long Branch, Brewer Branch
SE State Hwy. 23, SE State Hwy. D
64
Figure 16
65
Johnson County
Total population
Classification
Total housing units
Average gross rent
Master plan
Zoning regulations
Stormwater regulations
Water service
Sewer service
Electric service
Fire service
Ambulance service
Rivers, streams
Major arterials
Railroad
52,595
Second class
Commissioners
$43,069
18,886
1971
$491
$96,339
yes
yes
no
yes
yes
yes
yes
PWD #1, #2, #3
Wright City
Aquila
JCFPD and JCFPD #2
JCAD
Blackwater River
NW US 50, SE State Hwy. 13, SE State
Hwy.23
Missouri Pacific Railroad, St. Louis SW
Railway
*CDP: Census designated places (CDP’s) are delineated for the decennial census as the statistical
counterparts of incorporated places.
66
Figure 17
67
SECTION 2
Risk Assessment
Natural Hazard Identification/ 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.
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
The largest disaster to impact Johnson County in the recent past was the Great Flood of
1993. Loss of agricultural lands, homes, businesses, and infrastructures, as well as the
temporary closing of some local businesses contributed to economic losses throughout
the county and beyond. Several natural hazards can affect Johnson County. History
indicates Johnson County could be at risk of tornadoes and severe thunderstorms; riverine
flooding (including flash floods); severe winter weather (snow, ice, extreme cold);
drought; heat wave; earthquakes; wildfires and dam failures. Worksheet #1, Johnson
County Hazard Identification and Analysis, is included at the end of this section. The
worksheet shows Winter Weather as the hazard with the greatest possible impact.
August 2012
68
Natural hazard risks to Johnson County are ranked in descending order. The hazard of
tornado and severe thunderstorms is followed by floods, severe winter storms, drought,
heat wave, earthquake, dam failure, and wildfire hazards.
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, river 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 23 below illustrates how the occurrence of one hazard can lead into
other hazard events.
Hazards not included and reasons for elimination
The Missouri State Plan includes several natural hazards that were not included in the
Johnson County Plan Update. For example, landslides and land subsidence, according to
the United States Geological Survey (USGS) website, are not likely to occur in Johnson
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. Sinkholes were not included as a hazard
as the State of Missouri Hazard Mitigation Plan has Johnson County with 0 sinkholes
page 3.405.
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 Johnson 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.
August 2012
69
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.
TABLE 23
Natural
Disaster
Tornado/Storm
Flood
Severe Winter
Drought
Heat Wave
Earthquake
Dam Failure
Wildfire
Cascading Hazards Resulting From Natural Disasters
Power and
Water
Business
Civil
Computer Transportation
Communications
Supply
Interruption Unrest
Failure
Interruption
Interruption
Interruption
and/or
Loss of
Records
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
X
X
X
X
X
X
Health and/or
Environmental
Hazards
X = More than 50% chance of side effect in the case of a natural disaster.
Hazard Profile worksheets are included at the end of this section.
*Historical Data
The historical data in this plan comes from NOAA and was obtained in 2010, as part of
the plan update, future updates will use more accurate data that will be obtained from
NCDC (National Climatic Data Center)
Identified Natural Hazards
Tornadoes/Severe Thunderstorms
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.
August 2012
70
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
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
Tornadoes are cyclical windstorms or violently rotating columns of air. Accompanying
storm activities include severe thunder/electrical storms, downbursts, straight-line winds,
lightning, hail, and heavy rain. The average forward speed of a tornado is about 30
m.p.h., but vary from nearly stationary to 70 m.p.h. The pathway may vary in any
direction, but the average tornado moves from southwest to northeast. Tornadoes are
most likely to occur between 3 p.m. and 9 p.m., but may ensue at any hour of the day.
Any person or structure at any location could be impacted by a tornado. The amount of
damage depends on 1) the strength of the tornado, 2) the tornado’s proximity to the
person/structure, 3) the strength of the structure, 4) how well a person is sheltered, etc.
Damage can range from negligible to catastrophic.
A severe thunderstorm is a term designating a thunderstorm that has reached a
predetermined level of severity. This level is determined by the storm being strong
enough to inflict wind or hail damage. A storm is considered severe if winds reach at
least 93 58 mph, hail is 1 inch in diameter or larger, or if funnel clouds and/or tornadoes
are reported. Though a funnel cloud or tornado indicates a severe thunderstorm, a tornado
warning is issued in place of a severe thunderstorm warning.
Any thunderstorm which produces hail that reaches the ground is known as a hailstorm.
Hail has a diameter of 5 millimetres (0.20 in) or more. Hailstones can grow to 15
centimetres (6 in) and weigh more than 0.5 kilograms (1.1 lb).
High winds are a very strong wind that has air moving (sometimes with considerable
force) from an area of high pressure to an area of low pressure.
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
August 2012
71
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 20-30 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 convection-prone 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 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.
August 2012
72
Tornadoes are classified according to the F-scale developed by Dr. Theodore Fujita. The
F-scale ranks tornadoes according to wind speed, and the severity of damage caused
within the wind speed ranges. The various damage levels are shown below.
TABLE 24
Fujita Tornado Damage Scale
Developed in 1971 by Dr. Theodore Fujita of the University of Chicago
SCALE
F0
WIND ESTIMATE * (MPH)
< 73
F1
73-112
F2
113-157
F3
158-206
F4
207-260
F5
261-318
TYPICAL DAMAGE
Light damage. Some damage to chimneys; branches broken off trees;
shallow-rooted trees pushed over; sign boards damaged.
Moderate damage. Peels surface off roofs; mobile homes pushed off
foundations or overturned; moving autos blown off roads.
Considerable damage. Roofs torn off frame houses; mobile homes
demolished; boxcars overturned; large trees snapped or uprooted; lightobject missiles generated; cars lifted off ground.
Severe damage. Roofs and some walls torn off well-constructed houses;
trains overturned; most trees in forest uprooted; heavy cars lifted off the
ground and thrown.
Devastating damage. Well-constructed houses leveled; structures with
weak foundations blown away some distance; cars thrown and large
missiles generated.
Incredible damage. Strong frame houses leveled off foundations and
swept away; automobile-sized missiles fly through the air in excess of 100
meters (109 yds); trees debarked; incredible phenomena will occur.
* IMPORTANT NOTE ABOUT F-SCALE WINDS: These precise wind speed numbers are actually guesses and
have never been scientifically verified. Different wind speeds may cause similar-looking damage from place to place -even from building to building. Without a thorough engineering analysis of tornado damage in any event, the actual
wind speeds needed to cause that damage are unknown.
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.
FUJITA SCALE
F
Number
0
1
2
3
4
5
August 2012
Fastest
1/4mile
(mph)
40-72
73-112
113157
158207
208260
261318
3
Second
Gust
(mph)
45-78
79-117
118161
162209
210261
262317
DERIVED EF
SCALE
EF
3
Number Second
Gust
(mph)
0
65-85
1
86-109
2
110137
3
138167
4
168199
5
200234
73
OPERATIONAL
EF SCALE
EF
3
Number Second
Gust
(mph)
0
65-85
1
86-110
2
111-135
3
136-165
4
166-200
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.
Previous Events
According to the NCDC, there have been 31 tornadoes reported in Johnson County.
There have been 12 reported tornado related injuries and 1 death in Johnson County
since 1950. The estimated damages reported from these storms was approximately
6.45M. Johnson County has never had an F3 tornado. Tornado occurrences reported
to the NCDC are found in the table below.
Since 1960, according to the NCDC, tornadoes in Johnson County have:
•
•
•
•
Occurred between April and November;
Caused 1 death and 12 injuries;
Created unknown employment impacts; and
Damaged property valued at $ 6,455,000.
Table 25: JOHNSON COUNTY TORNADO OCCURANCES: 1950 - 2010
Location or
Date
Magnitude Deaths Injuries Property
Crop
County
Damage Damage
5/19/1960
F1
0
0
3K
0
JOHNSON
4/23/1961
F1
0
0
3K
0
JOHNSON
6/8/1962
F1
0
0
0K
0
JOHNSON
4/12/1964
F2
1
3
250K
0
JOHNSON
5/15/1968
F2
0
2
250K
0
JOHNSON
5/15/1968
F2
0
0
25K
0
JOHNSON
5/15/1968
F2
0
0
25K
0
JOHNSON
5/15/1968
F2
0
0
25K
0
JOHNSON
4/4/1969
F2
0
1
250K
0
JOHNSON
9/2/1970
F0
0
0
0K
0
JOHNSON
6/2/1971
F1
0
0
3K
0
JOHNSON
5/20/1982
F1
0
0
0K
0
JOHNSON
11/15/1988
F1
0
0
250K
0
JOHNSON
5/26/1996
F1
0
0
0
0
HOLDEN
5/26/2000
F1
0
0
5K
0
HOLDEN
F1
0
0
2.0M
0
WARRENSBURG 4/10/2001
5/4/2003
F2
0
0
1K
0
JOHNSON
August 2012
74
WARRENSBURG
WHITEMAN
AFB
5/4/2003
5/6/2003
F1
F0
0
0
0
0
25K
10K
0
0
CHILHOWEE
WARRENSBURG
5/8/2003
5/8/2003
F0
F0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
F0
F0
F1
F1
F0
F2
F0
F1
F1
F0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
2
0
4
0
0
0
0
12
1K
5K
0
1.1M
0
2.0M
5K
200K
20K
0K
6.455M
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0K
0K
0K
0
5/9/2003
CENTERVIEW
WARRENSBURG 10/29/2004
KNOB NOSTER 10/29/2004
6/4/2005
HOLDEN
3/12/2006
JOHNSON
3/12/2006
LEETON
3/30/2006
LEETON
2/24/2007
HOLDEN
2/28/2007
KINGSVILLE
10/17/2007
CENTERVIEW
TOTALS:
Historical tornado data is displayed in the above table dating back to 1960. Of the 31
tornados there have been no records of a tornado in Johnson County over F2 in
magnitude.
Additional data on significant Johnson County thunderstorms (downbursts, lightning,
hail, heavy rains and wind) indicates two damaging lightning events, 185 hail events, and
130 severe thunderstorms. The tables below list thunderstorm, high wind, hail and
lightning events within the county from 1955 to 2003. These events generated almost
$390,000 in damage.
Table 26: JOHNSON COUNTY THUNDERSTORM OCCURANCES: 1950 2010
Location or
County
JOHNSON
Date
Magnitude
5/28/1955 0 kts.
Deaths Injuries Property
Crop
Damage Damage
0
0
0
0
JOHNSON
7/2/1956 0 kts.
0
0
0
0
JOHNSON
7/8/1956 0 kts.
0
0
0
0
JOHNSON
1/21/1957 0 kts.
0
0
0
0
JOHNSON
6/11/1959 62 kts.
0
0
0
0
JOHNSON
9/28/1959 65 kts.
0
0
0
0
JOHNSON
5/8/1962 60 kts.
0
0
0
0
JOHNSON
4/6/1964 60 kts.
0
0
0
0
JOHNSON
4/12/1964 60 kts.
0
0
0
0
August 2012
75
JOHNSON
5/28/1964 0 kts.
0
0
0
0
JOHNSON
9/15/1965 62 kts.
0
0
0
0
JOHNSON
9/15/1965 0 kts.
0
0
0
0
JOHNSON
9/15/1965 62 kts.
0
0
0
0
JOHNSON
7/2/1969 60 kts.
0
0
0
0
JOHNSON
5/10/1970 52 kts.
0
0
0
0
JOHNSON
7/31/1970 0 kts.
0
0
0
0
JOHNSON
7/31/1970 0 kts.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
JOHNSON
9/4/1971 50 kts.
JOHNSON
6/16/1973 0 kts.
0
0
0
0
JOHNSON
10/3/1973 58 kts.
0
0
0
0
JOHNSON
11/9/1975 52 kts.
0
0
0
0
JOHNSON
6/28/1977 0 kts.
0
0
0
0
JOHNSON
4/17/1978 0 kts.
0
0
0
0
JOHNSON
6/23/1978 61 kts.
0
0
0
0
JOHNSON
7/14/1978 0 kts.
0
0
0
0
JOHNSON
5/26/1979 0 kts.
0
0
0
0
JOHNSON
7/24/1981 57 kts.
0
0
0
0
JOHNSON
3/30/1982 0 kts.
0
0
0
0
JOHNSON
12/1/1982 0 kts.
0
0
0
0
JOHNSON
12/1/1982 0 kts.
0
0
0
0
JOHNSON
7/4/1985 0 kts.
0
0
0
0
JOHNSON
8/28/1989 52 kts.
0
0
0
0
JOHNSON
5/26/1991 0 kts.
0
0
0
0
JOHNSON
5/26/1991 0 kts.
0
0
0
0
JOHNSON
8/8/1991 52 kts.
0
0
0
0
JOHNSON
11/29/1991 66 kts.
0
0
0
0
JOHNSON
8/30/1993 0 kts.
0
0
5K
0
HOLDEN
7/1/1994 0 kts.
0
0
0
0
HOLDEN
5/16/1995 61 kts.
0
0
0
0
JOHNSON
6/8/1995 0 kts.
0
0
1K
0
WARRENSBURG
6/8/1995 0 kts.
0
0
5K
0
KNOB NOSTER
6/8/1995 0 kts.
0
0
3K
0
WHITEMAN AFB
6/8/1995 56 kts.
0
0
0
0
KNOB NOSTER
6/8/1995 0 kts.
0
0
2K
0
WARRENSBURG
6/22/1995 0 kts.
0
0
4K
0
HOLDEN
7/23/1995 0 kts.
0
0
2K
0
August 2012
76
CENTERVIEW
7/23/1995 52 kts.
0
0
2K
0
KNOB NOSTER
8/16/1995 57 kts.
0
0
0
0
WHITEMAN AFB
7/10/1997 59 kts.
0
0
0
0
JOHNSON
8/14/1997 0 kts.
0
0
5K
0
WHITEMAN AFB
6/19/1998 70 kts.
0
0
0
0
LEETON
6/20/1998 60 kts.
0
0
0
0
WARRENSBURG
6/22/1998 59 kts.
0
0
0
0
JOHNSON
6/29/1998 70 kts.
0
0
0
0
JOHNSON
6/29/1998 55 kts.
0
0
0
0
JOHNSON
10/17/1998 60 kts.
0
0
0
0
JOHNSON
11/9/1998 85 kts.
0
2
60K
0
WHITEMAN AFB
2/11/1999 58 kts.
0
0
0
0
4/8/1999 57 kts.
0
0
0
0
JOHNSON
HOLDEN
5/17/1999 0 kts.
0
0
10K
0
WARRENSBURG
6/10/1999 60 kts.
0
0
0
0
HOLDEN
6/27/1999 0 kts.
0
0
50K
0
JOHNSON
8/7/1999 50 kts.
0
0
0
0
KNOB NOSTER
8/7/1999 50 kts.
0
0
0
0
HOLDEN
2/25/2000 52 kts.
0
0
0
0
WHITEMAN AFB
2/25/2000 63 kts.
0
0
0
0
JOHNSON
3/26/2000 65 kts.
0
0
0
0
WARRENSBURG
3/26/2000 55 kts.
0
0
0
0
JOHNSON
4/20/2000 52 kts.
0
0
5K
0
KINGSVILLE
6/25/2000 60 kts.
0
0
10K
0
LEETON
7/12/2000 52 kts.
0
0
0
0
CENTERVIEW
8/7/2000 52 kts.
0
0
0
0
WHITEMAN AFB
8/7/2000 81 kts.
0
0
0
0
WARRENSBURG
8/7/2000 55 kts.
0
0
0
0
KNOB NOSTER
8/7/2000 60 kts.
0
0
0
0
9/22/2000 60 kts.
0
0
0
0
4/9/2001 0 kts.
0
0
10K
0
HOLDEN
4/10/2001 0 kts.
0
0
0
0
WARRENSBURG
4/14/2001 60 kts.
0
0
0
0
KNOB NOSTER
4/14/2001 70 kts.
0
0
2K
0
CENTERVIEW
4/14/2001 70 kts.
0
0
0
0
WARRENSBURG
5/17/2001 52 kts.
0
0
0
0
JOHNSON
5/20/2001 52 kts.
0
0
0
0
HOLDEN
WARRENSBURG
August 2012
77
WHITEMAN AFB
6/1/2001 57 kts.
0
0
0
0
HOLDEN
6/1/2001 52 kts.
0
0
0
0
WARRENSBURG
6/14/2001 70 kts.
0
0
5K
0
WARRENSBURG
8/9/2001 60 kts.
0
0
0
0
HOLDEN
8/9/2001 65 kts.
0
0
0
0
WARRENSBURG
9/7/2001 52 kts.
0
0
1K
0
KNOB NOSTER
9/7/2001 52 kts.
0
0
3K
0
10/4/2001 52 kts.
0
0
0
0
WARRENSBURG
5/8/2002 61 kts.
0
0
1K
0
JOHNSON
5/8/2002 52 kts.
0
0
0
0
WARRENSBURG
5/8/2002 50 kts.
0
0
0
0
WHITEMAN AFB
10/2/2002 65 kts.
0
0
0
0
WARRENSBURG
10/2/2002 65 kts.
0
0
5K
0
WHITEMAN AFB
5/6/2003 56 kts.
0
0
0
0
WHITEMAN AFB
5/8/2003 90 kts.
0
0
0
0
KINGSVILLE
5/10/2003 57 kts.
0
0
0
0
KNOB NOSTER
7/11/2003 52 kts.
0
0
0
0
LEETON
8/21/2003 52 kts.
0
0
0
0
HOLDEN
6/12/2004 52 kts.
0
0
1K
0
CHILHOWEE
8/23/2004 52 kts.
0
0
0
0
HOLDEN
10/29/2004 65 kts.
0
0
2K
0
WARRENSBURG
10/29/2004 65 kts.
0
0
1K
0
WARRENSBURG
10/29/2004 65 kts.
0
0
1K
0
CHILHOWEE
6/3/2005 52 kts.
0
0
0
0
JOHNSON
6/4/2005 52 kts.
0
0
0
0
KNOB NOSTER
6/7/2005 52 kts.
0
0
0
0
WARRENSBURG
9/13/2005 52 kts.
0
0
0
0
JOHNSON
3/12/2006 52 kts.
0
0
25K
0
WARRENSBURG
3/12/2006 52 kts.
0
0
5K
0
CENTERVIEW
3/12/2006 61 kts.
0
0
0
0
JOHNSON
4/6/2006 61 kts.
0
0
0
0
WHITEMAN AFB
4/6/2006 61 kts.
0
0
25K
0
WARRENSBURG
8/18/2006 62 kts.
0
0
0
0
WARRENSBURG
2/28/2007 52 kts.
0
0
0K
0K
HOLDEN
4/24/2007 61 kts.
0
0
25K
0K
WARRENSBURG
6/3/2008 52 kts.
0
0
1K
0K
JOHNSON
6/5/2008 52 kts.
0
0
0K
0K
CHILHOWEE
August 2012
78
JOHNSON
8/28/2008 52 kts.
0
0
0K
0K
HOLDEN
8/28/2008 52 kts.
0
0
5K
0K
WARRENSBURG
8/28/2008 56 kts.
0
0
5K
0K
LEETON
8/28/2008 52 kts.
0
0
0K
0K
LEETON
8/28/2008 52 kts.
0
0
0K
0K
JOHNSON
12/27/2008 52 kts.
0
0
0K
0K
JOHNSON
6/9/2009 60 kts.
0
0
0K
0K
WARRENSBURG
6/15/2009 52 kts.
0
0
2K
0K
WHITEMAN AFB
6/15/2009 50 kts.
0
0
0K
0K
WARRENSBURG
7/25/2009 61 kts.
0
0
0K
0K
0
2
289K
0
TOTALS:
Table 27: JOHNSON COUNTY LIGHTNING OCCURANCES: 1950 2010
Location or
Date
Magnitude Deaths Injuries Property
Crop
County
Damage Damage
5/16/1995 N/A
0
0 9K
0
HOLDEN
0
0 16K
0
WARRENSBURG 7/12/2000 N/A
TOTALS:
0
0 25K
0
Table 28: Johnson County Hail Occurrences: 1955 - 2010
Location or
County
JOHNSON
JOHNSON
JOHNSON
JOHNSON
JOHNSON
JOHNSON
JOHNSON
JOHNSON
JOHNSON
JOHNSON
JOHNSON
JOHNSON
August 2012
Date
5/8/1956
6/26/1957
6/26/1957
4/19/1959
5/7/1961
5/7/1961
5/8/1962
5/8/1962
6/18/1962
4/12/1964
4/12/1964
4/21/1967
Magnitude Death Injury Property
Crop
Damage Damage
0.75 in.
0
0
0
0
1.50 in.
0
0
0
0
1.50 in.
0
0
0
0
1.50 in.
0
0
0
0
0.75 in.
0
0
0
0
1.00 in.
0
0
0
0
2.00 in.
0
0
0
0
2.00 in.
0
0
0
0
1.50 in.
0
0
0
0
1.00 in.
0
0
0
0
2.00 in.
0
0
0
0
1.75 in.
0
0
0
0
79
JOHNSON
JOHNSON
JOHNSON
JOHNSON
JOHNSON
JOHNSON
JOHNSON
JOHNSON
JOHNSON
JOHNSON
JOHNSON
JOHNSON
JOHNSON
JOHNSON
JOHNSON
JOHNSON
JOHNSON
JOHNSON
JOHNSON
JOHNSON
JOHNSON
JOHNSON
JOHNSON
JOHNSON
JOHNSON
JOHNSON
JOHNSON
JOHNSON
JOHNSON
WARRENSBURG
HOLDEN
WARRENSBURG
MONTSERRAT
JOHNSON
KINGSVILLE
HOLDEN
LEETON
LEETON
WARRENSBURG
WARRENSBURG
KNOB NOSTER
August 2012
4/21/1967
7/3/1969
5/10/1970
5/10/1970
6/12/1970
3/31/1973
10/3/1973
4/18/1975
3/26/1976
4/20/1976
3/29/1979
3/16/1980
8/5/1980
4/13/1981
3/15/1982
7/1/1982
11/1/1982
3/15/1984
7/4/1985
7/4/1985
5/11/1987
5/8/1989
5/8/1989
5/18/1989
5/24/1989
5/25/1990
5/25/1990
5/4/1991
5/4/1991
9/22/1993
4/16/1995
5/16/1995
5/24/1996
6/5/1996
5/17/1997
6/4/1998
6/20/1998
6/20/1998
8/19/1998
10/4/1998
1/21/1999
1.75 in.
0.81 in.
1.75 in.
1.25 in.
1.00 in.
1.75 in.
1.75 in.
1.00 in.
1.00 in.
2.50 in.
1.75 in.
0.75 in.
0.75 in.
0.75 in.
1.75 in.
1.75 in.
0.75 in.
0.75 in.
0.75 in.
1.00 in.
1.00 in.
0.75 in.
0.75 in.
2.00 in.
0.75 in.
1.75 in.
1.50 in.
1.25 in.
1.25 in.
1.75 in.
1.00 in.
0.88 in.
1.75 in.
1.00 in.
1.75 in.
0.75 in.
1.00 in.
1.00 in.
0.88 in.
0.75 in.
1.75 in.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
80
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
WARRENSBURG
HOLDEN
JOHNSON
JOHNSON
CHILHOWEE
HOLDEN
LEETON
WARRENSBURG
CHILHOWEE
CENTERVIEW
JOHNSON
KINGSVILLE
JOHNSON
CHILHOWEE
WARRENSBURG
HOLDEN
WARRENSBURG
KINGSVILLE
HOLDEN
JOHNSON
WARRENSBURG
WARRENSBURG
CHILHOWEE
KINGSVILLE
KINGSVILLE
HOLDEN
JOHNSON
WARRENSBURG
WARRENSBURG
KINGSVILLE
HOLDEN
LEETON
JOHNSON
CHILHOWEE
JOHNSON
WARRENSBURG
JOHNSON
KINGSVILLE
KINGSVILLE
CENTERVIEW
KNOB NOSTER
August 2012
6/10/1999
3/26/2000
3/26/2000
3/26/2000
3/26/2000
3/26/2000
3/26/2000
5/8/2000
5/8/2000
5/8/2000
5/26/2000
9/11/2000
9/11/2000
9/11/2000
4/3/2001
4/3/2001
4/3/2001
4/9/2001
4/9/2001
4/9/2001
4/9/2001
4/9/2001
4/9/2001
4/10/2001
4/10/2001
4/10/2001
4/10/2001
4/10/2001
4/14/2001
4/14/2001
4/14/2001
6/1/2001
8/9/2001
10/4/2001
5/8/2002
5/11/2002
5/11/2002
3/12/2003
3/12/2003
3/12/2003
3/12/2003
0.75 in.
1.00 in.
1.75 in.
1.75 in.
0.75 in.
1.75 in.
2.50 in.
0.75 in.
1.00 in.
1.00 in.
1.75 in.
1.00 in.
1.75 in.
1.75 in.
1.00 in.
2.00 in.
1.00 in.
1.00 in.
1.25 in.
0.88 in.
0.75 in.
0 kts.
1.75 in.
1.00 in.
1.50 in.
0 kts.
1.75 in.
1.75 in.
0.88 in.
1.75 in.
0.75 in.
0.88 in.
1.00 in.
1.00 in.
0.75 in.
0.75 in.
0.75 in.
0.75 in.
0.88 in.
2.75 in.
0.88 in.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
81
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
10K
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
WARRENSBURG
WARRENSBURG
WARRENSBURG
CENTERVIEW
JOHNSON
WARRENSBURG
KINGSVILLE
WARRENSBURG
KINGSVILLE
JOHNSON
JOHNSON
CENTERVIEW
WHITEMAN
AFB
WARRENSBURG
LEETON
KINGSVILLE
HOLDEN
KINGSVILLE
JOHNSON
WARRENSBURG
JOHNSON
WARRENSBURG
JOHNSON
KINGSVILLE
WARRENSBURG
CENTERVIEW
JOHNSON
WARRENSBURG
WARRENSBURG
WARRENSBURG
WARRENSBURG
WARRENSBURG
WHITEMAN
AFB
WARRENSBURG
LEETON
WHITEMAN
AFB
CENTERVIEW
WARRENSBURG
WARRENSBURG
August 2012
3/12/2003
3/12/2003
3/12/2003
4/24/2003
4/24/2003
4/24/2003
5/4/2003
5/4/2003
5/4/2003
5/4/2003
5/6/2003
5/6/2003
5/6/2003
1.00 in.
1.75 in.
1.00 in.
0.88 in.
1.00 in.
0.88 in.
0.88 in.
0.75 in.
0.75 in.
0.75 in.
1.25 in.
0.88 in.
1.00 in.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5/6/2003
5/6/2003
5/6/2003
5/6/2003
5/8/2003
5/8/2003
5/8/2003
5/9/2003
5/9/2003
5/9/2003
5/9/2003
5/9/2003
5/10/2003
5/24/2004
6/14/2004
6/14/2004
8/17/2004
8/17/2004
8/17/2004
8/17/2004
1.00 in.
1.00 in.
1.00 in.
1.00 in.
0.75 in.
1.00 in.
1.00 in.
1.00 in.
1.75 in.
1.00 in.
1.75 in.
0.88 in.
1.00 in.
0.88 in.
0.88 in.
1.00 in.
1.00 in.
3.00 in.
1.25 in.
0.75 in.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5K
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
8/17/2004 1.75 in.
8/17/2004 0.75 in.
4/21/2005 1.50 in.
0
0
0
0
0
0
1K
0
0
0
0
0
9/19/2005 0.75 in.
9/19/2005 0.88 in.
9/19/2005 1.00 in.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
82
WARRENSBURG 9/19/2005 1.50 in.
3/12/2006 1.00 in.
JOHNSON
3/12/2006 1.00 in.
HOLDEN
3/12/2006 1.00 in.
LEETON
3/12/2006 1.00 in.
CHILHOWEE
3/12/2006 0.88 in.
WHITEMAN
AFB
3/30/2006 1.75 in.
CHILHOWEE
3/30/2006 0.88 in.
CHILHOWEE
4/23/2006 1.00 in.
WHITEMAN
AFB
4/23/2006 1.00 in.
HOLDEN
4/23/2006 0.88 in.
CHILHOWEE
5/24/2006 0.75 in.
HOLDEN
5/30/2006 1.00 in.
HOLDEN
6/10/2006 1.50 in.
JOHNSON
11/10/2006 0.88 in.
HOLDEN
2/28/2007 1.00 in.
JOHNSON
2/28/2007 0.75 in.
JOHNSON
2/28/2007 0.75 in.
JOHNSON
10/18/2007 0.75 in.
KINGSVILLE
1/7/2008 1.25 in.
JOHNSON
2/3/2008 1.00 in.
WHITEMAN
AFB
4/22/2008 1.25 in.
WHITEMAN
AFB
6/15/2008 0.75 in.
JOHNSON
7/29/2008 1.50 in.
JOHNSON
3/8/2009 1.00 in.
JOHNSON
August 2012
83
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
10K
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
50K
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0K
0K
0K
0K
0K
0K
0K
0K
0K
0K
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0K
0K
0K
0K
0K
0K
0K
0K
0K
0K
0
0
0K
0K
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0K
0K
0K
0K
0K
0K
0K
0K
0K
0K
KNOB NOSTER
CHILHOWEE
WARRENSBURG
WARRENSBURG
WARRENSBURG
JOHNSON
WARRENSBURG
WARRENSBURG
JOHNSON
WARRENSBURG
WARRENSBURG
KNOB NOSTER
HOLDEN
JOHNSON
3/8/2009
3/24/2009
3/24/2009
3/24/2009
3/24/2009
5/13/2009
5/13/2009
5/13/2009
5/13/2009
5/13/2009
5/13/2009
5/13/2009
6/9/2009
6/10/2009
TOTALS:
1.00 in.
2.75 in.
1.00 in.
1.00 in.
1.50 in.
0.75 in.
0.75 in.
0.75 in.
1.50 in.
1.00 in.
1.00 in.
0.75 in.
1.00 in.
1.00 in.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0K
0K
0K
0K
0K
0K
0K
0K
0K
0K
0K
0K
0K
0K
76K
0K
0K
0K
0K
0K
0K
0K
0K
0K
0K
0K
0K
0K
0K
0
Statement of Future Probable Severity
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.
Based on the 31 previous tornado events, the future probable severity is shown below.
Future Probable Severity by F-Scale:
F0
negligible
F1
limited
F2
limited
F3
critical
F4
catastrophic
F5
catastrophic
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 below shows historic
tornado paths in Johnson County.
August 2012
84
August 2012
85
FIGURE 18
FIGURE 19
August 2012
86
FIGURE 20
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.
Generally, the risk of tornado is moderate in Johnson County. Historically Johnson
County has experienced 31 tornadoes between 1950 and 2011 with an average of 0.508
tornados per year which would give the county a likely risk of occurrence. The risk is
rated at a moderate level due to the fact that there has never been recorded a tornado over
the F2 ranking.
The Johnson 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.
F#
Events
August 2012
Risk
Probable Risk of Occurrence, By F-Scale
87
F0
F1
F2
F3
F4
F5
9
14
8
0
0
0
29%
45%
26%
0%
0%
0%
F0
F1
F2
F3
F4
F5
likely
highly likely
likely
possible
unlikely
unlikely
Statement of Next Disaster’s Likely Adverse Impact on the Community
The enormous power and destructive ability of tornadoes are beyond humankind’s
capabilities to control. Severity, risk of death, injuries and property damages will
continue to be high. However, technological advances will facilitate earlier warning than
previously available. This, combined with a vigorous public education program and
improved construction techniques, provides the potential for significant reductions in the
number of deaths, injuries as well as a reduction in property damage. Based on the
history, the likely adverse impact of future Johnson County tornado and thunderstorm
events is shown below.
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. Recommend that the MultiJurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee initiate a mitigation activity to
encourage acquisition of the infrastructures to help reduce the loss of life caused by
tornadoes.
August 2012
88
Flooding/Flash Flooding
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 Johnson
County. Most communities in the United States have experienced some kind of flooding,
after spring rains, heavy thunderstorms, or winter snow thaws. The National Flood
Insurance Program (NFIP) Repetitive Loss properties for the county are in a table located
in Appendix B of the Plan Update.
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 manmade 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 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
slow- or 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.
August 2012
89
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 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.
August 2012
90
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.
August 2012
91
Figure 24
The Johnson County Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee assigned a
magnitude/severity rating 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 Johnson 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 Johnson 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 51. As can be seen in these
community maps, little of the developed land in the planning area is located in SFHAs.
The communities of Centerview, Chilahowe, Kingsville, and Leeton have virtually no
August 2012
92
SFHA within the corporate city limits. “Fingers” of SFHAs extend into portions of
Holden, Warrensburg, and Knob Noster with some structures located in them. 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.
August 2012
93
Floods are the number one weather-related killer in the United States. A flood is a general
and temporary condition of partial or complete inundation of normally dry land areas.
The overflow of rivers and creeks, and/or the unusual and rapid accumulation or runoff of
surface waters causes it from any source. Three main types of floods include; flash, river,
and interior drainage.

Flash flooding and river flooding differ in their extent and duration. Flash floods
are brief heavy flows on small streams or in normally dry washes.

River floods are the periodic occurrence of over-bank flows of rivers or streams
resulting in partial or complete inundation of the adjacent flood plains. Such
over-bank flows are natural events and typically occur on a river once every two
to three years. River floods occur on river systems whose tributaries may drain
large geographic areas and encompass many independent river basins. Floods on
large river systems may continue for days.

Interior drainage flooding involves the overflow of storm sewer systems and is
usually caused by inadequate drainage following heavy rain or rapid snowmelt.
AU drainage systems should be kept clear of debris and objects that will slow the
flow of water through the systems.

The areas adjacent to rivers and creek banks that serve to carry excess floodwaters
during rapid runoff are called flood plains. A flood plain is defined as the
lowland and relatively flat areas adjoining rivers and streams. Flood plains are a
vital part of a larger entity called a basin-defined as all the land drained by a river
and its branches.
The land that forms Johnson County is contained within the Blackwater River Basin
(BWRB). The BWRB drains most of the county as the river moves west to northeast
across the county. The BWRB drains all but the southwest and southeast part of the
county.
Historical Statistics
Flooding within the county is of concern to local emergency management officials.
Severe flooding can result from heavy rains associated with thunderstorms. Normally,
flooding will be a relatively slow process with adequate warning. River Crest levels are
forecast several days in advance, allowing communities downstream to take protective
measures. The buildup to flood conditions will normally take several days. While these
emergency response activities showcase community spirit with neighbors helping
neighbors in protecting lives and property, the toll from these many disasters has been
both devastating and widespread.
August 2012
94
The floods of '93 left human suffering and property damage across Missouri. Between
1993 and 1999, Missouri recorded more than 75 deaths attributed to flooding. Of the 49
deaths recorded during the Floods of 93, 35 fatalities (or 71%) were from flash floods. A
total of 112 of Missouri's 114 counties were included in at least one or more of the
declarations. Only Cedar County in southwest Missouri and Dunklin County in the
southeast part of the state was not included in the declarations. A total of 102 Counties
were federally declared disaster areas for Individual Assistance, while 88 counties were
declared eligible for Public Assistance. During the course of the summer flooding, 22
major river bridge closings, 250 routes, and 950 individual flood sites caused road
closures in 112 counties. Flash Flooding in 2002, resulted in Federal Assistance at a cost
of $ 90,000 – 93, 000.
Knob Noster, which lies in close vicinity to Whiteman Air Force Base, faced a dire flood
scenario in 2008 between June 1 and July 18. Severe storms, flooding and hail affected
residents and flooded homes. The State Emergency Management Agency and the
Federal Emergency Management Agency declared emergencies in the area and opened
Disaster Recovery Center’s to assist families that lost their homes. Intense rain in short
time periods caused flash floods making roads inaccessible and ruining homes.
In terms of overall damage, Missouri’s most severe single hazard is flooding. Flooding
has resulted in more federal disaster declarations in Missouri than any other hazard in the
past three decades.
Statement of Probable Risk
Johnson County's vulnerability to flooding is greatly increased by the Black Water River
floodplain. The main areas of concern are close to the main rivers and creeks (primarily
around the banks of the Black- water River, Post Oak Creek and Clear Fork). The other
major area of concern for the county is in the Big Creek and Muddy Creek floodplains.
Another area of concern within Johnson County regarding flooding is the growing
development of subdivisions in the county. These new structures may interfere with the
natural run-off presently in existence. This could eventually cause major flooding
problems for all communities within Johnson County. Due to climatic conditions, the
Johnson County area is more susceptible to flash flooding than river-rain flooding. For
the Warrensburg area and the other surrounding communities throughout Johnson
County, the principal flood problems are from short duration, high intensity
thunderstorms, which produce a cloudburst type rainstorm. This creates high run-off
flows of short duration (these can produce high stream velocities). Flash flooding could
occur anywhere in the county where there is an abundance of rainfall in a very short time
span. The backing up of tributary stream flow creates flooding problems along the Black
water River, especially in the areas of the county where the land tends to be very flat and
at low elevations.
The threat of flooding is a more natural occurrence in the spring, when late winter or
spring rains, coupled with melting snow, fill river basins with too much water, too
quickly. Spring also represents the onset of severe weather in the form of thunderstorms,
August 2012
95
tornadoes, and heavy rains, which generate flash flooding along these, storm fronts;
however, severe flooding may occur in Johnson County any time of the year.
Impact of the Hazard
Johnson County residents are mostly at risk to the dangers of flash flooding from rapidly
rising creeks and tributaries, storm runoff, etc. Most flood deaths are from flash floods,
and nearly half of these types of fatalities are auto related, according to the National
Weather Service. Another problem with flooding in Johnson County is with the rural
roads and bridges getting washed out. There are more than 1200 miles of rural roads in
Johnson County. Many roads are flooded during times of intense rain or rain lasting
several days. There are 364 bridges in the county that are at least 20 feet in length;
flooding is extremely hard on them. The washout of a bridge is of concern to residents
who use the bridge. Alternative routes must be used when washout of a bridge occurs.
The low lying area on Route 23 in the county floods at least 27 times a year and has to be
closed to traffic. This is not only an inconvenience for the people using this roadway it
could cause hardship for emergency vehicles that have to find another way during floods.
This causes inconvenience to people whom use the road.
Agricultural losses are also of concern. Because of the sparsely populated areas around
most of the rivers and creeks, farmland (versus population centers) is more likely to be
affected by all types of floods. Blackwater River bottomland is susceptible to washouts
and scouring. Because of the '93 rains, agricultural losses were estimated at nearly $2
billion, as over 3 million acres of farmland were either damaged or went unplanted in
Missouri. The Department of Agriculture estimated that washouts and sand scouring
destroyed 500,000 acres of Missouri River bottomland.
Previous Events
The table below illustrates previous events of flooding, both river and flash, in Johnson
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.
Table 29: JOHNSON COUNTY FLOOD OCCURANCES: 1993 - 2010
Location or County
JOHNSON
JOHNSON
JOHNSON
JOHNSON
JOHNSON
KNOB NOSTER
JOHNSON
JOHNSON
August 2012
Date
9/25/1993
4/11/1994
4/11/1994
5/7/1995
6/6/1995
6/26/1995
7/4/1995
8/2/1995
Crop
Damage Damage
0
0
0
0
0
0
5.0M
5.0M
0
0
0
0
0
0
2.8M
2.0M
0
0
700K
2.0M
0
0
3K
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
96
JOHNSON
JOHNSON
KNOB NOSTER
JOHNSON
JOHNSON
JOHNSON
JOHNSON
JOHNSON
JOHNSON
JOHNSON
JOHNSON
JOHNSON
JOHNSON
JOHNSON
JOHNSON
JOHNSON
JOHNSON
JOHNSON
JOHNSON
JOHNSON
JOHNSON
KNOB NOSTER
JOHNSON
JOHNSON
JOHNSON
JOHNSON
JOHNSON
JOHNSON
JOHNSON
JOHNSON
JOHNSON
JOHNSON
JOHNSON
JOHNSON
JOHNSON
JOHNSON
JOHNSON
JOHNSON
JOHNSON
JOHNSON
JOHNSON
August 2012
5/27/1996
6/6/1996
7/20/1996
7/21/1996
9/16/1996
9/23/1996
11/17/1996
2/21/1997
2/26/1997
4/11/1997
5/1/1997
1/5/1998
2/11/1998
3/8/1998
3/15/1998
3/28/1998
4/1/1998
4/27/1998
6/8/1998
6/20/1998
7/27/1998
7/30/1998
9/13/1998
10/1/1998
10/17/1998
11/1/1998
12/1/1998
1/31/1999
2/1/1999
2/7/1999
3/8/1999
4/14/1999
4/26/1999
5/4/1999
5/12/1999
5/16/1999
6/27/1999
2/18/2000
6/14/2000
6/20/2000
1/29/2001
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
97
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
750K
0
0
0
0
JOHNSON
JOHNSON
JOHNSON
JOHNSON
JOHNSON
WARRENSBURG
JOHNSON
JOHNSON
JOHNSON
JOHNSON
JOHNSON
JOHNSON
JOHNSON
JOHNSON
JOHNSON
JOHNSON
WHITEMAN AFB
JOHNSON
JOHNSON
KINGSVILLE
JOHNSON
JOHNSON
JOHNSON
JOHNSON
JOHNSON
JOHNSON
HOLDEN
JOHNSON
JOHNSON
JOHNSON
JOHNSON
JOHNSON
JOHNSON
JOHNSON
JOHNSON
KNOB NOSTER
JOHNSON
JOHNSON
JOHNSON
JOHNSON
JOHNSON
August 2012
2/9/2001
2/24/2001
4/3/2001
4/10/2001
4/10/2001
4/14/2001
4/15/2001
5/11/2001
5/21/2001
6/2/2001
6/3/2001
6/20/2001
7/12/2001
7/25/2001
5/6/2002
5/8/2002
5/8/2002
5/11/2002
5/24/2002
5/9/2003
5/10/2003
12/10/2003
1/18/2004
3/4/2004
3/28/2004
5/19/2004
5/19/2004
6/10/2004
7/24/2004
7/24/2004
7/25/2004
9/18/2004
11/1/2004
11/24/2004
1/3/2005
1/12/2005
1/13/2005
2/13/2005
8/26/2005
4/30/2006
5/31/2006
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
98
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
JOHNSON
JOHNSON
JOHNSON
JOHNSON
JOHNSON
JOHNSON
JOHNSON
JOHNSON
JOHNSON
JOHNSON
JOHNSON
JOHNSON
JOHNSON
JOHNSON
JOHNSON
KNOB NOSTER
HOLDEN
KNOB NOSTER
KNOB NOSTER
JOHNSON
JOHNSON
JOHNSON
2/20/2007
2/25/2007
4/14/2007
4/26/2007
5/7/2007
6/28/2007
6/29/2007
7/1/2007
2/5/2008
2/17/2008
3/3/2008
3/17/2008
4/8/2008
4/10/2008
4/24/2008
6/3/2008
6/8/2008
6/19/2008
6/19/2008
12/27/2008
12/27/2008
2/11/2009
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
TOTALS:
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0K
0K
0K
0K
0K
0K
0K
0K
0K
0K
0K
0K
0K
0K
0K
0K
0K
0K
0K
0K
0K
0K
8.503M
0K
0K
0K
0K
0K
0K
0K
0K
0K
0K
0K
0K
0K
0K
0K
0K
0K
0K
0K
0K
0K
0K
9.750M
Source: NWS website
Probability
The table above reveals that it is likely that a flooding event of some degree occurs
almost annually in Johnson County. The Johnson 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.
August 2012
99
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
August 2012
100
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 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
August 2012
101
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 Johnson 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 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 Johnson 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
Based on queries from NOAA, no deaths or injuries were reported in Johnson 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.
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
August 2012
102
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 197677 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.
August 2012
103
magnitude/severity rating 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
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."
August 2012
104
Weather data indicates that the counties north of the Missouri River may receive an
average annual snowfall of 18 to 22 inches, those counties (Johnson) south of the river
may receive an annual average of 8 to 12 inches. Events in which borderline conditions
exist between freezing and icing conditions instead of rain or snow are highly
unpredictable, as are more serious situations, which combine with other factors such as
high winds. Duration and degree of severity may be localized to a small area due to a
combination of climatic conditions. An indirect winter hazard that affects Missourians
every year is carbon monoxide poisoning. Improperly vented gas and kerosene heaters or
the indoor use of charcoal briquettes will create dangerous levels of carbon monoxide. In
1997, 31 cases of carbon monoxide poisoning were reported in Missouri. No deaths were
reported from these cases. On January 28, 2002 Johnson County was hit very hard by an
ice storm which left about half of the county crippled with damages and losses. The were
no reported cases of death during that disaster but 28 storm related injuries were reported
(13 falls, 4 carbon monoxide, 2 eye injuries due to debris & 1 motor vehicle accident)
Since 1994, according to the NCDC, severe winter weather in Johnson County
has:
•
•
Most frequently occurred between November and February;
Damaged property valued at $32,200,000;
Table 30: JOHNSON COUNTY SNOW & ICE OCCURANCES: 1994 -2010
Location or County
JOHNSON
JOHNSON
Date
Type
1/18/1995 Heavy
Snow
11/11/1995 Snow/ice
Crop
Damage Damage
0
0
200K
0
0
0
0
0
JOHNSON
12/8/1995 Snow
0
0
0
0
JOHNSON
12/21/1997 Ice
Storm
1/11/1998 Ice
Storm
11/8/2000 Ice
Storm
12/10/2000 Winter
Storm
12/13/2000 Heavy
Snow
1/28/2001 Winter
Storm
2/9/2001 Winter
Storm
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
JOHNSON
JOHNSON
JOHNSON
JOHNSON
JOHNSON
JOHNSON
August 2012
105
JOHNSON
JOHNSON
JOHNSON
JOHNSON
JOHNSON
JOHNSON
JOHNSON
JOHNSON
JOHNSON
JOHNSON
JOHNSON
JOHNSON
JOHNSON
JOHNSON
JOHNSON
JOHNSON
JOHNSON
1/30/2002 Ice
Storm
12/10/2003 Winter
Storm
1/25/2004 Winter
Storm
2/5/2004 Winter
Storm
11/23/2004 Heavy
Snow
12/8/2005 Heavy
Snow
11/29/2006 Ice
Storm
11/30/2006 Heavy
Snow
12/1/2006 Heavy
Snow
1/12/2007 Winter
Storm
1/20/2007 Heavy
Snow
4/13/2007 Winter
Weather
12/9/2007 Ice
Storm
1/31/2008 Heavy
Snow
2/28/2009 Heavy
Snow
12/24/2009 Winter
Storm
1/6/2010 Winter
Storm
TOTALS:
0
0
32.0M
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0K
0K
0
0
5K
0K
0
0
0K
0K
0
0
0K
0K
0
0
0K
0K
0
0
0K
0K
0
0
0K
0K
0
0
0K
0K
0
0
0K
0K
0
0
0K
0K
0
0
0K
0K
0
0
32.155M
0
Table 31: JOHNSON COUNTY EXTREME COLD OCCURANCES: 1994 2010
Location
or
County
JOHNSON
Date
Type
9/22/1995 Freeze
Magnitude
Crop
Damage Damage
N/A
0
0
0
0
1/10/1997 Extreme N/A
Cold
JOHNSON 12/10/2000 Extreme N/A
Cold
TOTALS:
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
JOHNSON
August 2012
106
Crippling Winter-storms can occur in the area, although they do not occur with great
frequency. The weather pattern for the Johnson County area, favors freezing rain which
could pose major problems such as: traffic accidents and delays, and power outages.
People are affected by the adverse affects of winter-storms. Individuals over the age of
65 are especially vulnerable, as indicated by the Missouri Department of Health Data,
(141 hypothermia related deaths from 1984 to 1994) 52 percent occurred to individuals
over the age of 65. Winter-storm deaths related to ice and snow about 70 percent of these
occur in automobiles, with the majority involving males over the age of 40. Winterstorms can have a significant impact on the environment, the ice storm of December 1994
caused extensive damage to trees and plants, resulting in the cutting, removal, and
subsequent disposal which caused environmental damage due to permitted burning of the
debris and reduced landfill space. In the winter there is an average of about 110 days
with temperatures below 32 degrees in the Johnson County area. Temperatures below
zero are infrequent, but do occur. Snow has been known to fall as early as October and
as late as April does, however on the average, snowfall usually occurs during the months
of December, January, and February. It is unusual for snow to remain on the ground for
more than a week or two before it melts. Winter precipitation usually occurs in the form
of rain or snow, in these situations, freezing rain/drizzle can occur. Occurrence is highly
unpredictable, but usually does not occur more than twice per winter season. The hazards
presented here are those that have been experienced, or pose a potential threat to the
residents of Johnson County. Local or isolated incidents, which constitute a potential
disaster, should not be overlooked.
Probability
Between 1995 and 2010 there was only a single death and no injuries in Johnson County
related to winter weather. In 1995, heavy snow resulted in $200,000 in property damage.
A 2002 severe ice storm caused $32 million in damages to personal property.
Of 30 winter related weather events between 1995 and 2010, only two caused any severe
damage to properties within the county.
Excessive winter weather can prove devastating. Primary concerns include the potential
loss of heat, power, telephone service and a shortage of supplies if storm conditions
continue for more than a day. Further, employees may be unable to get to work due to
icy conditions, unplowed roadways or facility damage. In addition to snow, the effects of
temperature and wind chill increase the severity of a winter storm. Wind blowing across
exposed skin drives down the skin temperature and eventually the internal body
temperature. The faster the wind blows, the faster the heat is carried away, the greater the
heat loss and the colder it feels. Exposure to low wind chills can be life threatening to
humans and animals.
August 2012
107
A new Wind Chill Temperature Index took effect on November 1, 2001, replacing the
original wind chill index that was devised in 1945. To find the Wind Chill Temperature
Index from the table below, find the air temperature along the top of the table and the
wind speed along the left side. The point where the two intersect is the wind chill
temperature.
to the 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
Recommendation
Mitigation activities for Johnson 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.
August 2012
108
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
August 2012
109
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 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
August 2012
110
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. 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,
August 2012
111
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
3.0 to 3.99
2.0 to 2.99
1.0 to 1.99
0.5 to 0.99
0.49 to –0.49
-0.5 to 0.99
-1.9 to –1.99
-2.0 to –2.99
-3.0 to –3.99
-4.0 or less
Extremely wet
Very wet
Moderately wet
Slightly wet
Incipient wet spell
Near normal
Incipient dry spell
Mild drought
Moderate drought
Severe drought
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
August 2012
112
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. Johnson County was included in Region B and Region C,
which is considered moderate surface and groundwater supply drought susceptibility(B)
and High Susceptibility (C). Groundwater resources are adequate to meet domestic and
municipal water needs, but due to required well depths, irrigation wells are very
expensive.
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
August 2012
113
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 irrigation water led to a reduction in
vegetable production, with concomitant losses in jobs and income).
Drought in Johnson 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 Johnson
County area is approximately 41 inches. The state rates Johnson 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.
magnitude/severity rating 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
Location
Because of its geographical location and characteristic weather pattern, Johnson County
is vulnerable to drought conditions, as is the Western Great Plains area. Agricultural
droughts are the most common of record particularly those inflicting damage to corn crop
yields. Throughout much of this century these droughts have occurred about once every
five years. The most recent severe occurrence was the "Great Drought of 1988-89".
Johnson County farmers felt the effects primarily; however, water shortages became a
problem even for residential areas.
August 2012
114
According to the collection of Midwest drought data and its staff, the Missouri
Department of Natural Resources has divided the state into three regions, which are
prioritized according to drought susceptibility. The three regions are identified as having
Slight, Moderate, and Severe Susceptibility. Johnson County is in the severe region of
susceptibility.
Previous Events
According to county officials, major droughts occurred in 1934, 1936, and 1954. More
recently, droughts have occurred during 1999, 2000 and 2006; beginning in July of 1999
and rapidly developing into a widespread drought just three months later. The entire state
was placed under a Phase I Drought Advisory 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 II Alert for drought conditions.
Drought conditions put Johnson County within the state’s Phase II Alert area for June and
July of 2000
The only drought event reported for Johnson 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 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.
August 2012
115
TABLE 32
Location
Date
Countywide
4/1/2000
Countywide
2002Present
TOTAL
Johnson County: Drought 2000 - 2011
Time
Type
Death Injury Property
Damage
12:00 Drought
0
0
0
AM
NA
Drought
0
0
$335,116
0
0
$335,116
Crop
Damage
0
Livestock
$727,640
$1,202,767
$777,640
$1,202,767
0
JOHNSON COUNTY PAST DROUGHT OCCURANCES: 2006 - 2010
Date
Phase
September 19, 2006
Conservation Phase
August 16, 2006
Conservation Phase
May 4, 2006
Drought Alert
Arpil 5, 2006
Drought Alert
February 17, 2006
Drought Alert
Table 33
Probability
Drought history in Johnson 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 Johnson County to experience drought in any
given year. The Johnson 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 based on a review of prior events and the personal
Recommendation
Initiate a mitigation activity to discern and promote a set of best practices for droughtresistant farming. Initiate a cooperative effort to reduce the number of small water
structures and educate city residents on watering restrictions of lawns.
August 2012
116
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.
August 2012
117
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 heatrelated 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.
August 2012
118
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 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
August 2012
119
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.
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 heatrelated 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.
magnitude/severity rating 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 Johnson 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 10 heat waves to hit the Johnson County region between 1994 and 2010, all
produced heat indices within the “Danger” range. The most intense heat wave occurred
across the Johnson County region in July 1994 and July 1999. These heat waves resulted
in the following impacts for Johnson County:
• 49 deaths
• 55 injuries
• Crop damage valued at $50,000.
Note that the deaths listed are area-wide, and not confined to Johnson County.
JOHNSON COUNTY EXTREME HEAT OCCURANCES: 1994 - 2010
Location
or County
JOHNSON
JOHNSON
August 2012
Date
Type
6/12/1994 Heat
7/18/1999 Excessive
Heat
Crop
Damage Damage
4
55
0
50K
22
0
0
0
120
JOHNSON
8/22/2000 Excessive
Heat
1
0
0
0
JOHNSON
9/1/2000 Excessive
Heat
3
0
0
0
JOHNSON
10/6/2000 Extreme
Cold
7/6/2001 Excessive
Heat
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
JOHNSON
7/17/2001 Excessive
Heat
2
0
0
0
JOHNSON
8/1/2001 Excessive
Heat
4
0
0
0
JOHNSON
8/9/2001 Excessive
Heat
1
0
0
0
JOHNSON
7/4/2003 Excessive
Heat
1
0
0
0
JOHNSON
7/14/2003 Excessive
Heat
2
0
0
0
JOHNSON
7/21/2005 Excessive
Heat
0
0
0
0
JOHNSON
7/16/2006 Excessive
Heat
4
0
0
0
JOHNSON
7/29/2006 Excessive
Heat
0
0
0
0
JOHNSON
8/1/2006 Excessive
Heat
2
0
0
0
JOHNSON
8/6/2007 Excessive
Heat
0
0
0K
0K
49
55
0
50K
JOHNSON
TOTALS:
Table 34
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 Johnson County is most
likely to occur in July.
to the 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 based on a review of prior events and the personal knowledge
August 2012
121
of the Planning Committee 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.
August 2012
122
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 Mid-America 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.
August 2012
123
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.
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. 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.
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
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
August 2012
124
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.
August 2012
125
According to the SEMA map below, Johnson County is at risk for a Level VI impact on
the Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale from a 7.6 earthquake (see map on this page).
According to the Mercalli Scale, all in Johnson 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 128 of the Plan Update.
August 2012
126
Figure 43
magnitude/severity rating 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 rating was based on a review of prior events and the
personal knowledge of the Planning Committee members.
August 2012
127
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 Johnson 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, Johnson County historical earthquake activity is
significantly below the Missouri state average. It is 95% smaller than the overall U.S.
average. Three earthquake zones -- the New Madrid Fault, the Wabash Valley Fault and
the Illinois Basin could affect Johnson County because of their close proximity. Of these
three, the New Madrid poses the greatest threat. During the winter of 1811-1812 three
earthquakes estimated to have been magnitude 7.5 or greater were centered in the New
Madrid fault in southeast Missouri. Thousands of aftershocks continued for years.
August 2012
128
Significant earthquakes, each about magnitude 6, occurred in 1843 near Marked Tree,
Arkansas, and on October 31, 1895 near Charleston, Missouri. In November 1968 a
magnitude 5.5 earthquake centered in southeastern Illinois caused moderate damage to
chimneys and walls at Hermann, St. Charles, St. Louis, and Sikeston, Missouri. The felt
areas include all or portions of 23 states. Other earthquakes have occurred throughout
southeastern parts of Missouri. Smaller, but still destructive, earthquakes are even more
likely, according to the Missouri Seismic Safety Commission.
Looking at the USGS website for historical earthquake data in Missouri there was a
seismicity from 1990-2006 that shows seismic activity in Missouri. One of the limitations
of this data is that it is five years old and that it only dates back to 1990. The map shows
that there were no earthquakes in Johnson county during this time frame.
There have been no significant earthquakes in Johnson 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
below 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, Johnson 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 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 Johnson
County is distant from the New Madrid Fault, small earthquakes along the fault
usually are not noticeable.
to the 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
August 2012
129
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.
August 2012
130
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. Ninetynine 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
August 2012
131
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 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
August 2012
132
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. 92367; Dam Safety 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
August 2012
133
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 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
August 2012
134
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 highhazard 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 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.
magnitude/severity rating 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 Planning Committee members.
Location
The National Inventory of Dams, the State of Missouri, and FEMA have summarized the
status of dams in Missouri by hazard classification. The table below lists Johnson 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 Holden New City
Reservoir and the Rock Lake Village Dam. At this time it is not known how many if any
structures would be affected by a dam failure of these two dams, however map analysis
shows us that no major population centers would be affected. It is then recommended that
the Planning Committee obtain this info for the next plan update
August 2012
135
HOLDEN NEW CITY RESERVOIR
River TRIB SOUTH FORK BLACKWATER
NID Height (Ft.)
58
Dam Length (Ft.)
3350
Owner Name TONY LERDA CITY OF HOLD.
Private Dam
NID Storage 6300
Max Discharge 5479
Max Storage 6300
Drainage Area 2880
Longitude
-94.0348
Latitude
38.7611
Foundation
RK
EAP N
ROCK LAKE VILLAGE DAM
River Trib. Blackwater river
NID Height (Ft.)
65
Dam Length (Ft.)
730
Private Dam
NID Storage 585
Max Discharge
0
Max Storage 585
Drainage Area 73
Longitude
-94.0729
Latitude
38.8848
Foundation
RK
The Johnson 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.
August 2012
136
August 2012
137
August 2012
138
August 2012
139
August 2012
140
August 2012
141
August 2012
142
August 2012
143
August 2012
144
August 2012
145
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.
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
Washington County
Frederickton
Franklin County
(near failure)
Taum Sauk
1968
1975
1977
1978
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.
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. "High-hazard" just reflects the dam's potential for doing
damage downstream should it fail.
The Johnson County Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee assigned a probability
rating to the hazard Dam Failure. 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
August 2012
146
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.
August 2012
147
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.
August 2012
148
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 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.
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 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, Johnson County is located in the lowest Fire Danger
Class in the nation, in a nationwide evaluation by the National Interagency Fire Center.
August 2012
149
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.
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.
August 2012
150
magnitude/severity rating 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
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 Johnson County that are more at risk
to wildfires. Only the communities that showed risk in the WUI were included in the
analysis. The maps portray the population density vs. the historical likelihood of a
wildfire affecting the area. Red means more likely and green means less likely but still a
chance.
August 2012
151
August 2012
152
August 2012
153
August 2012
154
August 2012
155
August 2012
156
Previous Events
There is no central resource for information concerning previous wildfire events in the
planning area. 25 Johnson County forest fires were reported to the Missouri Department
of Conservation. 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 249 wild fires in the planning area, averaging 42.2 fires annually. A
total of 1145.6 acres burned, averaging 229 acres annually. One building 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. Johnson County received a rating of “two.”
Probability
Johnson County has had a moderate amount 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.
to the 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 based on a review of prior events and the personal knowledge of the
Planning Committee 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.
August 2012
157
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 Johnson
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 Johnson 2011 Update.
Vulnerability by Jurisdiction
For each jurisdiction the top four hazards were analyzed for potential magnitude and
frequency of occurrence. The figures were gathered from hazard tables from NOAA and
NCDC in the previous pages. These figures were then annualized and divided by the
percentage
of
population
to
the
county’s
population
at
large.
August 2012
158
Tornado Vulnerability by Jurisdiction
Tornado Vulnerability Centerview:
With each jurisdiction in the county having the same
vulnerability to tornadoes Centerview would have a potential magnitude of catastrophic: More than 50%
and a frequency of occurrence of likely: Between 10 and 100% probability in next year, or at least one
chance in 10 years. Due to a data limitation the total loss value is calculated based upon the
population/county population which is 0.51%. With a loss estimation based upon Table 25 Average
Annualized Loss which is $137,340 for an estimated annual loss in Centerview of $700.
Tornado Vulnerability Chilhowee:
vulnerability to tornadoes Chilhowee would have a potential magnitude of catastrophic: More than 50%
Annualized Loss which is $137,340 for an estimated annual loss in Chilhowee of $849.
Tornado Vulnerability Holden: With each jurisdiction in the county having the same vulnerability to
tornadoes Holden would have a potential magnitude of catastrophic: More than 50% and a frequency of
occurrence of likely: Between 10 and 100% probability in next year, or at least one chance in 10 years. Due
to a data limitation the total loss value is calculated based upon the population/county population which is
4.28%. With a loss estimation based upon Table 25 Average Annualized Loss which is $137,340 for an
estimated annual loss in Holden of $5,881.
Tornado Vulnerability Kingsville:
vulnerability to tornadoes Kingsville would have a potential magnitude of catastrophic: More than 50%
Annualized Loss which is $137,340 for an estimated annual loss in Kingsville of $702.
Tornado Vulnerability Knob Noster:
vulnerability to tornadoes Knob Noster would have a potential magnitude of catastrophic: More than 50%
Annualized Loss which is $137,340 for an estimated annual loss in Knob Noster of $7,074.
Tornado Vulnerability Leeton: With each jurisdiction in the county having the same vulnerability to
tornadoes Leeton would have a potential magnitude of catastrophic: More than 50% and a frequency of
1.08%. With a loss estimation based upon Table 25 Average Annualized Loss which is $137,340 for an
estimated annual loss in Leeton of $1,478.
Tornado Vulnerability Warrensburg:
With each jurisdiction in the county having the same vulnerability to
tornadoes Warrensburg would have a potential magnitude of catastrophic: More than 50% and a frequency of
occurrence of likely: Between 10 and 100% probability in next year, or at least one chance in 10 years. Due to a data
limitation the total loss value is calculated based upon the population/county population which is 35.82%. With a loss
estimation based upon Table 25 Average Annualized Loss which is $137,340 for an estimated annual loss in
Warrensburg of $49,191.
Tornado Vulnerability Whiteman AFB: With each jurisdiction in the county having the same
vulnerability to tornadoes Whiteman AFB would have a potential magnitude of catastrophic: More than
50% and a frequency of occurrence of likely: Between 10 and 100% probability in next year, or at least one
Annualized Loss which is $137,340 for an estimated annual loss in Whiteman AFB of $6,674.
August 2012
159
Floodplain Vulnerability by Jurisdiction
Floodplain Vulnerability Centerview:
Centerview has no areas of floodplains near the city limits as
shown in the city map on page 52. This gives Centerview a potential magnitude (percentage of the jurisdiction
that can be affected) of negligible or less than 10% and a frequency of occurrence of unlikely: less than 1%
probability in next 100 years. Loss estimation for Centerview would be $0 as there is no floodplain in or close
proximity to the town.
Floodplain Vulnerability Chilhowee:
Chilhowee has no areas of floodplains near the city limits as
shown in the city map on page 54. This gives Chilhowee a potential magnitude (percentage of the jurisdiction
that can be affected) of negligible or less than 10% and a frequency of occurrence of unlikely: less than 1%
probability in next 100 years. Loss estimation for Chilhowee would be $0 as there is no floodplain in or close
Floodplain Vulnerability Holden: Holden has areas that lie in floodplains in the city limits as shown in the
city map on page 56. There are a total of 1545 acres of land in Holden with 264 of those that are in the floodplain
or 17%. With a data limitation of building counts total loss valuation is calculated based upon the
population/county population which is 4.28%. With a loss estimation based upon Table 29 Average Annualized
Loss which is $1,073,706 for an estimated annual loss in Holden of $7,856. This gives Holden a potential
magnitude (percentage of the jurisdiction that can be affected) of Limited: 10 to 25% and a frequency of
occurrence of Likely: Between 10 and 100% probability in next year, or at least one chance in 10 years.
Floodplain Vulnerability Kingsville:
Kingsville has no areas of floodplains near the city limits as
shown in the city map on page 58. This gives Kingsville a potential magnitude (percentage of the jurisdiction that
can be affected) of negligible or less than 10% and a frequency of occurrence of unlikely: less than 1%
probability in next 100 years. Loss estimation for Kingsville would be $0 as there is no floodplain in or close
Floodplain Vulnerability Knob Noster:
Knob Noster has areas that lie in floodplains in the city limits as
shown in the city map on page 60. There are a total of 2975 acres of land in Knob Noster with 236 of those that
are in the floodplain or 7.93%. With a data limitation of building counts total loss valuation is calculated based
upon the population/county population which is 5.15%. With a loss estimation based upon Table 29 Average
Annualized Loss which is $1,073,706 for an estimated annual loss in Knob Noster of $4,387. This gives Knob
Noster a potential magnitude (percentage of the jurisdiction that can be affected) of Negligible: Less than 10%
and a frequency of occurrence of Likely: Between 10 and 100% probability in next year, or at least one chance in
10 years.
Floodplain Vulnerability Leeton: Leeton has one area of floodplains near the city limits as shown in the city
map on page 62. However this does not enter into the city therefore is incalculable with the current methodology.
This gives Leeton a potential magnitude (percentage of the jurisdiction that can be affected) of negligible or less
than 10% and a frequency of occurrence of unlikely: less than 1% probability in next 100 years. Loss estimation
for Leeton would be $0 as there is no floodplain in or close proximity to the town.
Floodplain Vulnerability Warrensburg:
Warrensburg has areas that lie in floodplains in the city limits as
shown in the city map on page 64. There are a total of 8295 acres of land in Warrensburg with 340 of those that
are in the floodplain or 4.10%. With a data limitation of building counts total loss valuation is calculated based
upon the population/county population which is 35.82%. With a loss estimation based upon Table 29 Average
Annualized Loss which is $1,073,706 for an estimated annual loss in Warrensburg of $15,763. This gives
Warrensburg a potential magnitude (percentage of the jurisdiction that can be affected) of Negligible: Less than
10% and a frequency of occurrence of Likely: Between 10 and 100% probability in next year, or at least one
chance in 10 years.
Floodplain Vulnerability Whiteman AFB: Whiteman AFB has one area of floodplains near the base limits as
shown in the base map on page 66. However this does not enter into the base therefore is incalculable with the
current methodology. This gives Whiteman AFB a potential magnitude (percentage of the jurisdiction that can be
affected) of negligible or less than 10% and a frequency of occurrence of unlikely: less than 1% probability in
next 100 years. Loss estimation for Whiteman AFB would be $0 as there is no floodplain in or close proximity to
the town.
August 2012
160
Severe Winter Weather Vulnerability by Jurisdiction
Severe Winter Weather Vulnerability Centerview: With each jurisdiction in the county having the same
vulnerability to winter weather Centerview would have a potential magnitude of catastrophic: More than 50%
and a frequency of occurrence of likely: Between 10 and 100% probability in next year, or at least one chance in
10 years. Due to a data limitation the total loss value is calculated based upon the population/county population
which is 0.51%. With a loss estimation based upon Table 30 which shows loss (Since 1994, according to the
NCDC) $803,875 annually for an estimated loss in Centerview of $4,100.
Severe Winter Weather Vulnerability Chilhowee: With each jurisdiction in the county having the same
vulnerability to winter weather Chilhowee would have a potential magnitude of catastrophic: More than 50%
NCDC) $803,875 annually for an estimated loss in Chilhowee of $4,967.
Severe Winter Weather Vulnerability Holden: With each jurisdiction in the county having the same
vulnerability to winter weather Holden would have a potential magnitude of catastrophic: More than 50% and a
frequency of occurrence of likely: Between 10 and 100% probability in next year, or at least one chance in 10
years. Due to a data limitation the total loss value is calculated based upon the population/county population
NCDC) $803,875 annually for an estimated loss in Holden of $34,420.
Severe Winter Weather Vulnerability Kingsville: With each jurisdiction in the county having the same
vulnerability to winter weather Kingsville would have a potential magnitude of catastrophic: More than 50%
NCDC) $803,875 annually for an estimated loss in Kingsville of $4,111.
Severe Winter Weather Vulnerability Knob Noster: With each jurisdiction in the county having the same
vulnerability to winter weather Knob Noster would have a potential magnitude of catastrophic: More than 50%
NCDC) $803,875 annually for an estimated loss in Knob Noster of $41,405.
Severe Winter Weather Vulnerability Leeton: With each jurisdiction in the county having the same
vulnerability to winter weather Leeton would have a potential magnitude of catastrophic: More than 50% and a
frequency of occurrence of likely: Between 10 and 100% probability in next year, or at least one chance in 10
years. Due to a data limitation the total loss value is calculated based upon the population/county population
NCDC) $803,875 annually for an estimated loss in Leeton of $8,651.
Severe Winter Weather Vulnerability Warrensburg: With each jurisdiction in the county having the same
vulnerability to winter weather Warrensburg would have a potential magnitude of catastrophic: More than 50%
NCDC) $803,875 annually for an estimated loss in Warrensburg of $287,925.
Severe Winter Weather Vulnerability Whiteman AFB: With each jurisdiction in the county having the same
vulnerability to winter weather Whiteman AFB would have a potential magnitude of catastrophic: More than
chance in 10 years. Due to a data limitation the total loss value is calculated based upon the population/county
population which is 4.86%. With a loss estimation based upon Table 30 which shows loss (Since 1994, according
to the NCDC) $803,875 annually for an estimated loss in Whiteman AFB of $39,067.
August 2012
161
Drought Vulnerability by Jurisdiction
Drought Vulnerability Centerview: With each jurisdiction in the county having the same vulnerability to
drought Centerview would have a potential magnitude of catastrophic: More than 50% and a frequency of
0.51%. With a loss estimation based upon table 32 which shows $210,502 annually for an estimated loss in
Centerview of $1,074 annually.
Drought Vulnerability Chilhowee: With each jurisdiction in the county having the same vulnerability to
drought Chilhowee would have a potential magnitude of catastrophic: More than 50% and a frequency of
Chilhowee of $1,301 annually.
Drought Vulnerability Holden: With each jurisdiction in the county having the same vulnerability to
drought Holden would have a potential magnitude of catastrophic: More than 50% and a frequency of
Holden of $9,013 annually.
Drought Vulnerability Kingsville: With each jurisdiction in the county having the same vulnerability to
drought Kingsville would have a potential magnitude of catastrophic: More than 50% and a frequency of
Kingsville of $1,077 annually.
Drought Vulnerability Knob Noster: With each jurisdiction in the county having the same vulnerability
to drought Knob Noster would have a potential magnitude of catastrophic: More than 50% and a
frequency of occurrence of likely: Between 10 and 100% probability in next year, or at least one chance in
10 years. Due to a data limitation the total loss value is calculated based upon the population/county
population which is 5.15%. With a loss estimation based upon table 32 which shows $210,502 annually for
an estimated loss in Knob Noster of $10,842 annually.
Drought Vulnerability Leeton: With each jurisdiction in the county having the same vulnerability to
drought Leeton would have a potential magnitude of catastrophic: More than 50% and a frequency of
Leeton of $2,265 annually.
Drought Vulnerability Warrensburg: With each jurisdiction in the county having the same vulnerability to drought
Warrensburg would have a potential magnitude of catastrophic: More than 50% and a frequency of occurrence of
likely: Between 10 and 100% probability in next year, or at least one chance in 10 years. Due to a data limitation the
total loss value is calculated based upon the population/county population which is 35.82%. With a loss estimation
based upon table 32 which shows $210,502 annually for an estimated loss in Warrensburg of $75,396 annually.
Drought Vulnerability Whiteman AFB: With each jurisdiction in the county having the same
vulnerability to drought Whiteman AFB would have a potential magnitude of catastrophic: More than
population/county population which is 4.86%. With a loss estimation based upon table 32 which shows
$210,502 annually for an estimated loss in Whiteman AFB of $10,230 annually.
August 2012
162
HEAT WAVE COMPLETE VULNERABILITY ANALYSIS:
There is no central location for information on damages caused by extreme heat. The NCDC
information includes reported deaths, injuries, and losses for the events. However, the
information is not location-specific, instead it is episode-specific, and therefore cannot be the
basis for county estimates. The Planning Committee will look for additional sources of Heat
Wave damage information for the next plan update.
EARTHQUAKE COMPLETE VULNERABILITY ANALYSIS: In the Missouri State Plan, HAZUSMH MR4 (August 2009) was used to analyze earthquake vulnerability and estimate losses by county. HAZUS is
a loss estimation software package developed by FEMA that uses inventory data based on the 2000 census
adjusted to 2006 numbers. It uses the Dun & Bradstreet Business Population Report. Inventory values reflect
2006 valuations, based on RS Means (a supplier of construction cost information) replacement costs. Population
counts are 2008 estimates from the U.S. Census Bureau.
All HAZUS-MH analyses used the default inventory data associated with the August 2009 release of HAZUS-MH
MR4, which includes 2006 building valuations. An annualized loss scenario that enabled an “apples to apples”
comparison of earthquake risk for each county was run. The following vulnerability analyses pertained to Johnson
County as a whole. Note that the county ranked 82 out of 105 counties in the state for the percentage of damage
that would occur. Source: HAZUS-MH MR4
County
Johnson County
Building Loss Total ($)
$10,774
Loss Ratio %*
1.16%
Income Loss Total ($)
$18,308
Total Loss ($)*
$67,632
Loss Ratio Rank in Missouri
71
*Loss ratio is the sum of structural and nonstructural damage divided by the entire building inventory value
within a county
Earthquake Johnson
$40,000
$24,224
$0
August 2012
$343
$418
$2,896
$346
163
$3,484
$728
$3,287
DAM FAILURE COMPLETE VULNERABILITY ANALYSIS: County loss was taken from the 2010
Missouri State Hazard Mitigation (pg 3.349) which shows Johnson County with a total estimated loss from dam
failure at $1,436,593 and then the respective jurisdictions with a loss based on percent of population calculated
in the table below.
Dam Failure Johnson
$600,000
$514,546
$500,000
$400,000
$300,000
$200,000
$100,000
$0
$73,994
$61,512
$7,293
$8,877
$69,815
$15,460
$7,348
WILDFIRE COMLETE VULNERABILITY ANALYSIS: County loss was taken from the 2010
Missouri State Hazard Mitigation (pg 3.399) which shows Johnson County with a total estimated loss from
Wildfire at $502,824 and then the respective jurisdictions with a loss based on percent of population calculated
in the table below.
Wildfire Johnson
$200,000
$180,090
$160,000
$120,000
$80,000
$40,000
$0
August 2012
$2,552
$3,107
$21,529
$25,898
$2,572
164
$5,411
$24,435
SECTION 3
County Capability Assessment Mitigation Management Policies
The Johnson County Emergency Management Agency is charged with preparing for
disasters. That duty includes advising the County Commission on mitigation measures
and implementing those measures deemed appropriate by the Commission. In general,
the county’s policies encourage cooperation between Johnson County agencies as well as
cooperation between county agencies and those of neighboring jurisdictions.
Existing plans
Principles from the Johnson 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. The county’s Emergency Operation Plan for 2010 was approved by the County
Commission and identifies facilities and resources that require special security during a
disaster; promotes the development and maintenance of mutual aid agreements with
nearby agencies; requires participation in drills and exercises; identifies vulnerabilities in
county-administered road, water, and wastewater facilities; and includes an evacuation
plan. The EOP includes all-hazard mitigation measures.
Mitigation programs
The main mitigation programs are the county’s floodplain ordinance (updated in 2004),
participation in and administration of the National Flood Insurance Program. Additional
programs include the following.
•
•
•
•
•
The county’s floodplain ordinance is aimed at any new severely restricting any
new development in the Zone A floodplain. For structures outside the identified
flood hazard areas, a two-foot minimum elevation above grade is required.
The county is able to receive NWS warnings and all equipment is radio-activated.
About half of the county’s population could be alerted within 30 minutes,
responders within 5 minutes, and key officials within 15 minutes.
School students have received limited to substantial curricular training about
hazards and emergency programs. Businesses, schools, preschools, private
organizations, youth groups, community leaders, and average citizens have had
limited emergency management training. Industry and labor groups have had
limited training in the past five years. However, public sector employees have
had substantial training.
The county runs substantial seasonal hazard awareness campaigns.
Emergency response personnel have received substantial training, EOC staff has
received limited training and volunteer staff has received training in the past five
years.
August 2012
165
•
•
Geographic Information System (GIS) capabilities have facilitated the
development of limited hazard area base maps that are available to interested
parties.
Completion of the State Inter-Operational Plan which includes warning
capabilities allows for an understanding of the County’s warning systems. The
University of Central Missouri added warning sirens in 2009 as well as increased
security measures in the classroom.
Missouri laws require school districts in a Modified Mercalli zone VII or above at a
magnitude 7.6 earthquake to provide earthquake preparedness and safety literature each
year, such as earthquake procedures available to public view, a disaster plan, and
earthquake drills twice each year. Missouri statutes RSMo 160.451, 160.453, 160.455,
and 160.457 provide that “the governing body of each school district shall request
assistance from the state emergency management agency and any local emergency
management agency located within its district boundaries to develop and establish the
earthquake emergency procedure system.” All school districts in the county have
emergency plans.
City/County capabilities (organization, staffing, training, etc.)
The capabilities of emergency management, fire protection, law enforcement, emergency
medical services are detailed at the end of Section I.
Both Johnson County and the city of Warrensburg have primary and alternate Emergency
Operation Center (EOC)’s in Warrensburg.
The cities and county have substantial communication abilities, both fixed and mobile, to
coordinate the scene of an emergency. The EMA also has a limited number of cell
phones and other communications equipment as well as a substantial number of amateur
radios.
Fire equipment and vehicles are available to city and county agencies. Equipment
available for police, rescue, mass care, and information/communications, sat planes and
2-way radios are present.
EMA staff has received training in professional development, emergency response
planning, emergency response operations, exercises, disaster response and recovery, and
disaster mitigation within the last five years. Emergency response personnel and EOC
staff have received training in the past five years. Appropriate officials have had limited
training on hazard mitigation.
The EMA’s first tabletop exercise, with participation from all emergency agencies, was
successfully completed in November 1989. Additional exercises are conducted annually.
August 2012
166
Responsibilities and authorities
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
City and county chief elected officials 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
limited protection of people with special needs.
Johnson County has no building codes; however, each jurisdiction has adopted building
codes of varying degree.
Intergovernmental and interagency coordination
The Johnson County Emergency Management group meets monthly and serves to
maintain coordination among fire, law enforcement, emergency medical, public health
officers from the county, incorporated areas and adjacent jurisdictions.
Vulnerability Assessment of County Policies and Development
Trends
Commitments to a comprehensive mitigation program
Johnson County is currently strengthening mitigation measures and policies. On a
comprehensive basis, the county maintains and regularly updates the Emergency
Operation Plan that includes mitigation measures for all hazards, both natural and
manmade.
County laws, regulations and policies related to development in hazard-prone
areas
The floodplain management ordinance, updated in 2009, is based on policies to protect
the general welfare and health of county residents and visitors. 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 time of construction of public
facilities; and protect individuals from buying land unsuited for the intended use due to
flood hazard.
August 2012
167
County laws, regulations and policies related to hazard mitigation in general
Although the county has no building codes, subdivision, floodplain and storm water
regulations are somewhat helpful in instituting hazard mitigation measures.
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 also recognizes 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 mitigation the impacts of flash
flooding, tornadoes, and severe thunderstorms.
Current criteria used to prioritize mitigation funding
Mitigation funding primarily is based upon the combination of expected damage and
death/injury impacts. For example, between 1994 and 2003 10 fatal heat waves hit
Johnson County killing 42 people and injuring 55.
Another facet of the county’s mitigation concerns is the intensity of development
pressures. The Master Plan calls for concentrating new land use and economic
development in and around higher-density areas to provide greater access to
infrastructures and emergency measures.
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
Cost-effectiveness is considered on a case-by-case basis, 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. For example, FEMA-funded
mitigation projects must meet the benefit/cost analysis criteria required by FEMA.
August 2012
168
Mitigation funding options including current and potential sources of
Federal, state, local, private
The county and incorporated areas have historically relied upon federal disaster
declarations in cases of heavy widespread damages. Sources have included FEMA,
SEMA, the Missouri Department of Natural Resources and Department of Economic
Development (DED), and various other grant programs. In addition, investments in
infrastructures that have mitigating effects have been funded from sources such as local
tax revenues. Other funding options being considered for the future include the grant
sources identified in SEMA’s Regional Planning Commission Hazard Mitigation
Planning Guide – 2002.
How county government meets requirements for hazard mitigation funding
programs
The county’s EOP, floodplain ordinance and subdivision regulations include various
measures addressing floodplain development, sewer and water installations, and roadway
construction that encourage concentration of infrastructures.
Areas Where Improvement is Needed
Recommended improvements include expanded mutual aid agreements among
neighboring jurisdictions, improved the capabilities of the EOC, additional warning
sirens, educate the public concerning the link between storm water runoff and flash
floods, promote drought-resistant farming techniques and design recommendations to
reduce impervious surfaces, work with DNR to promote dam maintenance, and generally
increase education for public safety.
In addition, Missouri’s Structural Assessment and Visual Evaluation (SAVE) Coalition
facilitates the use of volunteer engineers, architects and qualified building inspectors who
perform damage assessments of homes following disasters such as earthquake, floods and
tornadoes. The SAVE Coalition can provide sound advice to communities and citizens
concerning the safety of reentering their homes following a disaster, with the added intent
of minimizing the need for sheltering by keeping people in their homes as much as safely
feasible. Missouri statute RSMo 44.023 provides immunity from liability for those
working in disaster volunteer programs.
The Missouri Seismic Safety Commission (under Missouri statutes RSMo 44.227,
44.229, 44.231, 44.233, 44.235, and 44.227) has developed a Strategic Plan for
Earthquake Safety in Missouri that contains a number of recommendations for
earthquake mitigation. The commission also sponsors Earthquake Awareness activities
each year, including exhibitions at the St. Louis Science Center and the State Capitol.
The Johnson County Hazard Mitigation Committee may want to investigate the
possibility of bringing some of these programs to a local venue.
August 2012
169
City/town/village policies and development trends
Knob Noster and Warrensburg both have master plans in place. The table below shows
that five cities have zoning regulations and building regulations. Two have a master plan,
four have storm water regulations and five have floodplain and subdivision regulations.
All eight cities are facing major growth pressures from the Kansas City metropolitan
area.
TABLE 38
City Regulations
Jurisdiction
Centerview
Chilhowee
Leeton
Holden
Kingsville
Knob Noster
Warrensburg
August 2012
Master
Building Subdivision Storm water
Plan Zoning
Code
Regulations Regulations
no
no
no
yes
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
yes
yes
yes
no
yes
yes
yes
yes
no
no
yes
yes
yes
no
yes
yes
yes
yes
no
yes
yes
yes
yes
no
170
Floodplain
Regulations
no
no
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
TABLE 39
JOHNSON COUNTY CAPABILITY ASSESSMENT
Policies and
Programs
Document
Reference
(ex. Zoning
Ordinance)
(ex.
Comprehensive
Plan & page
number)
Effectiveness for
Mitigation
Rationale for Effectiveness
(ex. low because allows development in floodplain)
(ex. low, medium,
high)
Floodplain
management
Johnson
County
Floodplain
Management
Ordinance
High
New construction and improvements are not
allowed without extensive mitigation
requirements. 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 county has a community
outreach program through the county library.
Multi-hazard
emergency
plan
Johnson
County
Emergency
Operations
Plan
Medium
Need additional mutual aid agreements, improve
the Emergency Operations Center, warning
systems, emergency response equipment, training
for volunteer agencies and the private sector, fullscale exercises (planned), and public preparedness
education.
Flood
insurance
Joined NFIP
October 26,
1990,
#290809
Medium
The county administers and participates fully in
the NFIP. As well as Holden #290714, Knob
Noster # 290724, and Warrensburg #290194
Medium
Coordination with county jurisdictions through
US Corps of Engineers.
South Fork
Blackwater
River
Watershed
August 2012
171
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.
August 2012
172
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 cost-effective.
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
August 2012
173
the program has been approved only for limited funding, 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.
August 2012
174
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.
August 2012
175
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.
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.
August 2012
176
SECTION 4
Introduction to Mitigation
Definition of mitigation
According to FEMA’s “Report on Costs and Benefits of Natural Hazard Mitigation,”
hazard mitigation is defined as “sustained action taken to reduce or eliminate the longterm risk to people and property from hazards and their effects.” The goal of mitigation
is to reduce or eliminate loss of lives and property.
Categories of mitigation
Mitigation includes any activities that prevent an emergency, reduce the chance of an
emergency happening, or lessen the damaging effects of unavoidable emergencies.
Efforts by Federal, State, and local governments can restrict development in vulnerable
areas, direct new development to less vulnerable areas, and promote ways to safeguard
existing development in hazard-prone areas. Individuals also can participate through
practicing sound personal safety and property prevention measures.
There are six categories of mitigation that can produce safer environments. They are
prevention, property protection, natural resource protection, emergency services,
structural projects, and public information.
•
•
•
•
•
•
Prevention tools can include regulatory methods such as planning and zoning,
building regulations, open space planning, land development regulations, and
storm water management.
Property protection measures reduce the risk of building damage through
acquisition of land, relocation of buildings, modifying at-risk structures, and flood
proofing at-risk structures.
Natural resource protection can reduce hazard impacts through measures such as
erosion and sediment control or wetlands protection.
Emergency services measures include warning, response capacity, critical
facilities protection, and health and safety maintenance.
Structural mitigation controls natural hazards through projects such as reservoirs,
levees, diversions, channel modifications and storm sewers.
Public information includes providing hazard maps and information, outreach
programs, real estate disclosure, technical assistance and education.
Mitigation versus preparedness, response and recovery
Mitigation does not include other emergency functions such as preparedness, response, or
recovery. Preparedness deals with improving capabilities before a disaster strikes.
Response is a disaster-onset activity to immediately save lives and protect property.
Recovery is a post-disaster activity to return all systems to a normal status.
August 2012
177
Mitigation plan benefits
Hazard mitigation planning is a tool community’s use to:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Reduce death, injury and property losses.
Identify specific problems and appropriate solutions.
Achieve multiple objectives in a sustainable and efficient manner.
Reduce future risks.
Prioritize post-disaster projects.
Enhance funding opportunities through Federal, State and local programs.
Promote public participation and ownership of solutions.
County Hazard Mitigation Goals, Objectives, Strategy and
Coordination
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.
Johnson 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. 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:
•
•
•
•
Protect the lives and livelihoods of all citizens.
Manage growth through sustainable and environmentally sustainable principles
and practices.
Ensure continued operation of government and emergency functions during a
disaster.
Preserve and maintain property, infrastructure, businesses, and jurisdiction
vitality.
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.
August 2012
178
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.
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 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 move the county into CRS status.
Action 2.1.4: Resolve any environmental conflicts and take steps to prevent
future conflicts.
August 2012
179
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.
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.
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 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.”
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.
August 2012
180
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.
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.
Action 1.2.1: Encourage property owners and occupants in hazard areas to
participate in mitigation policy formulation.
Action 1.2.2: Target any 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.
Action 1.3.3: Utilize the “Ready in 3” program to ensure enhanced public
awareness of disaster situations
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.
August 2012
181
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.
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.
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.
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
August 2012
182
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 40
Johnson County Proposed Mitigation Action Evaluation:
Proposed Action (abbreviated for readability)
Criteria:
Objective 1.1: Raise public awareness.
Encourage development of public outreach programs
Encourage organizations to develop hazard measures for employees/visitors
Encourage development of emergency management curriculum in schools.
Encourage development of outreach program for special needs populations
Encourage education and construction of safe rooms in mobile home parks
Objective 1.2: Establish warning systems for all hazards.
Encourage jurisdictions, to report warning system data gaps for all hazards.
Encourage development of evacuation plan for all disasters.
Encourage placement of flood warning signs
Encourage special needs population to obtain NOAA radios, safe rooms
Identify geographic areas and acquire equipment.
Public mitigation policy formulation.
Environmentally-sound watershed and stormwater practices.
Encourage residents, stakeholders to participate in watershed plans to prevent flooding.
Revise flood fighting plans as needed.
Objective 1.5: Promote safety measures among employers and the general public.
Promote the use of hazard area maps by the public.
FEMA safety tips and message delivery systems.
Review and upgrade policies for additional emergency equipment.
August 2012
183
S
T
A
P
L
E
E
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Mutual aid agreements with all relevant agencies.
* *
Redundancy measures for the 911 Center/EOC.
* *
Objective 2.1: : Reduce or prevent impacts from hazards on private properties.
Encourage education of residents on property protection from hazards.
* * *
Use hazard maps with developers, home buyers, construction and engineers.
* * *
Encourage utilities, communications, developers to construct underground lines.
* * *
Objective 2.2: Reduced or prevent impacts from hazards on public properties.
Encourage jurisdictions to adopt, enforce most current codes, ordinances for all hazards. * * *
Encourage to take FEMA structural safety classes for building integrity
* * *
Encourage jurisdictions to adopt open burning control ordinances.
* * *
Encourage jurisdiction agencies to coordinate communications plans.
*
*
Encourage prioritization of emergency routes for use during hazard events
* * *
Decrease wildfire risk in buffer zones.
* *
Environmentally-sound, fire-resistant home materials.
*
Low-fire-hazard space around subdivisions.
* *
Promote NFIP policies and earthquake insurance.
* * *
Encourage construction of tornado safe rooms.
* *
Commercial/industrial disaster plans coordinate with community.
* *
Backup systems for commercial/industrial businesses.
*
Objective 3.1: Manage growth through sustainable principles and practices.
Improve rural water/sewer standards.
* *
Encourage best practices for drought-resistant farming.
* * *
Increase the county’s CRS status.
* *
Resolve environmental conflicts; prevent future conflicts.
* *
Work with DNR to identify primary maintenance for earthen dams.
* * *
Objective 3.2: Develop collaborative hazard mitigation efforts across jurisdictional boundaries.
Encourage jurisdictions to implement Hazard Mitigation Plan
* * *
Encourage all legislation to collaborate and establish state planning department.
*
*
Conduct proper record keeping for all documents related to disasters.
*
*
Objective 3.3: Reduce impacts and promote protection of natural resources.
Encourage ability to protect downstream residents from dam failure.
* * *
Encourage jurisdiction educate residents on proper disposal of yard.
*
*
Encourage jurisdictions, residents to maintain streams, corridors.
* * *
Encourage jurisdictions to become familiar and comply with drought, water restrictions. *
*
Protect watersheds, encourage storm water practices for flood protection.
* * *
Upgrades or retrofits for critical buildings and infrastructures.
* *
Backup systems for critical facilities.
* * *
Emergency equipment for critical facilities.
* * *
Objective 4.2: Increase collaboration among jurisdictions, agencies and special districts.
Identify collaboration priorities.
* * *
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Workshop participants discussed suggestions, added suggestions, and deleted some
actions by using the STAPLEE evaluation. Several actions were eliminated for various
reasons as shown in the following list:
• A suggestion to improve rural water/sewer standards was discarded because
Missouri’s DNR has a strong regulatory presence in inspecting and monitoring
water/sewer issues.
• An action to identify wildfire buffer zones was deemed a required preliminary
step to decreasing wildfire risk in buffer zones (1.5). A related action to designate
August 2012
184
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
•
•
•
low-fire-hazard spaces in subdivisions was thought to be better incorporated into
the wildfire buffer zone program.
A measure to incorporate natural hazard mitigation construction techniques or
retrofitting was discarded, for now. It was felt that many companies already
incorporate these techniques. In addition, the bulk of this suggestion is covered in
Federal and/or state regulations or rules.
Suggestions to encourage open-space developments and to mandate fair-share
funding from developers were discarded as not being directly relevant to hazard
mitigation.
A need to reduce crop damage was dropped because flood prevention and wildfire
prevention would be redundant.
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 196.
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.
August 2012
185
Ensure implementation through inclusion in adoption resolution
The county’s Hazard Mitigation Plan will be implemented by the Johnson 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
Johnson 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 follows:
•
Historically, Johnson 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 173.
August 2012
186
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
One of the last columns in the tables beginning on page 196 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:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Cw = Centerview
Ch = Chilhowee
H = Holden
K = Kingsville
Kn = Knob Noster
Lt = Leeton
Wbg = Warrensburg
A = Every incorporated area could be affected or involved
NOTE: All actions affect the entire county jurisdiction in some way. Therefore, county
involvement is assumed for all of the items on the following Action Matrix. All
mitigation actions for this update are the same as the previous approved plan so all will
be deferred. The reason would be lack of continuity between plan preparers, as a high
turnover rate that caused much of the plan to be pieced together from different preparers.
This has led to some unknowns in regards to the monitoring and evaluating the plan as a
lack of resources in the county has caused many plan writers to double their work loads
and take on tasks that they have little to no time to complete. This could be alleviated by
retaining staff that have firsthand experience in writing hazard mitigation plans and also
creating committees that meet on a biannual basis to review and evaluate the hazard
mitigation plans.
August 2012
187
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
Earthquake
Medium;
Continuing
Evaluation
Heat Wave
Same action from
2005 Plan
Potential Funding
Sources
Drought
Emergency
Services
Probable Lead
Organizer
Winter
Type of Strategy
Priority Rank
and Current
Status
Flood
Action
Natural Hazards
New to the
Update, Revised
from the 2005
Plan, Same as
2005 Plan
Tornado
Community
Johnson County Hazard Mitigation Update Actions Matrix
Goal 1: Protect the lives and
livelihoods of all citizens
Objective 1.1: Provide sufficient warning systems
A
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
H
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
A
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
August 2012
X
188
X
X
X
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
A
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
A
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
A
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
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
August 2012
189
X
X
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
New
High
EMA Director
Internal Funds
Communication plan
updated/completed
A
August 2012
190
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
TABLE 42
JOHNSON COUNTY EXISTING COMMUNITY PLANS
Source
Existing Goal Statements
Half cent tax for building, repairing and replacing of the
counties 400+ bridges, use tax for hard surface roads in
county. Expand half cent bridge tax to include
improvements on all roads. Create a rural septic system for
the southeast new sewer district. Creating innovation park
which will expand the current Skyhaven airport.
Transportation Development of highway 13 expansion in Warrensburg.
Improve Highway 23 BWRB flooding over roadway
Plan
Capital
Improvements
Plan
Master
Transportation
Plan
Emergency
Operations
Plan
Johnson County
Emergency
Operations Plan
2010
August 2012
Effective Goal
for Mitigation?
Yes.
Yes.
Currently in development.
Yes.
The plan includes policies and procedures to save lives,
minimize injuries, protect property, preserve functioning
civil government, and maintain economic activities.
Yes.
191
Johnson County Hazard Mitigation Plan
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)
August 2012
192
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, Johnson County has developed a method to ensure regular review
and update of the Hazard Mitigation Plan. In the course of their duties, emergency managers, in
collaboration with their respective Emergency Management Committee should meet annually
and on an informal and routine basis to focus on monitoring and evaluating as well as updating
the Hazard Mitigation Plan. In addition, a regional meeting could also be organized by
Emergency Managers on an annual basis to provide cross-jurisdictional information sharing
federal and state updates and opportunities for project development, implementation, and
funding with jurisdictions and stakeholders. It is recommended that the Emergency Management
Committee include County Commissioners, municipal officials, fire, law enforcement,
emergency medical and public health officials for various objectives of this plan. It is
recommended that the County public notice these meetings and encourage the public to
participate.
August 2012
193
It is recommended that the committee review each goal and objective to determine the relevance
to local, regional, statewide and federal disaster situations and to ensure that they are addressing
current and expected conditions. The committee should review the risk assessment portion of the
plan to determine if this information should be updated. The parties responsible for the various
implementation actions should report on the status of their projects and will include which
implementation processes worked well, difficulties encountered, coordination efforts and which
strategies should be revised.
The Emergency Management Committee should take three months to update the plan before
submitting it to the State Hazard Mitigation Officer. If no changes are necessary, the State
Hazard Mitigation Officer should be given a justification for this determination. Copies of the
plan should be catalogued and kept on hand at the main Johnson County library branch. In
addition, a copy of the plan will be available in the Office of Emergency Management and at
the Johnson County Clerk’s Office. The existence and location of these copies should be
publicized by the daily local newspaper, and listed on the County website. Contained in
appendix F is the address and telephone number of the Office of Emergency Management
responsible for keeping track of public comments on the plan. Copies of the plan and
proposed changes will be posted on the County website. The site will contain an email address
and telephone number to which people can direct their comments. The general public should
be encouraged to attend these meetings through media coverage, published notices, reminders,
and civic meetings.
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
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
August 2012
194
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.
August 2012
195
Appendix A: Executed Jurisdiction Adoptions Sample
Johnson County Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan
The following resolution was adopted by County of Johnson on this day of __________________________2012.
Resolution Number: _______
A RESOLUTION OF INTENT TO PARTICIPATE IN NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION AND TO WORK TOWARD
BECOMING A SAFER COMMUNITY.
WHEREAS, the County of Johnson recognizes that no community is immune from natural hazards whether it be tornado/severe
thunderstorms, flood, severe winter weather, drought, heat-wave, earthquake, dam failure, or wildfire, and recognizes the
importance of enhancing its ability to withstand natural hazards as well as the importance of reducing the human suffering,
property damage, interruption of public services and economic losses caused by those hazards; and
WHEREAS, the County of Johnson may have previously pursued measures such as building codes, fire codes, floodplain
management regulations, zoning ordinance, and storm-water management regulations to minimize the impact of natural hazards;
and
WHEREAS, the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the Missouri State Emergency Management Agency have
developed a natural hazard mitigation program that assists communities in their efforts to become Disaster-Resistant
Communities which are sustainable communities after a natural disaster that focus, not just on disaster relief, but also on recovery
and reconstruction that brings the community to at least pre-disaster conditions in an accelerated, orderly and preplanned manner;
and
WHEREAS, by participation in the Natural Hazards Mitigation program, the County of Johnson will be eligible to apply for
post-disaster mitigation funds; and
WHEREAS, the County of Johnson desires to commit to working with government partners and community partners to
implement the natural Hazards Mitigation Plan; and
WHEREAS, the County of Johnson will implement pertinent precepts of the mitigation plan by incorporation into other
community plans and mechanisms where appropriate; and
WHEREAS, the County of Johnson will participate in the evaluation and review of the Plan after a disaster as well as complete
the mandated five-year update of the plan submitted to the Missouri State Emergency Management Agency and the Federal
Emergency Management Agency for review and approval;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNTY OF JOHNSON AS FOLLOWS:
The County of Johnson hereby adopts the Johnson Multi-Junsdictional Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan attached hereto for the
purpose of building a safer community by reducing natural hazard vulnerability.
______________________________________________________
Presiding Official
_______________________
Date
______________________________________________________
Secondary Official
_______________________
Date
______________________________________________________
Tertiary Official
_______________________
Date
August 2012
196
Appendix B: Newspaper Articles
August 2012
197
Appendix C: Acronyms
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
ASM Archaeological Survey of Missouri
BFE Base Flood Elevation
BLM Bureau of Land Management
CDBG Community Development Block Grant
CEDS Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy
CERI Center for Earthquake Research and Information at the University of Memphis
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CPC Climate Prediction Center
CRS Community Rating System
DMA 2000 Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000
EDA Economic Development Administration
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
FIRM Flood Insurance Rate Map
FMA Flood Mitigation Assistance (FEMA Program)
FTE Full Time Equivalent
GIS Geographic Information System
HMGP Hazard Mitigation Grant Program
HMST Hazard Mitigation Survey Team
HUD Housing and Urban Development (United States, Department of)
ICC Increased Cost of Compliance
LMI Labor Market Information
MACOG Missouri Association of Councils of Governments
MCC Midwestern Climate Center
MoDOT Missouri Department of Transportation
MPA Missouri Press Association
NCDC National Climate Data Center
NEHRP National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program
NFIP National Flood Insurance Program
NFPA National Fire Protection Association
NHMP Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan
NIBS National Institute of Building Sciences
NIFC National Interagency Fire Center
NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NRHP National Register of Historic Places
NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service
NWS National Weather Service
OEDP Overall Economic Development Program for Lincoln, Montgomery & Warren
Counties, July 1998; farm decline, p.c-16
August 2012
198
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
PDM Pre-Disaster Mitigation Program
PDSI Palmer Drought Severity Index
SBA Small Business Administration
SEMA Missouri State Emergency Management Agency
SHMO State Hazard Mitigation Officer
SPC Storm Prediction Center
USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers
USDA United States Department of Agriculture
USFA United States Fire Administration
USFS United States Forest Service
USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service
USGS United States Geological Survey
August 2012
199
Appendix D: Definitions
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.
August 2012
200
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
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.
August 2012
201
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
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.
August 2012
202
Appendix E: Multi-Hazard Mitigation Resource Directory and
Bibliography
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
August 2012
203
•
Anonymous (1888). History of southeast Missouri, Goodspeed Publishing Co., Chicago.
•
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.
August 2012
204
•
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.
August 2012
205
•
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.
August 2012
206
•
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.
August 2012
207
•
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
August 2012
208
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
August 2012
209
Appendix F: FEMA List of Repetitive Losses for Flooding
No known repetitive losses for flooding at this time 3/13/13
August 2012
210
Appendix G: Documentation of Public Input (Meeting
Notices, Agendas, Meeting Summaries, Sign-in Sheets)
August 2012
211
August 2012
212
August 2012
213
August 2012
214

Johnson County - Pioneer Trails Regional Planning Commission

Transcription

Similar documents

Poster

January 2015 - Johnson Elementary School

FAST FA C TS - Johnson University

the black woman`s

Place your order for evidence-based care.

PDF - City of Terrell Hills

Providing challenging, meaningful and engaging learning experiences

poem, "TEMPTATION," by "PURLIE VICTORIOUS" with to move more

Richard Johnson.indd

January 29, 2016