Section 1: Introduction

Transcription

1 [SE-MA-NO ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE] May 18, 2012 Section 1: Introduction Se-Ma-No Electric Cooperative (Se-Ma-No) was organized in 1945 as a member-owned, non-profit cooperative to supply electricity to rural portions of the Seymour, Mansfield and Norwood areas. Se-Ma-No serves portions of the cities of Mountain Grove, Mansfield, and Seymour as well as the entire City of Norwood and rural areas along Highway 60 from Diggins to Mountain Grove. The Se-Ma-No office is located in Mansfield, Missouri. Se-Ma-No has 5,890 member/owners and maintains 1,000 miles of distribution lines. Residential customers account for 93% of membership (5484 members) while nonresidential customers make up the remaining 7% (406 members). Se-Ma-No Electric Cooperative's service area is divided into three districts, each represented by three board members who serve a three-year term. The Board is a governing body of the cooperative. Acting as a group, they establish the policies by which the Cooperative is operated and review all activities of the Cooperative. Board members also attend training courses and other Cooperative program related meetings in order to carry out their duties and responsibilities as directors. Figure 1 depicts the geographic boundaries of the Cooperative. Figure

2 May 18, 2012 [SE-MA-NO ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE] Table 1.1 provides the summary of metered customers by Missouri County. Table 1.1 County Meters by Missouri County Number of meters Douglas 614 Texas 32 Webster 1516 Wright 4479 TOTALS 6641 The average daily customer usage for Se-Ma-No is 37.7 kilowatt-hours (kwh). Annual total usage per Se-Ma-No customers in 2010 was 13,800 kwh of service. Population density for the cooperative service area is depicted below in Figure 2. (Map source: U.S. Census 2010). Figure

3 [SE-MA-NO ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE] May 18, 2012 Section 2: Planning Process Through a partnership between the Association of Missouri Electric Cooperatives and the Missouri Association of Councils of Government, the South Central Ozarks Council of Governments was contracted to facilitate a hazard mitigation planning process for Se- Ma-No. The initial meeting was held on February 10, 2011, as part of a regional kick-off meeting for south-central Missouri. This informational meeting provided the basic responsibilities for each agency and allowed for initial discussion concerning the project timelines, data collection and other pertinent topics. Planning meetings were held at the Se-Ma-No offices in Mansfield, Missouri on February 10, 2011, August 5, 2011 and September 22, Table 1.2 summarizes the attendees and topics of each meeting. Table 1.2 SE-MA-NO Planning Meeting Synopsis Meeting Date Attendees, Title, Organization Topics of discussion February 10, 2011 Jim Carpenter, General Manager Se-Ma-No Perry Street, Operations Mngr., Se-Ma-No Tamara Hamilton, Finance/Admin.., Se-Ma-No Kevin Findley Member Services, Se-Ma-No Eddie Calhoun, Staking Engineer, Se-Ma-No Monty Smith, SCOCOG Steven Reed, SCOCOG August 5, 2011 September 22, 2011 Public Involvement Jim Carpenter, General Manager Se-Ma-No Perry Street, Operations Mngr., Se-Ma-No Eddie Calhoun Staking Engineer, Se-Ma-No Monty Smith, SCOCOG Johnny Murrell, SCOCOG Perry Street, Operations Mngr., Se-Ma-No Eddie Calhoun Staking Engineer, Se-Ma-No Kevin Findley Member Services, Se-Ma-No Tamara Hamilton, Finance/Admin.., Se-Ma-No Jim Carpenter, General Manager Se-Ma-No Monty Smith, SCOCOG Johnny Murrell, SCOCOG Review of Chapter Project SE-MA-NO business structure Data collection identification Project timelines Customer information Critical facilities information Asset inventory Current mitigation strategies Establish goals, actions, and objectives Method of prioritization Prioritization of goals, actions, and objectives Current mitigation strategies Establish goals, actions, and objectives Method of prioritization Prioritization of goals, actions, and objectives As with all public hazard mitigation plans, public involvement was encouraged through a variety of methods. Se-Ma-No posted their local chapter on the company s website, inviting both cooperative members and the general public to provide comment. Print copies of the chapter were also made available upon request through the local office. Comments from neighboring jurisdictions were also solicited using the standardized Se- Ma-No letter which was mailed to the appropriate contacts, including: City of Seymour City of Mountain Grove City of Mansfield 39-3

4 May 18, 2012 [SE-MA-NO ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE] City of Norwood Wright County Commission Webster County Commission Douglas County Commission Texas County Commission Emergency Management Directors Red Cross Chapter. SE-MA-NO does not provide service to any critical facilities (hospitals, emergency services, etc.), higher education institutions, or large industrial centers. 39-4

5 [SE-MA-NO ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE] May 18, 2012 Section 3: Asset Inventory Assets and real estate owned by Se-Ma-No Electric Cooperative include office buildings, warehouses, garages, outbuilding and vehicles. Se-Ma-No does not own any electric generation or transmission infrastructure. Se-Ma-No Electric Cooperative owns and maintains miles of distribution lines. Table 1.3 provides information concerning total asset valuation. Table 1.3 Asset Total Assets SE-MA-NO Distribution Lines ( OH) (11.69 UG) Se-Ma-No Asset Inventory Valuation Summary Total Cost breakdown Replacement Cost $44,805,329 Buildings and vehicles - $2,393,641 Overhead assets - $40,865,349 Underground assets - $1,546,339 OH Single Phase lines - $20,650,714 $25,517,184 OH UG Single Phase lines - $257,558 $370,339 UG OH Three Phase lines - $4,866,470 UG Three Phase lines - $112,781 Supporting Infrastructure $ 15,348,165 OH $1,176,000 UG Office Buildings $1,167,641. Warehouses $106,000. Vehicles (14) $1,120,000 Source: Se-Ma-No Meters - $763,715 Poles - $6,549,300 OH Transformers - $5,726,000 UG Transformers - $1,176,000 Guys/Anchors - $1,259,700 Cross-arms - $318,150 Regulators - $336,000 SP Oil-Circuit Reclosures - $286,500 Capacitors - $108,800 Ensuring quality distribution to its customers, Se-Ma-No maintains not only distribution lines, but also the supporting infrastructure as well. Table 1.4 includes a list of asset types, emergency replacement cost per unit or mile, and the asset inventory by county and total infrastructure numbers. 39-5

6 May 18, 2012 [SE-MA-NO ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE] Table 1.4 Asset Se-Ma-No Asset Inventory by service county Emergency Replacement Cost per unit or mile Number of units or miles: Douglas Number of units or miles: Texas Number of units or miles: Wright Number of units or miles: Webster -Meter $115/unit ,479 1,516 6,641 Total number of units or miles: -Pole $300/unit 2, ,737 4,977 21,831 SP*** distribution line 189 OH** 6.67 OH OH 7.02 UG OH 0.61 UG OH 8.13 UG TP**** distribution line $21,120/mile OH ($4/foot OH) $31,680/mile UG ($6/foot UG) $42,240/mile ($8/foot OH) $31,680/mile UG ($6/foot UG) 0.50 UG*** 3.0 OH.21 OH.50 UG 78.5 OH 2.54 UG 33.5 OH..52 UG OH 3.56 UG Transformers $1,000 OH $12,000 UG 535 OH 29 OH 3,853 OH 79 UG 1,309 OH 19 UG 5,726 OH 98 UG - $95/unit 2, ,544 2,328 13,260 Guys/anchors -Cross-arms $ ,088 1,040 4,242 -Regulators $8, Oil Circuit $1, Reclosures Capacitors $1,700/unit Total Replacement Value by county $5,590,700 OH $15,840 UG $ 224,840 OH $15,840 UG $26,798,914 OH $1,250,861 UG $8,250,894 OH $263,798 UG $40,865,349 OH $1,546,339 UG **OH = overhead ***UG = underground ***SP = Single phase ****TP Three phase Information provided by Se-Ma-No 39-6

7 [SE-MA-NO ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE] May 18, 2012 Section 4: Identified Hazards and Risk Assessment Methodology Natural hazards in south-central Missouri vary dramatically with regard to intensity, frequency, and the scope of impact. Some hazards, like earthquakes, happen without warning and do not provide any opportunity to prepare for the threat. Other hazards, such as tornadoes, flooding, or severe winter storms, provide a period of warning which allows for public preparation prior to their occurrence. The following natural hazards have been identified as potential threats for the service region of the Se-Ma-No Electric Cooperative: Tornadoes Severe thunderstorms/high winds Severe winter weather Earthquakes Wildfire Dam failure Flood There are certain hazards that may be eliminated from consideration in their local plan due to the state s geographic location including tsunamis, hurricanes, coastal storms, volcanic activity, avalanche, and tropical storms. Additionally, a number of hazards may be eliminated specifically for Se-Ma-No because of asset types and geographic location in the State of Missouri. Those hazards eliminated for the Se-Ma-No service region include: Drought Heat wave Levee failure Severe land subsidence Landslides Although drought can potentially impact south-central Missouri, water availability does not directly impact the delivery of electric service to Se-Ma-No customers. Heat waves may result in additional usage and demand on the system but do not usually cause infrastructure damage to cooperative assets. The results of a heat wave in the Se-Ma-No service area may be considered cascading events rather than damage caused directly by the hazard itself. There are no levees constructed within the Se-Ma-No service area. Land subsidence and landslides have also been eliminated in the area due to the soil structure categorization by the USGS. For the purpose of this risk assessment, the identified hazards for the Se-Ma-No service area have been divided into two categories: historical and non-historical hazards. Historical hazards are those hazards with a measurable previous impact upon the service area that identify the damage costs per event and a chronology of occurrences is available. The associated vulnerability assessments utilize the 39-7

8 May 18, 2012 [SE-MA-NO ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE] limited number of events and cost of each event that were provided by Se-Ma-No to establish an average cost per incident. For Se-Ma-No, the only data provided for hazards with historical data include tornado, severe thunderstorms/ high wind/ hail, severe winter weather, wildfire, and flood. Non-historical hazards are hazards with no previous record of impact upon the local service area. The associated vulnerability assessments for each of these hazards will have an occurrence probability of less than 1% in any, but the extent of damage will vary considerably. For Se-Ma-No, hazards without historical data include earthquakes and dam failures. Probability of Occurrence In determining the potential frequency of occurrences for historical events documented by Se-Ma-No, the number of recorded events for the service area was divided by the number of years of record. This number was then multiplied by 100 to provide a percentage. This formula was used to determine future probability for each hazard. For events that have not occurred, a probability of less than 1% was automatically assigned as the hazard cannot be excluded from the possibility of occurrence. Likewise, when discussing the probable risk of each hazard based upon historical occurrences, the following scale was utilized: Less than 1% chance of an event occurrence in any. 1-10% chance of an event occurrence in any 11-99% chance of an event occurrence in any Near 100% chance of an event occurrence in any The number of occurrences was further refined to focus on damage-causing events. Those occasions which had reported damages were divided by the total number of recorded events to obtain a percentage of total storms which result in infrastructure damage. (Formula: number of damage-causing events / total number of events = percentage of occurrences which cause damage.) Potential Extent of Damage Vulnerability Assessment matrices for each hazard are included on the following pages. These worksheets detail loss estimates for each hazard affecting the cooperative s service area. Loss estimates were calculated using the asset summary provided by Se-Ma-No records. Each hazard has a unique impact upon the service area, requiring each hazard to utilize a different valuation amount depending upon the level of impact. Non-historical hazards assume damage to all general assets. For historical hazards, assets were divided into two groups based upon historical impact which were utilized in the hazard damage analysis: Overhead infrastructure assets and buildings o Used for tornado damage assessments o Valued at $43,258,

9 Potential Extent of Damage [SE-MA-NO ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE] May 18, 2012 Overhead infrastructure assets only o Used for: Severe thunderstorm / high wind Severe winter weather o Valued at $ 40,865,347 In addition, historical hazards with recorded damages were used to identify an average cost per event. (Formula: total cost of damages / total number of events = average damage cost per event.) When discussing the extent of potential damages for all hazards, the following scale was utilized: Less than 10% potential damages to total cooperative infrastructure 10-25% potential damages to total cooperative infrastructure 26-50% potential damages to total cooperative infrastructure More than 50% potential damages to total cooperative infrastructure The following matrix (Table 1.5) will be utilized to identify the potential damage extent and likelihood of occurrence for each natural hazard type. Table 1.5 Sample Se-Ma-No Electric Cooperative Infrastructure Vulnerability Assessment Matrix Hazard: Probability of Hazard Occurrence Less than 1% in any 1-10% chance in any given year 11-99% chance in any Near 100% probability in any Less than 10% of damage to system 10-25% damage of system 26-50% damage of system More than 50% damage of system In many instances, natural hazard events occur without causing significant damage to the cooperative s infrastructure. The more significant impact of natural hazard episodes comes in the form of reported customer outages. The infrastructure may not be significantly harmed by an ice storm, but may result in prolonged and widespread outages in the cooperative s service area. In considering the potential impact of a hazard, loss of function provides a more concise picture for comparison of events and geographic regions of the state. In addition to system damage, each hazard will be evaluated on the average number of reported or estimated outages per event occurrence. (Formula: average number of outages reported / total number of customers = average percentage of outages reported per event.) 39-9

10 Potential Extent of Impact May 18, 2012 [SE-MA-NO ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE] Table 1.6 Sample Se-Ma-No Electric Cooperative Service Interruption Vulnerability Assessment Matrix Hazard: Less than 10% of customers report outages 10-25% of customers report outages 26-50% of customers report outages More than 50% of customers report outages Probability of Damage-causing Hazard Occurrence Less than 1% in any 1-10% chance in any given year 11-99% chance in any > Near 100% probability in any 39-10

11 [SE-MA-NO ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE] May 18, 2012 Section 5: Risk Assessment A) Historical Hazards: Tornadoes According to the National Climate Data Center (NCDC), 17 tornadoes have been documented in within the Se-Ma-No cooperative boundaries in the last 60 years as depicted in Figure 3. A data insufficiency exits, however, between 1968 and 2006 in both historical hazard records and cooperative records concerning damage estimate. For the purpose of this assessment, the years for which records exist for both data sets have been used. From , Se-Ma-No s service area has experienced a total of four tornado events. Using the previously described methodology, the probability of a tornadic event in the Se-Ma-No service area in any is near 100% (4 events / 4 years = 100%). One of the four occurrences caused damage to cooperative assets, resulting in a 25% probability that any given tornadic occurrence will produce damage. Table 1.7 provides a summary of event that was provided. Table 1.7 Se-Ma-No Tornado Event Summary Date of event EF Scale rating Damage estimates 2009 EF-1 $167,000 Figure

12 Potential Extent of Impact Potential Extent of Damage May 18, 2012 [SE-MA-NO ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE] Based upon historical event records, the average tornado to affect the cooperative will include an EF0-EF1 rating, causing an average damage cost of $167,000 per event ($167,000 / 1 event = $167,000) This amount accounts for less than 1% of Se-Ma-No s total overhead assets and building valuation ($167,000 /$43,258,990 = 0.386%). Table 1.8 demonstrates the probability of occurrence in conjunction with the potential extent of damage. Table 1.8 Probability of Hazard Occurrence Se-Ma-No Electric Cooperative Infrastructure Vulnerability Assessment Matrix Hazard: Tornado Less than 1% in any 1-10% chance in any given year 11-99% chance in any Near 100% probability in any Less than 10% of damage to system 10-25% damage of system 26-50% damage of system More than 50% damage of system Outage information provided by Se-Ma-No for this single event was reported as total outage time of 5,079 hours. Assuming an average outage of 1.5 hours per affected customer, 57.5% of customers could experience outages due to a damage-causing tornadic event. Table 1.9 demonstrates the probability of occurrence in conjunction with the potential extent of impact upon local customers. Table 1.9 Se-Ma-No Electric Cooperative Service Interruption Vulnerability Assessment Matrix Hazard: Tornado Less than 10% of customers report outages 10-25% of customers report outages Less than 1% in any Probability of Damage-causing Hazard Occurrence 1-10% chance in any given year 11-99% chance in any > Near 100% probability in any 26-50% of customers report outages More than 50% of customers report outages 39-12

13 Potential Extent of Damage [SE-MA-NO ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE] May 18, 2012 Severe Thunderstorms/ High Wind/Hail According to the NCDC, from , Howell-Oregon s service area within the State of Missouri has experienced a total 315 thunderstorm/high wind/ hail events. Using the previously described methodology, the probability of a thunderstorm/high wind/ hail event in the Se-Ma-No service area in any is near 100% (315 events / 20 years = 157.5%). To date, only one of these occurrences caused damage to cooperative assets. Table 1.10 provides a summary of the single event provided by Se-Ma-No staff. With only one of the 315 occurrences causing damage to cooperative assets, this results in a 0.3% probability that any given thunderstorm/high wind/ hail occurrence will produce damage (1 / 315=0.03%). Table 1.10 Se-Ma-No Thunderstorms/High wind/hail Event Outages reported Damage estimates date minutes per $88,000 outage per customer Based upon the storm information provided, a thunderstorm/high wind/hail event will cause an average damage cost of $88,000 ($88,000 / 1 event = $88,000). This accounts for less than 1% of SE-MA-NO s total overhead asset valuation ($88,000 / $ 40,865,347 = 0.22%). Table 1.11 demonstrates the probability of occurrence in conjunction with the potential extent of damage for a thunderstorm/high wind/hail event. Table 1.11 Probability of Hazard Occurrence Se-Ma-No Electric Cooperative Infrastructure Vulnerability Assessment Matrix Hazard: Thunder storm/high Wind/Hail Less than 10% of damage to system 10-25% damage of system Less than 1% in any 1-10% chance in any given year 11-99% chance in any Near 100% probability in any 26-50% damage of system More than 50% damage of system Outage information provided by Se-Ma-No for this single event was reported to be minutes per outage per consumer. The total number of customers served by Se-Ma-No is 5,890. Table 1.12 demonstrates the probability of occurrence in conjunction with the potential extent of impact upon local customers. This initial assessment assumes a limited impact upon electric distribution infrastructure of less than 10%

14 Potential Extent of Impact May 18, 2012 [SE-MA-NO ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE] Table 1.12 Se-Ma-No Electric Cooperative Service Interruption Vulnerability Assessment Matrix Hazard: Thunderstorm/High Wind/Hail Less than 10% of customers report outages 10-25% of customers report outages 26-50% of customers report outages More than 50% of customers report outages Probability of Damage-causing Hazard Occurrence Less than 1% in any 1-10% chance in any given year 11-99% chance in any > Near 100% probability in any Severe Winter Weather From , Se-Ma-No s service area has experienced a total of twenty severe winters weather events, including significant snowfall and ice storms. Therefore, the probability of a severe winter weather event in the Se-Ma-No service area in any given year is near 100% (20 events / 17 years = 118%). Two of the twenty occurrences caused damage to cooperative assets resulting in a 10% probability that any given severe winter weather occurrence will produce damage. (2 / 20 = 10%) Table 1.13 SE-MA-NO Severe Winter Weather Event Summary Event date Event type Damage estimates Outages reported 1/2007 Snow/Ice $45,000 2/2008 Snow/ice $130,000 Data provided by SE-MA-NO records Based upon the records provided by Se-Ma-No, the average severe winter event to affect the cooperative will cause an average damage cost of $87,500,000 ($175,000 / 2 events = $87,500). This averaged amount accounts for less than 1% of Se-Ma-No s total overhead asset valuation ($87,500 / $ 40,865,347= 0.214%). Table 1.14 demonstrates the probability of occurrence in conjunction with the potential extent of damage

15 Potential Extent of Impact Potential Extent of Damage [SE-MA-NO ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE] May 18, 2012 Table 1.14 Probability of Hazard Occurrence Se-Ma-No Electric Cooperative Infrastructure Vulnerability Assessment Matrix Hazard: Severe Winter Weather Less than 1% in any 1-10% chance in any given year 11-99% chance in any Near 100% probability in any Less than 10% of damage to system 10-25% damage of system 26-50% damage of system More than 50% damage of system Outage information provided by Se-Ma-No was reported as a total of 2.53 hours per outage per consumer. The total number of customers served by Se-Ma-No is 5,890. Table 1.15 demonstrates the probability of occurrence in conjunction with the potential extent of impact upon local customers. Table 1.15 Se-Ma-No Electric Cooperative Service Interruption Vulnerability Assessment Matrix Hazard: Severe Winter Weather Less than 10% of customers report outages 10-25% of customers report outages 26-50% of customers report outages More than 50% of customers report outages Probability of Damage-causing Hazard Occurrence Less than 1% in any 1-10% chance in any given year % chance in any > Near 100% probability in any 39-15

16 Potential Extent of Damage May 18, 2012 [SE-MA-NO ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE] Wildfire According to the Missouri Department of Conservation, the Se-Ma-No service area which encompasses portions of Wright, Webster, Douglas and Texas Counties have all experienced wildfires between 2004 and Table 1.16 summarizes the incidences of wildfire within the counties. Based upon this information, the probability of a wildfire event in the Se-Ma-No service area in any is near 100% (779 events / 4 years = ). Table 1.16 Wildfire summary by county Average County # of Wildfires, Annual # of Wildfires Average Annual Acres Burned Acres Burned Douglas Texas Webster Wright Totals Source: Missouri State Hazard Mitigation Plan, 2010 Total Buildings Damaged To date, 779 fires have burned a total of 9,037 acres, for an average of 11.6 acres affected per event. Se-Ma-No sustained no damage related to wildfires in its service area during this time period. Se-Ma-No Cooperative assets are located throughout the service area rather than being located at a single central site. With an average of 11.6 acres per fire in the service area, it is unlikely that infrastructure damage would exceed 10% based upon asset location and improbability of an uncontrollable wildfire. This initial assessment assumes a limited impact upon electric distribution infrastructure of less than 10% (Table 1.17). Further study will be required to create a model for damage assessments related to wildfire. Table 1.17 Probability of Hazard Occurrence Se-Ma-No Electric Cooperative Infrastructure Vulnerability Assessment Matrix Hazard: Wildfire Less than 1% in any 1-10% chance in any given year 11-99% chance in any Near 100% probability in any Less than 10% of damage to system 10-25% damage of system % damage of system More than 50% damage of system No customers have reported outages during recorded wildfires between 2004 and When compared with the total number of customers served by Se-Ma-No, it can be projected that less than 10% of all customers may report outages during any given

17 Potential Extent of Impact [SE-MA-NO ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE] May 18, 2012 wildfire event. Table 1.18 demonstrates the probability of occurrence in conjunction with the potent extent of impact upon local customers. Table 1.18 Se-Ma-No Electric Cooperative Service Interruption Vulnerability Assessment Matrix Hazard: Wildfire Less than 10% of customers report outages 10-25% of customers report outages 26-50% of customers report outages More than 50% of customers report outages Probability of Hazard Occurrence Less than 1% in any 1-10% chance in any given year 11-99% chance in any > Near 100% probability in any Flood Although flooding remains a possible hazard for the Se-Ma-No service region due to small creeks and rivers in the area, there has been no damage or record of impact to existing infrastructure in the Se-Ma-No service area due to flooding. And there are no levees constructed within the Se-Ma-No service area. The following map in Figure 4 depicts the 100 year floodplain in relation to the cooperative s boundaries. (Map sources: FEMA HAZUS-M) According to NCDC flood data from the Se-Ma-No s service area has experienced 68 flooding events. Therefore, the probability of a flood event within the cooperative service area in any is near 100% (68 events / 23 years = 296%). However, no historical records of impact to Se-Ma-No s existing infrastructure have been recorded or provided for this assessment. As such, the probability of a damage-causing occurrence in any is less than 1%. Table 1.19 demonstrates the probability of occurrence in conjunction with the potential extent of damage

18 Potential Extent of Damage May 18, 2012 [SE-MA-NO ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE] Figure 4 Table 1.19 Probability of Hazard Occurrence Se-Ma-No Electric Cooperative Infrastructure Vulnerability Assessment Matrix Hazard: Flood Less than 1% in any 1-10% chance in any given year 11-99% chance in any > 100% probability in any Less than 10% of damage to system 10-25% damage of system 26-50% damage of system More than 50% damage of system No customers have reported outages during any flooding event in the service area but the possibility still remains. When compared with the total number of customers served by Se-Ma-No, it can be estimated that lest than 1% of all customers may report outages during any given flooding event. Table 1.20 demonstrates the probability of occurrence in conjunction with the potent extent of impact upon local customers

19 Potential Extent of Impact [SE-MA-NO ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE] May 18, 2012 Table 1.20 Se-Ma-No Electric Cooperative Service Interruption Vulnerability Assessment Matrix Hazard: Flood Less than 10% of customers report outages 10-25% of customers report outages 26-50% of customers report outages More than 50% of customers report outages Probability of Damage-causing Hazard Occurrence Less than 1% in any 1-10% chance in any given year 11-99% chance in any > Near 100% probability in any B. Non-historical Hazards Earthquakes Eight earthquake seismic zones are located in the central United States, two of which are located in Missouri. The most active zone is the New Madrid Seismic Zone, which is also the most active seismic area in the United States east of the Rocky Mountains and, according to the U.S. Geological Survey, is by some measures as high a hazard as seismic zones in California. It runs from northern Arkansas through southeast Missouri and western Tennessee and Kentucky to the Illinois side of the Ohio River Valley. Undoubtedly, this fault has the potential to affect the Se-Ma-No service area in its entirety. Scientists from the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and the Center for Earthquake Research and Information (CERI) at the University of Memphis have estimated the probability of a magnitude 6.0 or greater earthquake from the New Madrid Fault is percent through the year The probability of an earthquake increases with each passing day. In addition to the New Madrid Seismic Zone, other seismic zones that affect Missourians include the Wabash Valley Seismic Zone, the South Central Illinois Seismic Zone, and the Nemaha Uplift. The Wabash and Illinois Seismic Zones are not as active as the New Madrid Seismic Zone based on microseismic activity, but they are considered capable of producing earthquakes in the range of M 6.0 to 6.8. The Nemaha Uplift is of concern to Missourians because it runs parallel to the Missouri/Kansas border from Lincoln, Nebraska, to Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. Earthquakes from the Nemaha Uplift are not as severe as those associated with the historic New Madrid Seismic Zone. Several earthquakes have affected Missouri in the past. The projected earthquake intensity ratings for the cooperative region changes based upon the Modified Mercalli Scale. Given a New Madrid earthquake with a 7.6 magnitude, the region would experience Level VI intensity characteristic and would impact 47 Missouri counties. The Se-Ma-No service area would most likely experience minor building damage as well as damage to the electrical distribution system. This damage, however, 39-19

20 Potential Extent of Impact Potential Extent of Damage May 18, 2012 [SE-MA-NO ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE] would most likely be relatively minimal and localized when compared with the southeast corner of the state. Distribution lines overhead and underground could become disconnected or severed, and transformers could be damaged. Though the probability of occurrence is very small, the potential extent of damage could significantly impact both the cooperative and its customers as demonstrated in Table (Missouri State Hazard Mitigation Plan, 2010) Table 1.21 Probability of Hazard Occurrence Se-Ma-No Electric Cooperative Infrastructure Vulnerability Assessment Matrix Hazard: Earthquake Less than 1% in any 1-10% chance in any given year 11-99% chance in any Near 100% probability in any Less than 10% of damage to system 10-25% damage of system 26-50% damage of system More than 50% damage of system Based upon the information available, it may be solely estimated that 589 customers could report outages related to an earthquake event. When compared with the total number of customers served by Se-Ma-No, it can be estimated that up to 10 % of all customers may report outages during any given seismic event. Table 1.22 demonstrates the probability of occurrence in conjunction with the potent extent of impact upon local customers. Table 1.22 Se-Ma-No Electric Cooperative Service Interruption Vulnerability Assessment Matrix Hazard: Earthquake Less than 10% of customers report outages 10-25% of customers report outages 26-50% of customers report outages More than 50% of customers report outages Probability of Damage-causing Hazard Occurrence Less than 1% in any 1-10% chance in any given year 11-99% chance in any > Near 100% probability in any 39-20

21 Potential Extent of Damage [SE-MA-NO ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE] May 18, 2012 Dam Failure Dam failures have had no measurable impact upon the Se-Ma-No service area to date. According to Missouri DNR s Dam Safety Division, 12 dams currently exist within the cooperative boundaries: one in Douglas County, four in Webster County, and seven in Wright County. Of these dams, one in Wright County is regulated by the state due to the fact that it is non-agricultural, non-federal dam that exceeds 35 feet in height. The following map (Figure 5) shows the locations of all known dams located within Se-Ma- No s service area. (Map sources: Figure 5 26 dam failures have occurred within the state of Missouri over the past 100 years. No such dam failure has occurred within or near Se-Ma-No s boundaries. However, dam failure and its associated impacts cannot be eliminated from the realm of possibility. In order to allow for a risk assessment, the probability of this event has been included as less than 1%. Table 1.23 Probability of Hazard Occurrence Se-Ma-No Electric Cooperative Infrastructure Vulnerability Assessment Matrix Hazard: Dam Failure Less than 1% in any 1-10% chance in any given year 11-99% chance in any Near 100% probability in any Less than 10% of damage to system 10-25% damage of system 26-50% damage of system More than 50% damage of system 39-21

22 Potential Extent of Impact May 18, 2012 [SE-MA-NO ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE] Determining the potential extent of dam failure is currently impossible due to a lack of data concerning any past events with the Se-Ma-No service area. This initial assessment assumes a limited impact upon downstream electric distribution infrastructure of less than 1% for both infrastructure damage and service interruption. Table 1.24 Se-Ma-No Electric Cooperative Service Interruption Vulnerability Assessment Matrix Hazard: Dam Failure Less than 10% of customers report outages 10-25% of customers report outages 26-50% of customers report outages More than 50% of customers report outages Probability of Damage-causing Hazard Occurrence Less than 1% in any 1-10% chance in any given year 11-99% chance in any > Near 100% probability in any 39-22

23 [SE-MA-NO ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE] May 18, 2012 Section 6: Mitigation strategies Previous efforts at Mitigation In order to ensure the delivery of a quality product and minimize service interruptions, a number of mitigation strategies are continually utilized. Routine maintenance and upgrades to existing equipment are completed as part of daily tasks. Vegetation management is utilized to limit the cascading effects of natural hazards. Safety and reporting information are disseminated to the public through various types of media. Mutual aid agreements and partnerships create relationships which provide for future support in the event of a natural disaster. Existing and potential resources Se-Ma-No Electric Cooperative includes mitigation strategies as part of regular work activities to ensure service with minimal interruptions. Funding for these activities is provided through the cooperative s normal budgetary process for maintenance. In order to expand mitigation efforts beyond normal maintenance, it is likely that Se-Ma- No will need to seek outside funding sources. These may include private, state, or federal programs which provide grant and loan funding. Upon passage of this plan, Se-Ma-No will be eligible for funding through FEMA in the following categories: Hazard Mitigation Grant Program Flood Mitigation Assistance Program Pre-Disaster Mitigation Program 406 Stafford Act Development of goals, objectives, and actions Establishing mitigation goals, objectives, and actions for a business entity requires a slightly different approach than public agencies. Certainly, a number of similarities exist; both entities must consider which hazards most commonly occur and have the greatest potential for causing disruption to members or residents. They must also consider which types of actions will maximize benefits and minimize costs, how mitigation strategies will be implemented, who will enforce implementation, and how the overall plan will be maintained and updated. The Se-Ma-No planning staff worked to identify goals, actions, and objectives which addressed hazard mitigation issues. The staff first identified ongoing mitigation strategies as well as potential strategies which seek to improve service and limit disruptions resulting from natural hazards. Action items were then analyzed for common characteristics and summarized to create nine objectives. Likewise, these nine objectives were grouped into similar categories and used as the basis for the four overarching goals. Table 1.25 provides a simple synopsis of the goals and objectives before prioritization

24 May 18, 2012 [SE-MA-NO ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE] Traditionally, the STAPLEE (Social, Technical, Administrative, Political, Legal, Environmental, and Economic) method is used to prioritize mitigation actions. These categories, however, do not necessarily align with the private sector in the same way they are applicable to governmental agencies. A number of action items could be included with multiple goals and objectives, for example. As a result, the committee chose to use a different method to prioritize their mitigation strategy. Table 1.25 Identified Goals Goal 1: Protect the health and safety of the community. Goal 2: Reduce future losses due to natural hazard events. Goal 3: Improve emergency management capabilities and enhance local partnerships. Goal 4: Continue to promote public awareness and education. SE-MA-NO goals and objectives Identified Objectives Objective 1: Prevent injury, loss of life, and damage to property. Objective 2: Reduce outage time to critical facilities. Objective 1: Protect and maintain existing infrastructure. Objective 2: Research and develop plans for future infrastructure improvements, seeking implementation where feasible. Objective 3: Research and develop plans for future communication and data collection improvements where feasible. Objective 1: Improve assessment of outages and reduce response time. Objective 2: Create or maintain partnerships with outside agencies. Objective 1: Utilize media resources to promote public education. Objective 2: Continue interaction with local schools and civic groups. After identifying ongoing and potential action items, the committee created three priority tiers: First tier actions focus on physical infrastructure protection and improvements which ensure continued, quality service and seek to reduce power outages. These types of actions are the highest priority of Se-Ma-No. Second tier actions create and maintain working relationships to reduce and prevent the impact of power outages. These include improvements to safety and reporting information, mutual aid agreements, and other efforts which seek to expand and improve both customer service and disaster planning. Third tier actions identify potential projects for other system improvements. These include mapping efforts, technological improvements, and research related to the expansion of mitigation efforts. Actions within each tier may be funded through regular budgetary methods or identified outside sources. Tables 1.26, 1.27, and 1.28 provide lists of action items by tier as well as the goals and objectives identified with each

25 [SE-MA-NO ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE] May 18, 2012 Table 1.26 Prioritized Mitigation Actions for Se-Ma-No Electric Cooperative Tier 1 Action item: Perform routine maintenance and utilize upgraded equipment where possible to ensure quality of system. Tasks may include part replacement and/or upgrades. Identified work includes, but is not limited to: Addition of lightning arresters, electronic enclosures, conductors, guide wires. Replacement or repair on poles, cross-arms, lines. Raising pad mount transformers in flood prone areas. Upgrade to concrete or steel poles where possible. Use vegetation management to prevent interference with delivery of power. Complete annual inspections of lines and poles. Add alternate source wiring to eliminate or reduce time of outages. Tier 1 Goal/Objective Goal 1 / Objective 1 Goal 2 / Objective 2 Goal 1 / Objective 1 Goal 1 / Objective 2 Goal 2 / Objective 1 Goal 2 / Objective 2 Goal 1 / Objective 1 Goal 2 / Objective 2 Goal 1 / Objective 1 Goal 1 / Objective 2 Goal 1 / Objective 1 Goal 1 / Objective 2 Goal 2 / Objective 2 Timeframe for completion Ongoing effort Dependent upon additional funding. Ongoing effort Completed annually. Ongoing effort; Completed as funding allows. Cost-benefit score Low cost High benefit Score: 9 High cost High benefit Score: 7 Low cost Medium benefit Score: 6 Low cost Medium benefit Score: 6 Medium cost High benefit Score: 4 Convert overhead lines to underground lines or vice versa in troubled areas based on vulnerability. Goal 1 / Objective 1 Goal 1 / Objective 2 Goal 2 / Objective 1 Goal 2 / Objective 2 Ongoing effort; Dependent upon funding. Medium cost High benefit Score:

26 May 18, 2012 [SE-MA-NO ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE] Table 1.27 Prioritized Mitigation Actions for Se-Ma-No Electric Cooperative Tier 2 Action item: Provide safety and reporting information to the general public through varying methods: Tier 2 Goal/Objective Goal 1 / Objective 1 Goal 4 / Objective 1 Timeframe for completion Ongoing effort Cost-benefit Score Low cost Medium benefit Score: 6 Maintain mutual aid agreements with other rural electric cooperatives. Partner with county emergency management agencies to ensure power for local shelters, fuel stations, and public safety. Cooperate with local law enforcement and government officials to reduce the impact of power outages. Provide safety and reporting information to the general public using local newspaper Goal 3 / Objective 2 Ongoing effort. Low cost Low benefit Score: 3 Goal 1 / Objective 1 Goal 1 / Objective 2 Goal 3 / Objective 2 Goal 1 / Objective 1 Goal 3 / Objective 2 Goal 1 / Objective 1 Goal 4 / Objective 1 Ongoing effort. Ongoing effort. Ongoing effort Low cost High benefit Score: 1 Low cost High benefit Score: 1 Low Cost???????? Provide safety information to local residents through presentations and publications Goal 1 / Objective 1 Goal 4 / Objective 2 Ongoing effort Low Cost????? Table 1.28 Prioritized Mitigation Actions for Se-Ma-No Electric Cooperative Tier 3 Action item: Utilize GIS technology to reduce site identification and response time. Monitor data developments for hazards where insufficiencies exist. Tier 3 Goal/Objective Goal 1 / Objective 1 Goal 2 / Objective 3 Goal 3 / Objective 1 Goal 1 / Objective 1 Goal 2 / Objective 1 Goal 2 / Objective 2 Timeframe for completion Dependent upon additional funding. Ongoing effort Cost-benefit Medium cost Medium benefit Score: 5 Medium cost Medium benefit Score:

27 [SE-MA-NO ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE] May 18, 2012 Section 7: Plan Implementation and Maintenance Plan incorporation The goals, objectives, and actions of the previous section identify both ongoing efforts at mitigation and potential methods for expanding efforts. The plan has been reviewed and adopted by the Board of Directors as part of the company s operations policy. This mitigation plan necessitates involvement from every Se-Ma-No employment level as the organization strives to ensure quality service to their customers. Other Local Planning Mechanisms Some internal planning mechanisms do exist at Se-Ma-No. The Hazard Mitigation Plan can be considered and/or incorporated into regular budgetary planning and the four-year work plan which includes all capital improvements, new service, pole change-outs, and right of way control. Beyond the Se-Ma-No plan, few planning mechanisms exist at the local level. The Missouri counties of Wright, Webster, Douglas and Texas each have a Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan that is FEMA-approved or under FEMA review for required five year updates. County emergency management directors have Local Emergency Operations Plans which seek to mitigate the same hazards for residents. These same counties are also included in the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) as well as a Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy (CEDS). Se-Ma-No s plan can be easily incorporated into these local plans and allow for coordination across agencies in the event of an emergency. Plan Maintenance Se-Ma-No will conform to the requirements established by the Association of Missouri Electric Cooperatives (AMEC) for monitoring, evaluating, and updating the plan. Continued Public Involvement Opportunities Se-Ma-No will conform to the requirements established by the Association of Missouri Electric Cooperatives (AMEC) for continued public involvement. Opportunities for public comment will continue to be offered through various media outlets, the cooperative s website, and the physical office of Se-Ma-No

28 May 18, 2012 [SE-MA-NO ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE] This page intentionally left blank

29 [SE-MA-NO ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE] May 18, 2012 Chapter Appendix: Documentation of Participation Contents: : Meeting documentation Public Comment letter 39-29

30 39-30 May 18, 2012 [SE-MA-NO ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE]

31 [SE-MA-NO ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE] May 18,

32 39-32 May 18, 2012 [SE-MA-NO ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE]

33 [SE-MA-NO ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE] May 18, 2012 Electric Cooperative Hazard Mitigation Introductions: I. Se-Ma-No Electric Cooperative business structure a. Stakeholders Cooperative is member owned Board of Directors comprised of 9 elected members is the governing body. b. General customer information i. Number of customers served 5,890 ii. Residential vs. Nonresidential customers - 5,484 and 406 iii. Critical Facilities located within the service area: Some critical facilities would be nursing homes, fuel stations, grocery stores, city water wells, emergency services and telecommunications. c. Average daily and annual usage/output: Average daily per customer:37.7; Total annual usage per customer:13,800; II. Asset inventory (See worksheet) a. General Information on: i. Distribution facility ii. Generation facility iii. Substations iv. Transmission Lines (miles) v. Distribution Lines (miles) vi. Office buildings vii. Warehouses viii. Vehicles b. Information by county i. Meters ii. Poles iii. Lines (Overhead and Underground in miles) iv. Guys/Anchors 39-33

34 May 18, 2012 [SE-MA-NO ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE] v. Cross-arms vi. Replacement cost III. IV. Natural Hazards which can potentially impact EC (worksheet) See worksheet compilation Previous damage estimates based on natural hazards a Ice Storm FEMA project; $45,000 / 2.53 Hrs. per outage per consumer b Ice Storm FEMA project; $130,000 / minutes per outage per c Wind Storm FEMA project $88,00 / consumer for these two storms d Tornado / Wind Storm FEMA project $167,000 / 5079 Hrs. of total outage time

35 [SE-MA-NO ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE] May 18, 2012 Association of Missouri Electric Cooperatives Data Collection & Asset Inventory Critical Assets Asset Quantity Name Address (location) Distribution 1 Se-Ma-No P.O.Box 318 Facility Electric 601 N. Bus. (Cooperative) Cooperative Hwy 60 Mansfield Mo Replacement Cost Generation 0 Facility Substations 0 Transmissions 0 Lines (miles) Distribution Lines(miles) O.H U.G. Office 1 $1,167,641 Buildings Warehouses 2 $53,000 ea. Vehicles 14 $1,120,

36 May 18, 2012 [SE-MA-NO ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE] Table of Assets County Census Block Meters (each) Poles (each) Lines OH(overhead) UG(underground) (miles) Douglas O.H. single phase 3.0 O.H. three phase.50 U.G. single phase Texas O.H. single phase.21 O.H. three phase.50 U.G. three phase Webster O.H. single phase 33.5 O.H. three phase 0.61U.G single phase 0.52 U.G. three phase Wright O.H. single phase 78.5 O.H. three phase 7.02U.G. single phase 2.54 U.G. three phase Guys/anchors (each) Cross-arm (each) Totals , , Replacement Cost info $115 ea. $300 ea. O.H. (1) $4.00 ft. O.H. (3) $8.00 ft. U.G. $ 6.00 ft. $95.00 $75.00 Other Assets Transformers Regulators Oil Circuit Capacitors Reclosures (OCR) Douglas 535 O.H 1 single phase 17 3 Texas 29 O.H Webster 1309 O.H. 16 U.G. single phase 3 U.G. three phase 13 single phase Wright Totals: 3853 O.H. 68 U.G. single phase 11 U.G. three phase single phase 42 single phase Replacement cost averages: $1000 O.H. $12,000 U.G. $8,000 $1500 $1,

37 [SE-MA-NO ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE] May 18, 2012 POTENTIAL MAGNITUDE. In the chart below, please indicate, in your opinion, the potential magnitude of the next event for each of the nine listed natural hazards. The categories are: Negligible: Less than 10% of COOP infrastructure will be affected by the next event. Limited: 10% to 25% of COOP infrastructure will be affected by the next event. Critical: 25% to 50% of COOP infrastructure will be affected by the next event. Catastrophic: More than 50% of COOP infrastructure will be affected by the next event. Tornado Negligible _x Limited Critical Catastrophic Severe Thunderstorm* Negligible Limited Critical _x Catastrophic Flood and Levee Failure_x_ Negligible Limited Critical Catastrophic Severe Winter Weather** Negligible Limited Critical _x Catastrophic Drought x_ Negligible Limited Critical Catastrophic Heat Wave x_ Negligible Limited Critical Catastrophic Earthquake Negligible Limited Critical _x Catastrophic Dam Failure _x Negligible Limited Critical Catastrophic Wildfire/Brush Fire Negligible _x Limited Critical Catastrophic * Severe Thunderstorm includes hail and high wind **Severe Winter Weather includes heavy snow, ice event, extreme cold, and blizzard FREQUENCY OF OCCUENCE. In the chart below, please indicate, in your opinion, the probability of each of the nine natural hazard events occurring in the future, using the following scale: Unlikely: Less than 1% probability of occurrence in next 100 years Possible: Between 1% and 10% probability in the next year, or at least one chance in the next 100 years Likely: Between 10% and 100% probability in the next year, or at least one chance in the next 10 years Highly Likely: Near 100% probability of occurrence in the next year Tornado Unlikely Possible _x Likely Highly Likely Severe Thunderstorm Unlikely Possible Likely _x Highly Likely Flood and Levee Failure _x Unlikely Possible Likely Highly Likely Severe Winter Weather Unlikely Possible Likely _x Highly Likely Drought _x Unlikely Possible Likely Highly Likely Heat Wave Unlikely _x Possible Likely Highly Likely Earthquake Unlikely _x Possible Likely Highly Likely Dam Failure _x Unlikely Possible Likely Highly Likely Wildfire/Brush Fire Unlikely x_ Possible Likely Highly Likely 39-37