Shawnee County, Kansas Multi-Jurisdictional Mitigation Plan

Transcription

MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL
MITIGATION PLAN
Shawnee County, Kansas
Submitted by:
E-Fm Consulting, LLC
100 Riverfront Road
Suite A
Lawrence, Kansas 66044
February 2010
Table of Contents
Hazard Mitigation Plan
1.0 Introduction
4
1.1 Background
1.2 Purpose
1.3 Scope
1.4 Authority
1.5 Paper Reduction and Elimination
4
5
5
5
6
2.0 Planning Process
7
2.1 Participants
2.2 Plan Adoption
2.3 Documentation of the Planning Process
7
10
11
3.0 County Profiles
15
3.1 Geographic Setting and History
3.2 Government
3.3 Demographics
3.4 Economy
3.5 Climate
3.6 Natural Historic and Cultural Resources
3.7 Geologic Features
3.8 Utilities
3.9 Local Jurisdictions
3.10 Mitigation Capabilities
15
20
21
24
27
28
32
34
40
45
4.0 Risk Assessment
61
4.1 Identification of Hazards
4.2 Risk and Vulnerability
4.3 Risk and Vulnerability Index
4.4 Moderate / High Hazard Profiles
4.5 Vulnerability Assessment
61
65
70
73
122
5.0 Mitigation Strategy
203
5.1 MultiJurisdictional Goals and Objectives
5.2 Mitigation Actions
5.3 Implementation
207
210
265
6.0 Plan Maintenance
270
6.1 Monitoring Schedule
6.2 Evaluating Method
6.3 Revisions and Updates - Schedule
270
270
270
2
6.4 Incorporation into Existing Planning
6.5 Continued Public Involvement
272
272
Appendices
References and Resources
Meeting Sign-in Forms
Letters of Authorization
Meetings
Alternative Mitigation Actions
Adoption Resolutions
Supporting Documents
Comments
Mitigation Action Plan (MAP)
3
Multi-Jurisdictional Mitigation Plan
Page 4
Hazard Mitigation Plan
1.0 Introduction
This Hazard Mitigation Plan is a guide for Shawnee County citizens to prepare for possible natural
disaster events by taking action to help mitigate the effects of potential hazards. The plan was prepared
for Shawnee County and participating local jurisdictions through the efforts of the Mitigation Planning
Committee (MPC) in conjunction with E-Fm Consulting, LLC. As part of an overall multi-jurisdictional
planning effort, this plan has been created by the participating entities to comply with the Disaster
Mitigation Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-390, hereinafter referred to as DMA 2000).
Section 1.0 provides a general introduction to the Shawnee County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation
Plan. It is organized into the following five sections:
1.1. Background
1.2. Purpose
1.3. Scope
1.4. Authority
1.1 Background
Natural phenomena such as floods, tornadoes, and severe storms, are a part of the world around us. As
part of nature, their occurrence is inevitable; there is little we can do to control their force and intensity.
However, through hazard mitigation planning, we can minimize the impact these events have on our lives
and property.
“Hazard mitigation” is simply a technical term for reducing risk to people and property from natural
hazards. It includes structural measures, such as protecting buildings and infrastructure from the forces
of wind and water, as well as non-structural measures, such as natural resource protection and wise
floodplain management. These activities can help protect both existing development and, by mitigating
potential hazards to new construction, future development. It is widely accepted that the most effective
mitigation measures are implemented at the local government level, where decisions on the regulation and
control of development are ultimately made.
The easiest and best way a jurisdiction can develop serious intentions about hazard mitigation is through
the development and adoption of a local hazard mitigation plan. A mitigation plan will ensure that
measures to reduce the present and future vulnerability of a jurisdiction are thoroughly considered before,
during, and after a disaster strikes.
Mitigation planning in compliance with the requirements of DMA 2000 offers many benefits.
These include:
• saving lives and property;
• saving money;
• speeding recovery following disasters;
• reducing future vulnerability through wise development / redevelopment;
• expediting both pre-disaster and post-disaster grant funding by demonstrating a firm commitment
to improving jurisdiction health and safety.
Recently, both the State of Kansas and the U.S. Congress made the development of a hazard mitigation
plan a specific eligibility requirement for any local jurisdiction applying for mitigation grant funding.
Jurisdictions with an adopted plan will therefore become “pre-positioned” and more apt to receive any
available mitigation funds.
© 2009 E-Fm Consulting, LLC.
Total Gross Pages Printed: 445
Page 5
More importantly, mitigation planning has the potential to produce long-term and recurring benefits by
breaking the repetitive cycle of disaster loss. A core assumption of mitigation is that current dollars
invested in mitigation practices will significantly reduce the demand for future dollars by lessening the
amount needed for emergency recovery, repair and reconstruction in the event of a disaster. These
mitigating practices will assist residents, their businesses and local industries to recover faster in the wake
of a disaster, enabling the jurisdiction's economy to re-establish itself sooner and with less interruption.
Mitigation planning will also lead to benefits beyond the main purpose of hazard vulnerability reduction.
Measures such as the acquisition or regulation of land in known hazard areas can help achieve
jurisdictional goals such as preserving open space, maintaining environmental health and natural features,
and enhancing recreational opportunities.
1.2 Purpose
As mentioned above, this plan was created in an effort to help Shawnee County and participating local
jurisdictions to come into compliance with the requirements of DMA 2000.
The purpose of this Hazard Mitigation Plan is:
• To protect against the loss of life in the event of a disaster;
• To preserve the safety of persons and property by reducing the risk of potential damage and
economic loss in the event of a disaster;
• To qualify for additional grant funding, both pre- and post-disaster;
• To qualify for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), and the Community
Rating System (CRS) to receive additional credits under the program;
• To speed recovery and redevelopment following future disaster events;
• To demonstrate a firm local commitment to hazard mitigation principles;
• To comply with both state and federal legislative requirements for local hazard mitigation plans.
1.3 Scope
This Multi-Jurisdictional Mitigation Plan was developed under a Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA) hazard-planning grant awarded to Shawnee County through the Kansas Division of
Emergency Management. Shawnee County approved E-Fm Consulting, LLC's contract on October 25,
2007.
The plan identifies the natural and state-mandated hazards associated with the county, but is developed
primarily to address hazards classified as "High" and "Moderate" in the probability and vulnerability
(severity) analysis model. Hazards classified in the "Low" or "Negligible" categories were eliminated
because of their low rating priority or because of inadequate county infrastructure or fiscal capabilities.
The MPC may add specific hazards to the prioritized hazards list to ensure local jurisdiction planning
needs are met. Hazards will be reviewed on a routine basis with plan updates as circumstances change.
The geographic scope for the Hazard Mitigation Plan includes both the incorporated and unincorporated
areas of Shawnee County, as provided in Section 2.0 of this plan.
1.4 Authority
Local governments in Kansas have a wide range of tools available to them for implementing mitigation
programs, policies, and actions. In implementing a mitigation plan or specific action, a local jurisdiction
may utilize any or all of the four broad types of government authority granted by the State of Kansas.
Those four types of authority are defined as: (a) Regulation, (b) Acquisition, (c) Taxation, and (d)
Spending.
Page 6
The scope of this local authority is subject to constraints, however, as all of Kansas’ political subdivisions
must not act without proper delegation from the State. Under a principle known as “Dillon’s Rule,” all
power is vested in the State and can only be exercised by local governments to the extent it is delegated.
Kansas’ local governments have been granted broad regulatory authority in their jurisdictions. Kansas
General Statutes (K.A.R.) bestow the general police power on local governments, allowing them to enact
and enforce ordinances which define, prohibit, regulate or abate acts, omissions, or conditions detrimental
to the health, safety, and welfare of the people, and to define and abate nuisances (including public health
nuisances).
Since hazard mitigation can be included under the police power (as protection of public health, safety, and
welfare), towns, cities, and counties may include requirements for hazard mitigation in local ordinances.
Local governments may also use their ordinance-making power to abate “nuisances”, which could
include, by local definition, any activity or condition making people or property more vulnerable to any
hazard. After approval of the Multi-Jurisdictional Plan by the State of Kansas and FEMA (ref. Sec. 2.2),
the plan can then be implemented by the County Board of Commissioners and the Executive Officers of
the local jurisdictions under the authority of and by the police powers bestowed on them by the State of
Kansas.
This Plan has been developed to be in accordance with current rules and regulations governing local
hazard mitigation plans. The Plan shall be routinely monitored to maintain compliance with the following
legislation:
1. Home Rule Powers: Article 12 Section 5 – Kansas Constitution
2. Kansas Emergency Planning and Jurisdiction Right-to-Know Act, K.S.A. 65-5701 through
65-5711, and Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA), Title III,
Emergency Planning and Jurisdiction Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA), Pub. L. 99-499
(a) Federal Civil Defense Act of 1950, Pub. L. No. 81-920, as amended
(b) K.A.R. 56-2, Standards for Local Disaster Agencies
3. The Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act as amended by the Disaster
Mitigation Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-390 – October 30, 2000).
It is the goal of this planning process to comply with the overall direction to reduce or eliminate the use of
paper. The 1998 Government Paper Elimination Act (GPEA), and consequent clarification by the Office
of Management and Budget, asks all entities to consider eliminating paper as the vehicle to provide
information or data to and from the Federal government. This mitigation plan is intended to be read,
maintained, and edited in its online version.
As an interim step towards this goal, the plan can be printed using the standardized portable document
format (PDF). When printed in this format, the formatting that is seen on-the-screen has been reduced and
partially compacted in order to save paper when ultimately printed. Consequently, text may not carry
with the associated table or image to the next page. The full content will be included in the PDF file.
Thank you for your consideration of the Planning Committee's goal.
Page 7
2.0 Planning Process
"Hazard Mitigation" is defined as any sustained action taken to reduce or eliminate long-term risk to
human life and property from hazards. "Planning" is the process of setting goals, developing strategies,
and outlining tasks and schedules to accomplish those goals.
Hazard mitigation planning is the process through which natural hazards that threaten jurisdictions are
identified, the probability and severity of those hazards are determined and prioritized, mitigation goals
are set, and appropriate strategies are created to meet those goals.
Hazard mitigation planning is required for state and local governments to maintain their eligibility for
certain federal disaster assistance and hazard mitigation funding programs. Jurisdictions at risk from
natural disasters can ill afford to jeopardize this funding.
Each year, natural disasters in the United States kill hundreds of people, injure thousands more and
destroy private and public property and infrastructure. Nationwide, taxpayers pay billions of dollars
annually to help jurisdictions, organizations, businesses and individuals recover from disasters. These
monies only partially reflect the true cost of disasters, because additional expenses to insurance companies
and non-government organizations are not reimbursed by tax dollars.
Additionally, many natural disasters are predictable. Many more are repetitive, often with the same
results. Many of the damages caused by these events can be alleviated or even eliminated.
FEMA, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, now a part of the Department of Homeland
Security, has targeted reducing losses from natural disasters as one of its primary goals. Hazard mitigation
planning and subsequent implementation of projects, measures, and policies developed through those
plans, is the primary mechanism for achieving these goals. As a result of successful mitigation planning,
when mitigation projects have been implemented, damages have been reduced. More importantly,
proactive mitigation planning at the local level can help reduce the cost of disaster response and recovery
to property owners and government by protecting critical facilities, reducing liability exposure, and
minimizing overall jurisdiction impacts and disruption.
2.1 Participants
The Mitigation Planning Committee (MPC) represents participating local governments, including
incorporated cities, towns, schools and other qualified government entities (referred to as
sub-jurisdictions) of Shawnee County. The MPC seeks a coordinated and active mitigation planning
process with full participation in plan development and implementation. This integrated planning process
combines the risks, issues, goals, and mitigation measures of each jurisdiction to form a
Multi-Jurisdictional Mitigation Plan.
Representatives from participating jurisdictions attended committee meetings and completed planning
activities during the drafting stage of the plan. The minimum level of committee participation for each
jurisdiction was achieved by one or more representatives that were actively involved in the planning
activities conducted during the drafting phase of the plan. Persons authorized as representatives to serve
on the committee for any given jurisdiction are provided in Table 2.1 (1).
The development of this Multi-Jurisdictional Mitigation plan, which was completed in 2009, included
input and comment from individuals, local and state public agencies, private groups, business operators
and owners. The Shawnee County Mitigation Planning Committee itself was made up of the following
individuals:
Page 8
TABLE 2.1 (1) SHAWNEE COUNTY MITIGATION PLANNING COMMITTEE
Jurisdiction
Responsible Party
Position
Phone
Email
Shawnee County
(unincorporated)
Dave Sterbenz
Emergency
Management
Coordinator
785-233-8200
(xt. 4151)
[email protected]
Kathryn Allen
Homeland
Security
Program
Coordinator
785-233-8200
(xt. 4153)
[email protected]
Shawnee County
(unincorporated)
Chad Blow
Shawnee
County
Emergency
Management
785-233-8200
(xt. 4152)
[email protected]
City of Auburn
Brandon
Adams
Utility
Department
785-256-2442
[email protected]
City of Rossville
Lisa Stum
City Clerk
785-584-6155
[email protected]
City of Silver
Lake
Tom Noble
City Council
785-925-6447
[email protected]
City of Topeka
Michael
McGee
Deputy Director
- Public Works
785-368-3801
[email protected]
City of Topeka
Kathy Petty
Deputy Chief Fire
Department
785-368-4111
[email protected]
City of Willard
Laura Lord
City Clerk
785-256-4614
USD 345
Chris Tuck
Health Services
Director
785-286-8470
[email protected]
USD 345
Jim Tomes
Director of
Maintenance
785-925-0263
[email protected]
USD 437
David Holm
Construction
Project
Coordinator
785-339-4014
[email protected]
USD 437
Brenda
Dietrich
Superintendent
785-339-4000
[email protected]
USD 437
Dennis
Johnson
Director of
Support
Services
785-339-4034
[email protected]
USD 450
Nathan Hofstra
Director of
Support
Services
785-379-5820
[email protected]
USD 501
Christopher
Albert
General
Director;
Central
Services
785-295-3930
[email protected]
Washburn
University
Darrell
Dibbern
Safety
Department
785-670-1779
[email protected]
USD 321
James E.
McDaniel
Superintendent
785-437-2254
[email protected]
Shawnee County
(unincorporated)
Page 9
Participating Jurisdictions
The following entities participated in the Shawnee County planning process as Jurisdictions in the Plan.
Plan participation was accomplished by jurisdictional representation in one of three ways: (1) Direct
representation by a person from the jurisdiction, or (2) Delegation of jurisdictional representation to a
qualified third party, or (3) Delegation of jurisdictional representation to a consultant contracted for this
project.
Unified School Districts (USDs) 330 and 372 elected not to participate in the Shawnee County Mitigation
Plan process.
TABLE 2.1 (2) JURISDICTIONS
Shawnee (UnInc.)
UnInc
Auburn
Inc
Rossville
Inc
Silver Lake
Inc
Topeka
Inc
Willard
Inc
Auburn-Washburn USD 437
School
Kaw Valley USD 321
School
Seaman USD 345
School
Shawnee Heights USD 450
School
Topeka Public Schools USD 501
School
Washburn University
School
This plan was prepared under the direction of the MPC with the guidance and support of E-Fm
Consulting, LLC, of Lawrence, Kansas.
Shawnee County retained the services of E-Fm Consulting, LLC, 100 Riverfront Road, Suite A,
Lawrence, Kansas 66044, to attend planning meetings, provide input and guidance for the hazard and risk
analysis for completion of the Mitigation Plan, and publish the reports to the county’s online hazard and
vulnerability website. Participants from E-Fm Consulting, LLC included the following personnel:
Dennis K. Hayward, Technical Support
Richard S. Hernandez, Technical Support
Dan Kostelny, Technical Support
Nick Maciaszek, GIS/Maps
Elizabeth Spainhour, Programming
The MPC determined that only those jurisdictions that met all the participation components listed below
were considered as a “participating jurisdiction” in this multi-jurisdictional mitigation plan.
Requirements
• Participate in planning meetings or coordinate with EM
• Submit inventory and summary of reports and plans relevant to hazard mitigation
• Submit unique hazards that affect the jurisdiction, with relevant documentation
• Submit a description of what is at risk, including local critical facilities and infrastructure, and
which hazards posed a risk to them
• Submit a description and map(s) of local land-use patterns (current, proposed/expected)
Page 10
• Develop and adopt goals and objectives for jurisdiction
• Develop mitigation actions with an analysis/explanation of why those actions were selected
• Prioritize actions emphasizing relative cost-effectiveness
• Complete questionnaire with implementation strategy
• Review and commented on draft plan
• Host opportunities for public involvement
As a minimum commitment, all participating jurisdictions who will be adopting this plan have elected to
undertake the following high priority public outreach actions:
• Participating jurisdictions will conduct annual interviews and/or smaller meetings with civic
groups, the public and other stakeholders. This will be accomplished through incorporating
discussion of the mitigation plan into other regularly attended meetings. Participating jurisdictions
will consider annual flyers, newsletters, newspaper advertisements, and radio/TV announcements,
and will implement some or all of the above at the discretion of the jurisdiction.
Participating Private Non-Profit (PNP's) and Rural Electric Cooperatives (REC's)
The following entities participated in the development of the Shawnee County Multi-Jurisdictional
Mitigation Plan and have also included actions for hazard reduction.
TABLE 2.1 (3) PNP's & REC's
Entity
Responsible Party
Position
Phone
Email
Kaw Valley
Electric
Cooperative,
Inc.
Dan O'Brien
Manager
785-478-3444
Cross Creek
Watershed
David Foster
Board of
Directors
785-584-6648
Kaw River
Drainage
District
Andrew Lewis
Board Presidents
785-584-4571
North Topeka
Drainage
District
Dale Sandberg
Superintendent
785-235-2028
[email protected]
Shawnee
County
Consolidated
RWD N0.1
Michael
Dawson
Manager
758-256-2903
[email protected]
Shunganunga
Drainage
District
Deidre Barnett
Director
785-554-6460
[email protected]
Tri County
Drainage
District
David Stadler
Board of
Supervisors and
Secretary
785-220-1311
[email protected]
2.2 Plan Adoption
The Shawnee County plan was developed as a multi-jurisdictional plan. Therefore, to meet the
requirements of Section 322 of the local hazard planning regulations, the final plan will be adopted by
each of the jurisdictions as well as the county. This section documents the adoption process of each local
government in order to demonstrate compliance with this requirement. The plan will formally be adopted
following conditional approval of FEMA Region VII’s review.
Page 11
Table 2.2 (1) identifies the local governments that participated in the planning process and will adopt the
plan. According to the participation components set by the MPC (see above Requirements, Section 2.1
Participants), these jurisdictions have met satisfactory participation requirements of this hazard mitigation
plan.
NOTE: Resolutions from each Jurisdiction adopting the Plan listed in Table 2.2 (1) are provided in the
Appendix.
TABLE 2.2 (1) ADOPTION OF PLAN - §201.6(c)(5)
Jurisdiction
Name of Jurisdiction
Date of Adoption
Date or Note
2.3 Documentation of the Planning Process
The Shawnee County Multi-Jurisdictional Mitigation Plan is the result of a collaborative effort between
Shawnee County citizens, public agencies, and regional, state, and federal organizations. Public
participation played a key role in development of goals and mitigation projects. Interviews were
conducted with the Shawnee County Emergency Coordinator, mayors, elected officials, and other
organizations in the jurisdiction, and two public meetings were held to include the input of Shawnee
County residents.
In order to effectively notify the adjoining counties and invite them to contribute to the planning process,
the Emergency Manager for each county was notified via mail and/or email. In Kansas, the Emergency
Manager for each county has been designated as the county point-of-contact for Mitigation Planning.
Each Emergency Manager is responsible to report to its Commissioners, and other administrative entities,
regarding any activity necessary to comply. Invitations to apply for the FEMA and State funded grants for
Mitigation Planning were sent to the 105 Emergency Managers in Kansas as the designated
point-of-contact for each County Commission.
All entities listed in the Appendix under the Initial Contact List were notified or contacted for every
meeting conducted as part of the planning process. In addition, the Topeka Metro News was used to do
public notification. The Topeka Metro News is a regional publication with circulation in all adjoining
counties.
Shawnee County utilized the process recommended by the Kansas Division of Emergency Management
(KDEM) to develop this Multi-Jurisdictional Mitigation Plan. Shawnee County’s mitigation planning
process was initiated in October 2007, when the county awarded a contract to EFM Consulting, LLC. The
mitigation planning process was completed over a 25-month time period, with final draft completion in
February 2010.
A comprehensive hazard analysis was conducted prior to mitigation planning, and was completed over a
four-month period in 2007. The hazard analysis is a comprehensive assessment and prioritization of risks
and vulnerability in the county. The assessment is published electronically as a stand-alone document
consisting of 11 sections, and forms the basis for this mitigation plan.
Shawnee County developed this Multi-Jurisdictional Mitigation Plan in coordination with E-Fm
Consulting, LLC. Funding was provided by FEMA and the State of Kansas via a grant through the Kansas
Division of Emergency Management. The overall process to prepare this mitigation plan was developed
Page 12
by E-Fm Consulting, LLC, Shawnee County Emergency Management, and the Shawnee Mitigation
Planning Committee.
Planning
E-FM Consulting was retained on October 25, 2007, to represent Shawnee County as plan author, and
provide support services to develop the hazard mitigation plan. E-Fm prioritized the natural hazards in
coordination with the MPC based on likelihood and severity of each hazard for the jurisdiction. These
data were used to develop the goals, objectives, and mitigation strategy for Shawnee County.
Ms. Kathryn Allen, Shawnee County Homeland Security Coordinator, served as the primary official
contact for the county. The MPC consisted of representatives from local government agencies, private and
public entities, and local businesses. The Shawnee County MPC conducted meetings and numerous
in-house discussion sessions over the course of the planning process. A number of officials at the federal,
state, and local government level were contacted throughout the planning process for specific information
and technical expertise.
The Shawnee County MPC met on December 4, 2008, to review and approve the natural hazards and
vulnerability prioritization assessment established by the hazard analysis conducted for the county. The
indexed (prioritized) hazards were discussed, and a wide range of mitigation actions were identified for
high and moderate hazards and disseminated to committee members for further discussion and approval
prior to the first public meeting for the county. FEMA categories for actions were also discussed in
relation to projects and actions, with emphasis on implementation capabilities at the local level for
prioritized projects/actions. In addition, the Mitigation Planning Committee members were provided
electronic access to the county's draft plan for review and comment on the overall draft strategy to assist
with development of projects and actions for each jurisdiction. Over the next 18 weeks the MPC reviewed
the draft data and provided comment/changes to further define the plan strategy.
The first public meeting was held on April 16, 2009 to present the county draft plan to the MPC and
interested parties in the community. Comment forms were distributed for interested parties to comment in
writing to the MPC. A review of the mitigation strategy was followed by a discussion of sub-jurisdiction
planning, and distribution of data packets to local jurisdictions. A copy of the draft plan was made
available online to the MPC, with hard copies available at the Emergency Coordinators office. The MPC
did not receive any written comments on the Plan.
Meeting notifications included letter invitations from Shawnee County Emergency Management, and the
Topeka Metro News newspaper. The Topeka Metro News published the 1st public meeting on April 3,
2009, and Shawnee County Emergency Management sent invitation letters to all interested parties. E-Fm
Consulting, LLC provided additional mail invitations via postcard.
The Shawnee County Planning Committee met on June 23, 2009 as a working group to decide what
communities had agreed to participate in the planning process. The agenda also included a review of
jurisdiction hazard maps and identification of vulnerabilities to establish planning priorities and actions
for the sub-jurisdictions. Over the next 16 weeks the jurisdictions reviewed the draft data and provided
comment/changes to finalize the plan strategy.
The second public meeting was held on October 23, 2009, to present the final county draft plan to the
MPC and interested parties in the community. An overview of the final draft plan was provided followed
by a question and answer period. Comment Forms were provided for the public to provide written
comment to the MPC. Notification of the second public meeting was provided by publication in the
Topeka Metro News newspaper on October 12, 2009, and Shawnee County Emergency Management sent
Page 13
invitation letters and email to all interested parties. E-Fm Consulting, LLC, provided additional mail
invitations via postcard on October 9, 2009. A copy of the draft plan was made available online to the
MPC, with hard copies available at the Emergency Coordinators office. The MPC did not receive any
written comments on the Plan.
Meeting sign-in logs, meeting notifications, and jurisdictional authorization forms can be found in the
Appendix.
Public Participation
Efforts were made to solicit public input throughout the planning process using announcements and public
notification via local newspaper publications, and meeting notifications by first-class mail, phone, and
email. Two public meetings were held to obtain input from the community, which included notice to
businesses, non-profits, government agencies, and any others interested in the planning process.
Additionally, the Emergency Management Coordinator scheduled meetings with interested parties within
the county to review planning, code, land plan and flood zone planning initiatives in other departments.
Public input was solicited by direct written notices and announcement of the mitigation planning process,
with public meeting schedules announced two weeks prior to convening.
The county provided a copy of the final draft document for public review online, at the County
Emergency Management Office, and at the public library subsequent to presentation of the final draft plan
at the second public meeting. The MPC did not receive any written comments on the Plan subsequent to
the second public meeting. The participating jurisdictions and the County Commission tentatively
approved the plan for submittal to the State Mitigation Officer.
Summary
In short, the process included the following steps, listed in the order in which they were undertaken:
1. Natural Hazards Identification and Risk Assessment
2. County Vulnerability Assessment
3. Mitigation Capabilities Assessment
4. Mitigation Strategy (Goals, Objectives, and Actions)
5. Plan Maintenance
Step 1, the hazard identification and assessment, describes and analyzes the natural phenomena present in
Shawnee County that can threaten human life and damage property. It includes historical data on past
hazard occurrences, and establishes hazard profiles and risk indices based upon hazard frequency,
magnitude and impact. The risk rating forms the basic foundation for focusing and prioritizing mitigation
efforts.
Step 2, the county vulnerability assessment, was completed predominantly through investigative research
along with the use of available data at the time of the study. It includes narrative descriptions on
community characteristics, such as Shawnee County’s geographical, economic, and demographic profiles,
and discusses future development trends and implications for hazard vulnerability. To graphically depict
hazard vulnerability, this section also included readily-accessible county vulnerability assessment maps.
Step 3, the mitigation capabilities assessment, provides a comprehensive examination of Shawnee
County’s capacity to implement meaningful mitigation strategies, and identifies existing opportunities for
program enhancement. Capabilities addressed in this section include staff and organizational capability,
technical capability, policy and program capability, fiscal capability, legal authority and political
willpower. The purpose of this assessment is to identify any existing gaps, weaknesses or conflicts in
local programs/activities that may hinder mitigation efforts, or to identify those local activities that can be
built upon in establishing a successful county hazard mitigation program.
Page 14
Steps 1, 2, and 3 form the basis for designing the community’s hazard mitigation strategy.
Step 4, the conclusion of Steps 1, 2, and 3, results in the formation of jurisdiction strategy and sets the
stage for developing and adopting a meaningful hazard mitigation plan for Shawnee County. These four
steps help make the plan strategic and functional for implementation purposes.
Step 5, which follows the completion of the mitigation strategy, concentrates on designing measures to
ensure the plan’s ultimate implementation, and adoption of evaluation and enhancement procedures for
routine updating.
Page 15
3.0 County Profiles
3.1 Geographic Setting and History
Shawnee County consists of 550 square miles total area and had a 2006 population of 172,693. The 2006
population of Shawnee county was ranked the third most populated in the State. The City of Topeka
serves as the county seat, and is Shawnee County’s largest city. In addition, there are four other
incorporated jurisdictions in the county: Silver Lake, Auburn, Rossville, and Willard.
Page 16
TABLE 3.1 (1) SHAWNEE COUNTY CITIES, TOWNS, & VILLAGES (past and
present)
Town/City
Auburn
2000 Population
Zip Code
1,121
Year
Elevation
66402
1080
Belmont
67068
900
Berryton
66409
990
Cullen Village
1057
Dover
66420
1870
Elmont
1025
997
Grove
66846
Highland Park
937
1854
Kiro
970
902
Mathews Park
1015
Menoken
897
North Topeka
878
Oakland
870
Pauline
66619
1025
Richland
925
Rossville
1,014
66533
1871
930
Silver Lake
1,358
66539
1868
911
Spencer
Tecumseh
(Township)
866
7,822
66542
1852
Terra Heights
Topeka
1030
122,377
66601
1854
Valencia
1000
910
Wakarusa
66546
Watson
Willard
920
1858
955
1090
84
66615
922
Shawnee County is located in the northeast portion of the State of Kansas. Shawnee County is bounded on
the east by Jefferson and Douglas Counties, on the west by Wabaunsee and Pottawatomie Counties, on
the south by Osage County, and on the north by Jackson County.
Page 17
TABLE 3.1 (2) LAND COVER
Code
Land Cover
% Area
11
Urban Industrial/Commercial
2.13
12
Urban Residential
4.20
13
Urban Openland
3.80
14
Urban Woodland
0.54
15
Urban Water
0.14
20
Cropland
19.46
30
Grassland
52.57
31
Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) Land
1.97
40
Woodland
13.43
50
Water
1.55
60
Other
0.21
The 2005 Kansas Land Cover Patterns map produced by the Kansas Applied Remote Sensing (KARS)
program provides a fairly accurate assessment of 11 land use/land cover classes. The bulk of the land
cover in the county (~85%) is comprised of cropland, grassland, and woodland. The primary water bodies
include the Kansas and Wakarusa Rivers, Lake Shawnee, Shawnee County State Lake, Lake Jivaro, and
Sherwood Lake. Residential and commercial/industrial development comprises roughly 6.33% of the land
cover, primarily in and around the cities of Topeka, Silver Lake, Rossville, and Auburn. Woodlands are
typically clustered along the many streams and creeks that traverse through the county. The principle
varieties of native timber are elm, cottonwood, black walnut, oak, sycamore, box elder, hickory and ash.
HISTORY
William G. Cutler’s History of the State of Kansas tells the story of Shawnee County.
The county was crossed by branches of the Oregon and California trails. Prior to 1847 the white people
living here were missionaries or traders. The first trader was Frederick Chouteau, who established a post
on the west bank of Mission creek 2 miles south of the Kansas river in 1830. In the same year Rev.
William Johnson came to the Kaw Indian village which had been established about the Chouteau post and
resided for two years. In 1835 the government farm was established in the valley of Mission creek and in
that year the first plowing was done in the county. During the summer, mission buildings were erected on
the northern part of the farm. This mission, together with Chouteau's post, the government blacksmith, the
government farmer and a few other employees constituted the first settlement. In 1840 the three Papan
brothers, whose wives being half Indians were entitled to special reservations covering the site of North
Topeka, came to that locality. Two years later they established a ferry above the island on which the
Topeka reservoir was later built. For many years it accomodated the travel from Fort Leavenworth to New
Mexico and that of the Oregon and California trails. In the flood of 1844 all their houses, boats and
improvements of every kind were washed away. This flood was one of the worst in the history of the
county. All the houses and improvements for many miles on both sides of the river were destroyed and the
water on the site of North Topeka was 26 feet deep. The missionaries sent east for help forthe white
people and destitute Indians.
The actual settlement of the county by white men dates from the time of the territorial organization in
1854. Prior to that time the title to the land was vested in the Indians occupying it, and their half-breed
Page 18
descendants. Aside from these and a few settlers along the route of the Leavenworth military road, and the
California emigrant road, the only white residents in the county were the missionaries, teachers and
government employees among the tribes of Indians inhabiting the country.
At the first session of the Territorial Legislature, held in 1855, the limits of Shawnee County were
defined, and the town of Tecumseh was designated as the county seat. A Probate Court was established,
also a County Board of Commissioners, of which the Probate Judge was to be chairman. The County of
Shawnee was fully organized early in September, 1855, the following additional officers having been
appointed: County Clerk, Hon. John Martin; Treasurer, Thomas N. Stinson.
Tecumseh was designated by the first Territorial Legislature in 1855, as the County Seat. As has been
shown it was never so recognized by a majority of the bona fide settlers of the county, and so soon as the
new order of things was established, all her claims as such, based on the laws of 1855, were repudiated,
together with the debts incurred for erecting a court house there. The Commissioners subsequent, to the
fall election of 1857, held their meeting at various points in the county; disregarding Tecumseh entirely,
as the seat of government. The records were, however, kept there, and the Probate Judge (Hoagland) held
office and resided in the town.
The first Free-state Territorial Legislature passed an act, which was approved February 12, 1858, which
provided for an election in the several counties, for the selection by the inhabitant voters, of a permanent
county seat. Such elections were to be held at the same time as that of Representatives to the State
Legislature--in the coming October. The locality have the highest number of votes in any county was to
become the legally established county seat. It was provided that the poll books of the county seat election,
from the several precincts should be returned to the Probate Judge of the county, who should, within five
days thereafter, publish the result of the ballot for locating the county seat, and the place receiving the
highest number of votes, should, on this published declaration, become ipso facto, the county seat. The
election occurred October 4, 1858, and resulted in a vote largely in favor of Topeka. The poll-books and
returns were returned to the office of the Probate Judge (Hoagland) in accordance with the law, and the
citizens only waited the publishment of the canvassed vote to settle for all time being the location. The
judge, although in most matters disposed to do the fair thing, felt keenly that Tecumseh's days were
numbered, if the county seat were established at Topeka, and his love for his town rendered him first
cunning, then recalcitrant, and finally when thwarted, sullen and morose. He ignored the returns altogether
for a season. The five days expired, within which time the returns must be published in order to confirm
the location voted by the people, and Judge Hoagland made no sign. The result of the vote was known to
have shown Topeka to be the choice of the people, and great indignation was evinced at the cunning
device of the judge to thwart them in their choice. He, however, stood out against the murmurs, threats,
and abuse of indignant citizens, with a dogged stubbornness worthy of a better cause, until the 16th of
December, at which date he published an extra judicial manifesto, in which the vote was given, showing
Topeka to have been selected as the county seat, but declaring the election invalid and void, for fourteen
distinct reasons, which he gave in justification of his decision.
His "reasons" were too numerous and elaborate for quotation, and had no influence on the minds of any
person, being put forth in justification of the neglect to publish within the specified time, which in form, if
not in fact, had invalidated this election. The triumph of the judge and his Tecumseh friends was
short-lived.
The Territorial Legislature, on January 25, 1859, passed the following special act: "Whereas, At an
election held in the County of Shawnee, Territory of Kansas, on the fourth and fifth days of October, A.
D. 1858, for the location of the county seat of the said County of Shawnee, by a direct vote of the people
of said county, the city of Topeka was elected said county seat. "Therefore, Be it enacted that the County
Page 19
Seat of Shawnee County, in the Territory of Kansas, shall be, and the same hereby is, removed and
permanently located at the said city of Topeka."
This finally settled the question. A bitter feeling long lingered in the breast of the Tecumseh party, which
died out gradually as the town went to decay. Time has well nigh obliterated it as well as the village itself.
Page 20
3.2 Government
Shawnee County consists of a representative three member commission. There are a total of five
incorporated jurisdictions within the boundaries of the county, each having a mayoral or mayor/city
council form of government.
Page 21
3.3 Demographics
Shawnee County is an urban county with the City of Topeka serving as the major metropolitan area, and
also the capital of the State of Kansas. The economy is primarily driven by government, commerce, and
agriculture. Shawnee County’s retail trade pull factor of 1.141% in central Kansas for the year 2006 is
currently ranked second in Region One. The Shawnee County Economic Development Council is actively
seeking ways to increase expansion of its existing businesses and industries in the county in an attempt to
broaden the tax base while not destroying the agricultural base of the county.
Shawnee County is one of the states mid-sized counties in terms of total land area. Shawnee County’s
current population of 172,693 (2006 - US Census Estimated Population) ranks 3rd out of 105 counties in
the state. Most of these residents are dispersed throughout the county’s one main population center, with
some smaller concentrations residing in rural parts of the county. The average population density for the
entire county is 308.96 people per square mile of land.
REGIONAL POPULATIONS IN SHAWNEE COUNTY (Certified to the Secretary of State-7-1-07)
Similar to many Kansas counties, Shawnee County is experiencing an overall population gain, which has
been occurring since the 1900’s. The recent 2006 U.S. Census estimated population for the county is
172,693, revealing a slight increase of 1.7% over the 2000 Census. Overall, the last 100 years have
shown Shawnee County with a steadily increasing population. The historical census population counts for
Shawnee County for 1900-2000 are shown in Table 3.3.(1).
Page 22
TABLE 3.3 (1) HISTORICAL POPULATION
1900
1910
53727
1970
61874
1980
155322
154916
1920
69159
1990
160976
1930
85200
2000
169871
1940
91247
1950
1960
105418
2006 (est.)
% Change
172693
1.66%
141286
Shawnee County's ethnic mix consists of a variety of cultures and people. General demographic
information from the 2000 Census is shown in Table 3.3 (2). Shawnee County's Census population was
169,871, with 122,377 people living in Topeka, the largest populated city in the county. 51.6% of the
people are female and 48.4% male. The median age is 37.1 years. The majority of the population are in
the 34-44 year range. 82.9% of the population is under the age of 65. Of the houses in the county, 67.4%
were owner-occupied.
Page 23
TABLE 3.3 (2) POPULATION DEMOGRAPHICS
Subject
Total Population
Number
Percent
169871
100.0%
Male
82239
48.4%
Female
87632
51.6%
Under 5 Year
11492
6.8%
5 to 9 Years
11742
6.9%
10 to 14 Years
12097
7.1%
15 to 19 Years
12205
7.2%
20 to 24 Years
10447
6.1%
25 to 34 Years
21772
12.8%
35 to 44 Years
26466
15.6%
45 to 54 Years
24858
14.6%
55 to 59 Years
8526
5.0%
60 to 64 Years
6925
4.1%
65 to 74 Years
12054
7.1%
75 to 84 Years
8246
4.9%
85 Years and Over
3041
1.8%
Median Age (years)
18 Years and Over
37
126898
74.7%
Male
60110
35.4%
Female
66788
39.3%
21 Years and Over
120152
70.7%
62 Years and Over
27339
16.1%
65 Years and Over
23341
13.7%
9527
5.6%
13814
8.1%
Male
Female
Page 24
3.4 Economy
Overview
In 2006, Shawnee had a per capita personal income (PCPI) of $33,139. This PCPI ranked 13th in the state,
and was 95 percent of the state average, $34,799, and 90 percent of the national average, $36,714. The
2006 PCPI reflected an increase of 4.3 percent from 2005 (Bureau of Economic Analysis).
The 2005–2006 state change was 6.4 percent and the national change was 5.6 percent. In 1996, the PCPI
of Shawnee was $23,110 and ranked 10th in the state. The average annual growth rate of PCPI over the
past 10 years was 3.7 percent. The average annual growth rate for the state was 4.3 percent and for the
nation was 4.3 percent.
Earnings of persons employed in Shawnee increased from $4,654,895 in 2005 to $4,784,841 in 2006, an
increase of 2.8 percent. The 2005-2006 state change was 6.1 percent and the national change was 5.7
percent. The average annual growth rate from the 1996 estimate of $3,418,099 to the 2006 estimate was
3.4 percent. The average annual growth rate for the state was 5.2 percent and for the nation was 5.5
percent.
Agriculture
Commercial and industrial activity is the mainstay for Shawnee County, although agriculture remains
strong in the county. It also serves as the capitol of the State of Kansas. The 2007 U.S. Census of
Agriculture indicates 900 farms, ranking 18th in the State, and 217,000 acres of land in farms, ranking
99th in the State. Shawnee County ranks 72nd in farm value of crops harvested ($20,622,500), and cattle
and milk production in the county totaled $7,590,400. Crops consist of wheat (154,000 bushels), corn
(3,086,300 bushels), sorghum (139,900 bushels), and soybeans (1,504,300 bushels). Cattle and calves
inventory in January 2008 was 20,400 head valued at $17,750,000, which ranked 98th in the state. Data
for hogs, sheep, and poultry were not available at the county level. Employment statistics for the county
show a decrease in farm employment from 1004 in 1990 to 934 in the year 2003.
Business & Industry
During the year 2000, 67.1% of Shawnee County’s population was in the labor force while 2.7% were
unemployed and looking for work. The top employment Sectors includes; Education, Health, and Social
Services Sector (22.3%), followed by the Retail Trade Sector (11.4%), then Public administration (10%).
In 2000, the U.S. Census Bureau identified 73.7% of the working class as private wage and salary
workers; 5.3% as self-employed, and 20.8% as government workers.
In 2007, the unemployment rate in Shawnee County was 4.4%, ranking the county 21st in the state for
unemployment. This percentage was up from 2.7% in 2000.
Shawnee County Property was valued at $1,482,861,084 in 2007. Over two thirds of the total property
valuation was classified as residential and agricultural property.
Approximately 9,731 jobs were added in the county during the period 1990 to 2003. Many of the added
jobs were higher income level professionals such as finance, insurance, and real estate. The civilian labor
force in Shawnee County has grown from 87,131 in 1990 to 94,932 in 2004. Table 3.4 (1) shows the
2000 US Census data on Shawnee County’s workforce.
Page 25
TABLE 3.4 (1) SHAWNEE COUNTY WORKFORCE BY INDUSTRY (2000)
Industry
Number
Agriculture, forestry, fishing and
hunting, and mining
Percent
599
0.7%
Construction
5286
6.2%
Manufacturing
7739
9.1%
Wholesale trade
2665
3.1%
Retail trade
9681
11.4%
Transportation and warehousing, and
utilities
5635
6.7%
Information
3207
3.8%
Finance, insurance, real estate, and
rental and leasing
6761
8.0%
Professional, scientific, management,
administrative, and waste management
services
5970
7.1%
Educational, health and social services
18865
22.3%
Arts, entertainment, recreation,
accommodation and food services
5482
6.5%
Other services (except public
administration)
4305
5.1%
Public administration
8481
10.0%
Employment
Population 16 years and over
Number
Percent
132070
100.0%
In labor force
88593
67.1%
Civilian labor force
88234
66.8%
Employed
84676
64.1%
3558
2.7%
Unemployed
Percent of civilian labor force
Armed Forces
Not in labor force
4
359
0.3%
43477
32.9%
Economic Summary
Shawnee County’s overall increasing population makes economic development somewhat easier than in
other areas in the state, as the county contains the City of Topeka, considered a major Kansas
metropolitan area providing direct access to major services. Additionally, Shawnee County is classified
as an Urban county, thus is not considered “distressed” by the State of Kansas. A discussion of this
classification is provided below.
The Kansas Department of Health and Environment (KDHE) classifies counties into one of five tiers:
Frontier, Rural, Densely-settled rural, Semi-urban, and Urban. The classifications are based on several
factors including population per square mile. Since the 1930’s, Frontier/Rural contraction has been a
Page 26
reality for the State. Frontier classification obviously represents the most economically disadvantaged and
Urban the most prosperous. Frontier and Rural are considered "distressed" based on various economic
and demographic characteristics. A Frontier County is defined as those with less than 6.0 persons per
square mile; Rural counties are those with 6.0 – 19.0 persons per square mile.
Distressed counties (Frontier and Rural) account for 68 of the 105 counties in the State. Numerous bills
have been introduced into the Kansas legislature over the past ten years, but none have passed that
specifically addresses dwindling populations in the rural counties. Other suggestions have included
replacing irrigation-based agriculture with more diverse forms of economic activity. Ultimately, the
availability of steady, well-paying jobs and affordable housing would mitigate many of the problems
created by sparse population.
Page 27
3.5 Climate
Shawnee County’s climate is characterized by hot, humid summers with temperatures occasionally
climbing above 90 degrees Fahrenheit and moderate to cold winters with temperatures averaging 28
degrees Fahrenheit. Weather averages are provided in Table 3.5 (1).
TABLE 3.5 (1) CLIMATE SUMMARY
Average Daily Temperature (Fahrenheit)
January (Fahrenheit)
54.45
High – 38.1
Low - 17.6
July (Fahrenheit)
High – 89.5
Low - 67.8
Average Annual Precipitation (inches)
Average Annual Snowfall (inches)
Prevailing Winds
34.67
18.6
Warm Months (Late Spring-Summer) South
Cold Months (Late Autumn-Winter) North
Page 28
3.6 Natural Historic and Cultural Resources
Shawnee County is blessed with bountiful natural resources, which make the county a haven for
naturalists and outdoorsmen. There are fishing and wildlife areas, open lands, and miles of trails and back
roads that provide opportunities for unmatched outdoor experiences such as biking, water recreation,
freshwater fishing, bird watching, and hunting, to name a few.
Streams and creeks criss-cross the county and the Kansas River serves as the county’s main water source.
The area experiences approximately 34.67 inches of rainfall on an annual basis. The quality of soil and
suitable drainage makes it possible to produce a variety of crops. Corn, sorghum, soybeans, and wheat
make up the majority of crops in the county. The total number of cropland harvested in 2006 was 118,000
acres.
The Shawnee County State Fishing Lake is the largest and most significant manmade ecological resource
in the county. It consists of 135 acres of water, primitive campgrounds, boat ramps, and picnic areas. The
lake is located 7.5 miles north and 2.5 miles east of Silver Lake: 39.2003 latitude, -95.8036 longitude. The
Forestry, Fish and Game Commission of Kansas purchased these acres in 1958. Development of the area
as a state fishing lake was initiated in the early 1960's (Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks).
Shawnee County does not have measurable oil and gas production. Mining does appear to be a source of
activity in Shawnee County. Martin Marietta Aggregates, Martin Marietta Materials, Inc., and Native
Stone Company have limestone quarries. Sand and gravel are mined by Holliday Sand & Gravel, Kansas
Sand & Concrete, Meier's Ready Mix Inc, Topeka Sand Company, Victory Sand & Gravel Inc, and
Victory Sand Company.
Historic Sites in Shawnee County, Kansas
There are fifty notable historic resources in Shawnee County listed on the National Register of Historic
Sites. The sites are presented in Table 3.6 (1).
Page 29
TABLE 3.6 (1) COUNTY HISTORIC SITES
Site Name
Address
City
Alt, Solomon A., House (added 2005 Building - #05000202)
1335 SW College Ave.
Topeka
Anton--Woodring House (added 1991 Building - #91001088)
1011 Cambridge Ave.
Topeka
Blacksmith Creek Bridge ** (added
1983 - Site - #83000441)
W of Topeka
Topeka
Brown v. Board of Education National
Historic Site (added 1992 - - #01000156)
424 S. Kansas Ave. Suite 220
Topeka
Cedar Crest ** (added 1982 - Building #82002672)
Cedar Crest Rd.
Topeka
Central Motor and Finance Corporation
Building (added 1982 - Building #82002673)
222 W. 7th St.
Topeka
Central National Bank (added 1976 Building - #76000841)
701--703 Kansas Ave.
Topeka
Columbian Building (added 1975 Building - #75000722)
112--114 W. 6th St.
Topeka
Crawford Building ** (added 1975 Building - #75000723)
501 Jackson St.
Topeka
Curtis Junior High School (added 2001 Building - #01001126)
316 NW Grant St.
Topeka
Curtis, Charles, House ** (added 1973 Building - #73000778)
1101 Topeka Ave.
Topeka
Davies Building (added 1977 - Building
- #77000597)
725--727 Kansas Ave.
Topeka
Devon Apartments (added 2002 Building - #02000683)
800-808 W. 12th St.
Topeka
East Topeka Junior High School (added
2004 - Building - #03001397)
1210 E. 8th St.
Topeka
England Farm (added 1982 - Building #82002674)
4619 SE 37th St.
Topeka
Fire Station No. 2--Topeka (added 2002
- Building - #02000715)
719-723 Van Buren
Topeka
Giles--Nellis House (added 1992 Building - #92000432)
915 SW. Munson
Topeka
Grand Opera House (added 1986 Building - #80001474)
615 Jackson St.
Topeka
Hicks Block (added 1977 - Building #77000598)
600 W. 6th Ave.
Topeka
Holliday Park Historic District I (added
2002 - District - #02001308)
Roughly bounded by 10th Ave.,
Taylor, Polk, Huntoon , Clay and
Fillmore Sts.
Topeka
Holliday Park Historic District II (added
1015, 1019,1021,1025, 1031,
Topeka
Page 30
2002 - District - #02001309)
1035 SW Fillmore St.
Jayhawk Hotel, Theater and Walk **
(added 1982 - Building - #82002675)
700 Jackson Ave.
Topeka
Kansas State Capitol ** (added 1971 Building - #71000330)
Bound by 8th and 10th Aves. and
Jackson and Harrison Sts.
Topeka
Luttjohann, Fred and Cora, House
(added 2004 - Building - #03001384)
2053 S. Kansas Ave.
Topeka
Lyons, Horace G., House (added 1984 Building - #84001241)
4831 SE 61st St.
Berryton
McCauley Bridge ** (added 1985 Structure - #85001427)
0.5 mi. S of Auburn
Auburn
Memorial Building ** (added 1975 Building - #75000724)
120 W. 10th Ave.
Topeka
Menninger Clinic Building *** (added
1975 - Building - #75000725)
3535 W. 6th Ave.
Topeka
Morgan House (added 2004 - Building #04000367)
1335 SW Harrison St.
Topeka
Old German-American State Bank
(added 1980 - Building - #80001475)
435 Kansas Ave.
Topeka
Pottawatomie Baptist Mission Building
** (added 1971 - Building - #71001089)
Off W. 6th St., 0.5 mi. W of
Wanamaker Rd.
Topeka
Pottawatomie Baptist Mission Building
and Site (Boundary Increase) ** (added
1973 - Site - #73000779)
On Urish Rd., 0.3 mi. N of 10th
St.
Topeka
Potwin Place Historic District ** (added
1980 - District - #80001476)
Roughly bounded by Elmwood,
Grove, Broadmoor, and Willow
Sts.
Topeka
Ross Row Houses (added 1998 Building - #98001329)
513, 515, 517, 517 1/2, 519, 521
Van Buren St.
Topeka
Sage Inn (added 1976 - Building #76000840)
57th St. and Douglas Rd.
Dover
Sargent, John, House (added 1995 Building - #95000930)
225 SW. Clay St.
Topeka
St. John's Lutheran School (added 1985 Building - #85000014)
315 W. 4th St.
Topeka
St. Joseph's Catholic Church ** (added
1971 - Building - #71000331)
235 Van Buren St.
Topeka
Sumner Elementary School and Monroe
Elementary School *** (added 1987 Building - #87001283)
330 Western Ave. and 1515
Monroe St.
Topeka
Thacher Building ** (added 1975 Building - #75000726)
110 E. 8th St.
Topeka
Thomas Arch Bridge (added 1990 Structure - #90000746)
Jct. of Wanamaker Rd. and 105th
St., across the Wakarusa R.
Auburn
Topeka Cemetery--Mausoleum Row
(added 2001 - District - #01000409)
1601 E. 10th St.
Topeka
Page 31
Topeka High School ** (added 2005 Building - #05000550)
800 SW 10th Ave.
Topeka
Union Pacific Depot (added 1982 Building - #82005022)
Railroad and N. Jackson Sts.
Topeka
Union Pacific Railroad Passenger Depot
(added 2002 - Building - #02000492)
701 N. Kansas Ave.
Topeka
Wakarusa Hotel (added 1979 - Building
- #79000955)
Main St.
Wakarusa
Ward-Meade House (added 1975 Building - #75000727)
124 N. Fillmore
Topeka
Washburn University Carnegie Library
Building (added 1987 - Building #87000972)
Off Seventeenth St. and Washburn
Ave.
Topeka
Wea Creek Bowstring Arch Truss
Bridge ** (added 2003 - Structure #03000363)
Grounds of the Kansas State
Historical Society, 6425 SE 6ht
Ave.
Topeka
Albaugh, Morton, House (added 2004 Building - #04000366)
1331 SW Harrison St.
Topeka
Page 32
3.7 Geologic Features
Topography and drainage
Shawnee County lies in the Dissected Till Plains section of the Central Lowlands physiographic province
(Schoewe, 1949).
Soils: Most of the soils are Udolls. They are deep and have a mesic temperature regime, an udic moisture
regime, and mixed mineralogy. Silty Argiudolls (Sharpsburg series) and Hapludolls (Marshall and
Monona series) are well drained, nearly level to moderately steep soils on loess-mantled ridgetops and
upper side slopes. Loamy Argiudolls (Burchard, Pawnee, and Shelby series) are gently sloping to
moderately steep soils that formed in glacial till. Nearly level to gently sloping Argiudolls (Wymore and
Grundy series) have a clayey subsoil and formed in loess; they are on uplands. Udorthents (Ida and
Steinauer series) are on steep upland slopes. Hapludolls (Kennebec series) and Haplaquolls (Colo and
Wabash series) are on bottom lands.
Water: Precipitation is generally adequate for crops, but in years of little or no precipitation yields are
reduced by a lack of moisture. Locally, small areas along some of the perennial streams are irrigated. On
most farms, shallow wells in glacial drift supply water for domestic and livestock needs. Small ponds and
reservoirs are other important sources of water for livestock. In some places, deep wells provide water.
Potential Natural Vegetation: This area supports grassland vegetation characterized by mid and tall
grasses. Big bluestem, little bluestem, switchgrass, indiangrass, porcupinegrass, and sideoats grama are
dominant species on silty upland soils. Clayey soils on the uplands support a similar plant community but
have a higher percentage of switchgrass and some wildrye. Green ash, hackberry, oak, boxelder, black
walnut, and maple trees grow along streams and intermittent drainageways.
The highest elevation in the county, at 1,090 feet above sea level, is at Watson, located in the southeast
portion of the county. The town of Spencer, located in the south-central portion of the county, is situated
at the lowest elevation in the county, at approximately 866 feet above sea level.
Rivers, lakes, streams
Two rivers were identified in Shawnee County: the Kansas and Wakarusa.
The Kansas River flows through the county in a southeasterly course, being bordered on its north bank by
Rossville, Silver Lake and Soldier, and on its south bank by Topeka and Tecumseh. The Wakarusa River,
which, flowing east and northeast, empties into the Kansas River in the northeastern part of Douglas
County, has its sources in the town of Auburn, and waters the southern sections of Auburn, Williamsport
and Monmouth - the tributary creeks flowing into it on either side forming the drainage and water system
of the three towns above named. The towns lying on the borders of the Kansas River, north and south, are
watered by the tributary creeks running into that river. Among these is Cross Creek, running through the
town of Rossville; Soldier Creek, the largest stream on the north side, which enters the county in the
northwestern part of the town of Silver Lake, runs southeast through that town, Menoken, and the
southern sections of Soldier, emptying into the Kansas River nearly opposite the city of Topeka. Indian
Creek is also a northern tributary, entering the Kansas River one and one-half miles below the mouth of
Soldier Creek. South of the Kansas the principal tributary streams are Mission Creek and Shunganunga
Creek, the former watering the town of Dover, and the latter the towns of Mission and Topeka.
Five manmade lakes were identified in Shawnee County and include the Shawnee County Lake, Shawnee
County State Lake, Lake Jivaro, Sherwood Lake, and Silver Lake.
Page 33
Established in 1937, Lake Shawnee is currently operated by Shawnee County Parks and Recreation. The
dam is earthen construction, with a height of 76 feet and a length of 2,200 feet. Maximum discharge is
6,900 cubic feet per second. Its capacity is 11,400 acre feet. It drains an area of 9.15 square miles. No
other data was available for this structure.
Shawnee County State Lake is operated by the Forestry, Fish and Game Commission of Kansas.
Development of the area as a state fishing lake was initiated in the early 1960's. The lake is located on a
tributary of Little Soldier Creek in Shawnee County, Kansas and is used for recreation purposes. The dam
is of earthen construction, with a length of 1,570 feet and a maximum capacity is 2,950 acres feet. Normal
storage is 1,860 acre feet. GPS Location: N39 12.018 / W95 48.216. No other data was available for this
structure.
Lake Jivaro – no data available
Sherwood Lake – no data available
Silver Lake – no data available
Thirty-three (33) named streams were identified in Shawnee County and include: Armstrong Branch,
Blacksmith Creek, Bourbonais Creek, Burys Creek, Camp Creek, Colly Creek, Coryell Creek, Cross
Creek, Deer Creek, East Fork, Muddy Creek, Elm Creek, Ensign Creek, Halfday Creek, Haskell Creek,
Indian Creek, Little Soldier Creek, Lynn Creek, Messhoss Creek, Middle Branch Wakarusa River,
Mission Creek, North Branch Wakarusa River, Peanaz Creek, Post Creek, Shunganunga Creek, Sixmile
Creek, Snake Creek, Soldier Creek, South Branch Shunganunga Creek, South Branch Wakarusa River,
Stinson Creek, Tecumseh Creek, Towhead Creek, Vassar Creek, Ward Creek, West Fork Muddy Creek,
Whetstone Creek.
Page 34
3.8 Utilities
3.8.1 Electricity
Electrical providers to Shawnee County include Westar Energy and Kaw Valley Electric.
3.8.2 Natural Gas
Gas service is provided by Kansas Gas Service.
The National Pipeline Mapping System provides a comprehensive cartographic reference of pipeline
sources. Pipeline systems transporting natural gas and hazardous liquids pass through Shawnee County.
The pipeline operators within Shawnee County include Enterprise Products Operating, LLC, Kansas Gas
Service, Magellan Pipeline, Oneok NGL Pipeline, and Southern Star Central Gas Pipeline, Inc. The
KDOT Hazardous Materials Study - Project Final Report assigned a pipeline risk factor of 0.08 to
Shawnee County, which is above the Statewide Mean Risk Factor (0.05).
Page 35
Shawnee County Pipeline Map
3.8.3 Water
Water treatment facilities are provided by Metro Topeka Airport Authority, City of Rossville, City of
Silver Lake, City of Topeka, and Shawnee County RWD's #1, #2, #2, #4, and #8.
The Topeka Water Treatment Facility, located at 3245 Waterworks Drive, has nearly nine million gallons
of underground reservoir storage and seven high service pumps with rated capacities from five to fifteen
million gallons a day. These pumps transfer water from underground clearwells into four large
transmission lines. These large arterial water lines branch out into a network of more than 800 miles of
water mains that transport clean and safe drinking water every day.
3.8.4 Telecommunications
Communication providers in Shawnee County include AT&T, Cox Communications, Allegiance
Communications, Earthlink, SBC, Century-Tel, Verizon, Sprint, Cingular, and T-Mobile.
3.8.5 Transportation
HIGHWAYS
Federal: Six federal highways traverse Shawnee County. U.S. Highway 24 enters the county from the
northwest, and trends east through Rossville, Silver Lake, and Topeka until it exits into Jefferson County.
Total estimated mileage for this highway is 24.828 miles.
U.S. Highway 75 enters the county from the north and trends south, passing through Topeka before going
into Osage County. The estimated mileage for this highway is 20.531 miles.
U.S. Highway 40 enters the county from the east, and trends west before merging with Interstate 70 just
Page 36
outside Topeka. The estimated mileage of this highway is 6.779 miles.
Interstate 470 enters the county from the east and travels southwest through Topeka and out of the county.
I470 divides inside Topeka where it branches to the northwest before merging with I70. The estimated
mileage for this highway is 14.921 miles.
Interstate 70 enters the county from the east and trends west through Topeka, where it exits into
Wabaunsee County.The estimated mileage for this highway is 25.541 miles.
Interstate 335 enteres the county from the south and trends northeast until it merges with Interstate 470
inside Topeka. The estimated mileage for this highway is 11.568 miles.
State: One state highway traverses Shawnee County. Highway K4 enters the county and trends northeast
where it merges with I70. K4 also Connects U.S. 24 with U.S. 40 on the west side of Topeka. The total
estimated mileage for K4 is 15.623 miles.
The total estimated mileage for highways in Shawnee County is 120.809 miles. Other roadways in the
county have as estimated mileage of 1658.691 miles. Total estimated mileage for federal, state, and
county roads for Shawnee County is 1779.5 miles.
RAILROADS
Union Pacific (UP), Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF), and Amtrack are present in Shawnee County.
The UP has two railway tracks that enter the county from the east-central portion of the county and trends
into Topeka. One UP track connects Paola (in Miami County) to Topeka, where the rail terminates. The
second set of tracks continues out of Topeka trending west into Menokin where one railway segment
splits into two segments, and the main railway continuing west into Wabaunsee County. The Menoken
(northern segment) trends northwest through Grove before exiting the county, while the second rail trends
northwest through Kiro, Silver Lake, and Rossville before exiting the county.
The BNSF railway enters the county from the east-central portion of the county and trends west through
Tecumseh and into Topeka where the line trends south through Pauline before exiting the county.
Total railroad mileage in Shawnee County is approximately 94.0 miles.
AIRPORTS
Seven airports were identified in Shawnee County. Two airports are public and include Forbes Field and
Philip Billard Municipal Airport . Five airports are private and include: Allen Airpark, Mesa Verde
Landing Strip, Skyranch Landing Strip, Starshire Farm Airport, and Stormont-Vail Hospital Heliport.
PUBLIC AIRPORTS
Forbes Field (FAA Identifier - FOE), is located 6 miles south of Topeka and is a public airport with with
two concrete runways. Runway 13/31 dimensions are 12,802' X 200', and Runway 3/21 dimensions are
7,000' X 150'. Airport elevation is 1,078 feet above mean sea level.
There are 57 aircraft based on the field, of which 15 are single engine airplanes, 5 are multi-engine
airplanes, 6 are jet airplanes, 13 are helicopters, and 18 are military aircraft. The airport averages 121
flights per day, 29% of which are local general aviation, 9% are transient general aviation, 4% are
commercial, and 58% are military.
Page 37
Owner: Metropolitan Topeka Airport Authority, PO Box 19053, Topeka, Kansas 66619
Phone: (785-862-2362)
Manager:Michael Humberd
Airport Services:
Fuel: 100LL Jet-A
Parking: Hangars and tiedowns
Airframe service: Major
Powerplant: Major
Bottled oxygen: None
Bulk Oxygen: None
Other nearby airports with instrument procedures:
KTOP - Philip Billard Municipal Airport (7 nm N)
KLWC - Lawrence Municipal Airport (21 nm E)
KOWI - Ottawa Municipal Airport (31 nm SE)
K34 - Gardner Municipal Airport (34 nm E)
KIXD - New Century AirCenter Airport (37 nm E)
Philip Billard Municipal Airport (FAA Identifier - KTOP), is located 3 miles NE of Topeka and is a
public airport with with three asphalt-paved runways. Runways 13/31 dimensions are 5,099' X 100',
Runways 4/22 dimensions are 3,002' X 100', and Runways 18/36 are 4,331' X 75'. Airport elevation is 881
feet above mean sea level.
There are 88 aircraft based on the field, of which 69 are single engine airplanes, 10 are multi-engine
airplanes, 1 jet airplane, 5 helicopters, and 3 ultralights. The airport averages 180 flights per day, 55% of
which are local general aviation, 41% is transient general aviation, 2% air taxi, and 3% is military.
Owner: Metropolitan Topeka Airport Authority, PO Box 19053, Topeka, Kansas 66619
Phone: (785-862-2362)
Manager: Dave Stremming
Airport Services:
Fuel: 100LL Jet-A
Parking: hangars and tiedowns
Airframe service: Major
Powerplant: Major
Bottled oxygen: None
Bulk oxygen: None
Other nearby airports with instrument procedures:
KFOE - Forbes Field Airport (7 nm S)
KLWC - Lawrence Municipal Airport (19 nm E)
K34 - Gardner Municipal Airport (35 nm SE)
KOWI - Ottawa Municipal Airport (36 nm SE)
K59 - Amelia Earhart Airport (36 nm NE)
PRIVATE AIRPORTS
Allen Airpark is privately-owned, and is located near Silver Lake, Kansas at Latitude 39.03 / Longitude:
-95.76. No additional data was available for this airport.
Page 38
Mesa Verde Landing Strip (FAA Identifier 3KS1), is privately-owned by Max E. Collier, phone number:
785-286-2951. the airport is located at Latitude: 39-09-19.9940N / Longitude: 095-44-35.9400W. No
additional data was available for this airport.
Skyranch Landing Strip is privately-owned, and is located at Latitude 38.98167 / Longitude: 95.85611.
No additional data was available for this airport.
Starshire Farm Airport (FAA Identifier - 2KS9), is privately-owned, with two turf-covered runways.
Runways 18/36 are 2,100' X 100'. The airfield elevation is 990 feet above mean sea level and is located at:
Latitude 38.900002 / Longitude: -95.583591.
Owner: William Armstrong
Address: 4525 SE 89th Street, Berryton, Kansas 66409
Phone: 913-936-3397
Stormont-Vail Hospital Heliport (FAA Identifier - 3KS0) is a private heliport located at Latitude:
39-03-09.0000N / Longitude: 095-41-43.9350W.
Owner: Robert V. Worthington
Owner Phone: 913-354-6000
Facility Manager: Robert V. Worthington
Address: 1500 W 10th Street
Topeka, Kansas 66604-1353
Mgr Phone: 913-354-6000
No additional data was available for this heliport.
Page 39
Page 40
3.9 Local Jurisdictions
3.9.1 Topeka (Population: 122,377)
Topeka is the largest city and also serves as the county seat of Shawnee County. Topeka is also the capital
city of the State of Kansas. Topeka is an urban community with a business economy that is primarily
derived from government services, education, manufacturing, and distribution. It is situated along the
Kansas River in the central part of Shawnee County in northeast Kansas.
The city, laid out in 1854, was one of the free-State towns founded by eastern antislavery men
immediately after the passage of the Kansas-Nebraska Bill. In 1857, Topeka was chartered as a city.
According to the United States Census Bureau (2000), the city has a total area of 57.0 square miles (147.6
km²), of which 56.0 square miles (145.1 km²) is land and 1.0 square miles (2.5 km²), or 1.70%, is water.
Topeka's population was estimated to be 122,377 in the year 2006, a decrease of 988, or -0.8%, over the
previous six years. The population density was 2,185.0 people per square mile (843.6/km²). The racial
makeup of the city was 78.52% White, 11.71% Black or African American, 1.31% Native American,
1.09% Asian, 0.04% Pacific Islander, 4.06% from other races, and 3.26% from two or more races.
Hispanic or Latino of any race were 10.86% of the population.
There were 52,190 households out of which 28.0% had children under the age of 18 living with them,
41.8% were married couples living together, 13.1% had a female householder with no husband present,
and 41.2% were non-families. 35.0% of all households were made up of individuals and 11.7% had
someone living alone who was 65 years of age or older. The average household size was 2.27 and the
average family size was 2.94.
In the city the population is spread out with 24.3% under the age of 18, 9.9% from 18 to 24, 28.9% from
25 to 44, 21.9% from 45 to 64, and 15.1% who were 65 years of age or older. The median age was 36
years.
The median income for a household in the city was $35,928, and the median income for a family was
$45,803. Males had a median income of $32,373 versus $25,633 for females. The per capita income for
the city was $19,555. About 8.5% of families and 12.4% of the population were below the poverty line,
including 16.7% of those under age 18 and 8.2% of those age 65 or over.(U.S Census Bureau)
Some major employers in Topeka include the State of Kansas (8,436), City of Topeka, (1,599), US
Government (1,246), Topeka USD 501 (2,300), Washburn University (1,100), Payless ShoeSource
(1,700), Goodyear Tire (1,600), Stormont-Vail Health Care (3,500), and Burlington Northern Santa Fe
Railroad (1,100). Numerous other employers in all categories also provide employment opportunities in
Topeka.
USD School Districts #501, #450, #437, and #345 serve the metropolitan area of Topeka. The four school
districts that support the community of Topeka are comprised of 30 elementary schools, 22 middle
schools, six high schools, and one charter school. In addition to these public schools there are also 19
private schools located in Topeka. Topeka is also home to Washburn University and the Kaw Area
Technical School.
3.9.2 Willard (Population: 84)
Willard is the smallest town in the County with 84 residents in the year 2006 (est. US Census), and is
located 18 miles northwest of Topeka, the county seat. The City of Willard economy is largely derived
Page 41
from agriculture. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the city has a total area of 0.1 square miles (0.3
km²), of which all is land.
Before 1883, Willard was not much of a town, but when the Rock Island Railroad laid tracks through the
community, Willard became a typical railroad town. In the early 1920s, Willard boasted a population of
over 300 and was a major cattle shipping point for this region. During the 1930s many businesses closed,
the railroad became less important and, finally, in 1951, a flood destroyed much of the town and caused
the bridge over the Kansas River to collapse, isolating the town from surrounding communities.
As of the Census of 2000, there were 84 people, 38 households, and 22 families residing in the city. The
population density was 806.5 people per square mile (301.9/km²). There were 50 housing units at an
average density of 468.9/sq mi (175.5/km²). The racial makeup of the city was 97.67% White, 1.16%
Native American, 1.16% from other races. Hispanic or Latino of any race were 8.14% of the population.
There were 38 households out of which 28.9% had children under the age of 18 living with them, 50.0%
were married couples living together, 7.9% had a female householder with no husband present, and 42.1%
were non-families. 36.8% of all households were made up of individuals and 10.5% had someone living
alone who was 65 years of age or older. The average household size was 2.26 and the average family size
was 3.09.
In the city the population was spread out with 27.9% under the age of 18, 2.3% from 18 to 24, 30.2% from
years.
the city was $16,513. There were no families and 5.7% of the population living below the poverty line,
including no resident under eighteen and 9.1% of those over 64.(U.S. Census Bureau)
Willard participates with Kaw Valley USD 321 as a consolidated district due to diminishing population,
and no longer supports schools in the city.
3.9.3 Silver Lake (Population: 1,358)
Silver Lake is the second largest town in the County with 1,358 residents in the year 2006 (est. US
Census), and is located 10 miles northwest of Topeka, the county seat. According to the United States
Census Bureau, the city has a total area of 0.6 square miles (1.5 km²), of which, 0.6 square miles (1.4 km²)
of it is land and 1.79% is water.
Silver Lake is noted for the ferry crossings that were established in 1852-53. Three ferries were
established at a point a little east of the confluence of Mission Creek with the Kansas River. The locality
was known as the "Great Crossing," the ferries crossing the Kansas within a distance of three or four
miles, the main crossing being at the Baptist Mission. On the south were the settlements, stores and
Pottawatomie Mission buildings, and on the north the roads leading off towards the great California
highway. Over these ferries passed an immense amount of travel, the California and Oregon emigration
by the Independence Route passing the river at this and Papan's Ferry (Cutler's History).
The top three industries with the most establishments are Construction (12 Establishments), Retail Trade
(7 Establishments), and Finance and Insurance (4 Establishments).
The Supermarkets and Other Grocery (except Convenience) Stores industry provides a high number of
Page 42
jobs in the area, with estimated 2005 employment of 35. The next highest industries include: Cut Stock,
Resawing Lumber, and Planing (15 Emp.), and Commercial Banking (14 Emp.). (ecanned.com)
As of the census of 2000, there were 1,358 people, 538 households, and 394 families residing in the city.
The population density was 2,470.7 people per square mile (953.3/km²). There were 568 housing units at
an average density of 1,033.4/sq mi (398.7/km²). The racial makeup of the city was 96.83% White, 0.07%
African American, 0.74% Native American, 0.22% Asian, 0.07% Pacific Islander, 0.59% from other
races, and 1.47% from two or more races. Hispanic or Latino of any race were 1.77% of the population.
were married couples living together, 9.7% had a female householder with no husband present, and 26.6%
were non-families. 24.3% of all households were made up of individuals and 7.2% had someone living
alone who was 65 years of age or older. The average household size was 2.52 and the average family size
was 2.98.
years.
including 1.9% of those under age 18 and 3.8% of those age 65 or over. (U.S. Census Bureau)
USD School District 372 serves the community of Silver Lake. There is one elementary school, one junior
high school, and one high school in the town.
3.9.4 Auburn (Population: 1,121)
Auburn is the third largest town in the County with 1,121 residents in the year 2006 (US Census
Estimated Population), and is located 15 miles southwest of Topeka. Auburn is an agricultural
community consisting of a total area of 0.6 square miles (1.5 km²), all of it land.
The village of Auburn reached its height of prosperity and importance in 1858, at which time it had
reasonable expectations of becoming the county seat of "old Shawnee County," as it was more central
than either Tescumseh or Topeka, both in the extreme north of the county, or Burlingame, lying further
south. The plan devised that year, between Topeka and Burlingame, whereby the southern tiers of towns
were detached from the county and territory added north of the Kansas River, made Topeka nearer the
geographical center, and, on a popular vote, selected it as a county seat. Thus shorn of the prestige
attached always to the shire town, its growth stopped short. Later the location of the A. T. & S. Fe R. R.,
some seven miles east, still further shut it out from the busy world. With the old thoroughfare deserted, it
fell into a decline. (Cutler's History)
The top three industries with the most establishments include: Construction (10 Establishments), Retail
Trade (4 Establishments), and Administrative and Support and Waste Management and Remediation
Services (3 Establishments).
an average density of 685.3/sq mi (266.3/km²). The racial makeup of the city was 95.63% White, 0.18%
African American, 0.89% Native American, 0.36% Asian, 0.36% from other races, and 2.59% from two
or more races. Hispanic or Latino of any race were 3.84% of the population.
Page 43
were married couples living together, 12.7% had a female householder with no husband present, and
21.6% were non-families. 17.7% of all households were made up of individuals and 8.8% had someone
living alone who was 65 years of age or older. The average household size was 2.91 and the average
family size was 3.34.
years.
including 3.9% of those under age 18 and 4.5% of those age 65 or over.(U.S. Census Bureau)
The Auburn-Washburn USD School District 437 serves the community of Auburn. Auburn Elementary
School is the only school from this school district that is located in the town. Washburn Rural Middle
School and High School provide education for grades 7-12 in the school district.
3.9.5 Rossville (Population: 1,014)
Rossville is the fourth largest town in the County with 1,014 residents in the year 2006 (US Census
Estimated Population). Located approximately 16 miles northwest of Topeka, this community was
originally founded in 1871 and was named after William W. Ross. It is an agricultural community with a
total area of 0.5 square miles (1.3 km²), all of it land.
In terms of total establishments in the area, the top three industries include: Construction (12
Establishments), Finance and Insurance (6 Establishments), and Retail Trade (5 Establishments). In recent
years (2004-05), Rossville, Kansas' total employment has decreased by a total of 103 individuals, or by
30.1 percent.
The Electrical Contractors industry employs the most number of people, with an estimated employment of
40. The next highest industries include: Supermarkets and Other Grocery (except Convenience) Stores
(35 Emp.), and Landscaping Services (15 Emp.). (ecanned.com)
As of the census of 2000, there were 1,014 people, 383 households, and 279 families residing in the city.
an average density of 841.1/sq mi (323.9/km²). The racial makeup of the city was 94.48% White, 1.68%
Native American, 0.59% Asian, 0.89% from other races, and 2.37% from two or more races. Hispanic or
Latino of any race were 2.37% of the population.
were married couples living together, 10.7% had a female householder with no husband present, and
26.9% were non-families. 24.0% of all households were made up of individuals and 12.5% had someone
living alone who was 65 years of age or older. The average household size was 2.52 and the average
family size was 2.98.
years.
Page 44
including 2.4% of those under age 18 and 5.4% of those age 65 or over.(U.S. Census Bureau)
USD School District 321 serves the community of Rossville. There is one elementary school, one junior
high school, and one high school in Rossville.
Page 45
3.10 Mitigation Capabilities
This portion of the Plan assesses Shawnee County’s current capacity to mitigate the effects of the natural
hazards identified in Section 4.0. The assessment includes a comprehensive examination of the following
local government capabilities:
• Staff & Organizational Capability
• Administrative and Technical Capability
• Policy & Program Capability
• Fiscal Capability
• Legal Authority
• Political Willpower
The purpose of conducting this capabilities assessment is to identify potential hazard mitigation
opportunities available to Shawnee County through its operation as a local government. Careful analysis
should detect any existing gaps, shortfalls or weaknesses within existing government activities that could
exacerbate jurisdiction vulnerability. The assessment will also highlight the positive measures already in
place or being done at the county level, which should continue to be supported and enhanced if possible
through future mitigation efforts.
The jurisdictions participating in this multi-jurisdictional plan believe it has the capacity to stand alone
and will, for most situations, execute it as such. In the cases where the jurisdiction indicates a
comprehensive plan, or related planning function, this plan will be used or incorporated in to that process
as a reference or guiding document. As part of plan maintenance, the yearly review will examine and
document the integration of the mitigation plan with other plans and planning functions. This process will
also review new opportunities to incorporate and integrate the plan.
The capabilities assessment serves as the foundation for designing an effective hazard mitigation strategy.
It not only helps establish the goals and objectives for Shawnee County to pursue under this plan, but also
ensures that those goals and objectives are realistically achievable under given local conditions.
Page 46
TABLE 3.10 (1) CAPABILITIES SUMMARY
Shawnee (UnInc.)
X
X
X
X
X
X
Auburn
X
X
X
X
X
X
Rossville
X
X
X
X
X
Silver Lake
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Topeka
X
X
X
X
X
Willard
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Kaw Valley USD 321
Seaman USD 345
Washburn University
3.10.1 Staff and Organizational Capability
Shawnee County has sufficient staff and organizational resources to implement hazard mitigation
strategies. Current growth projections suggest future staff and resources will increase with growth in the
County's financial capabilities.
Shawnee County has a three-member elected commission. Commissioners are elected through voter
precincts (number of voters determined through district mapping, rather than as representatives of each
township). Terms on the board are four-year terms and two of the three terms are staggered.
The county, and in many cases coordinating with and receiving support from local municipalities, has a
number of professionally staffed departments and organizations to serve the residents of Shawnee County
and to carry out day-to-day administrative activities.
These include the following:
Shawnee County is responsible for property tax valuation and collection in support of operation of the
public school system based on public education levy. Taxes are paid to the state then re-distributed back
to the counties based on State formula. These funds generally maintain buildings, provide funds for
capital projects, and also include paying salaries, purchasing textbooks and supplies.
Page 47
The Board of Education for the USDs in Shawnee County are responsible for the operation of the county
school system, and are also elected at large by the people.
As a result of the City of Topeka rescinding from the Topeka-Shawnee Planning Department, the
Shawnee County Board of Commissioners adopted Home Rule Resolution No. 2003-14 on October 6,
2003, establishing the Shawnee County Planning Commission and Planning Department. The Planning
Commission consists of seven members who serve staggered terms of up to three years with each County
Commissioner appointing two members and the seventh member appointed en bloc. The County
Planning Committee is responsible for applicable local codes through a program of inspection and
permitting.
The County Commissioners, County Clerk, Election Office Representative, Treasurer, Register of Deeds,
District Attorney, and the Sheriff are elected every four years.
Appointed Positions include County Appraiser, Coroner, Counselor, Department of Corrections,
Emergency Manager, Extension Office, Health Agency, Human Resources, Information Technology,
Maintenance, Parks and Recreation, Planning Department, Public Works Department, Purchasing, and the
Noxious Weed Director. Functional departments operate on a budget approved annually by the
commissioners.
The Shawnee County Cooperative Extension office seeks to help individuals, families, and communities
put research-based knowledge to work to improve their lives. Kansas’s Cooperative Extension is based at
Kansas's land grant institution, Kansas State University, but offices are located in all 105 counties in the
state.
The Shawnee County Public Health Department seeks to help individuals, families, and communities put
research-based knowledge to work to improve their lives.
The Emergency Management office is responsible for the mitigation, preparedness, response and recovery
operations that deal with both natural and man-made disaster events. The formation of an emergency
management department in each county is mandated under Kansas General Statutes.
The Treasurer is responsible for the oversight and management of the County’s budget and fiscal
programs, including the administration of state and federal grants.
Of the above-listed county departments, the following are actively involved in mitigation activities or
hazard control tasks: Emergency Management, County Clerk, Appraiser, Planning and Zoning
Department, Health Department, Fire Department, Economic Development, and the Board of County
Commissioners. Each of these departments have been involved in the hazard analysis and development of
mitigation planning for the county in order to identify gaps, weaknesses or opportunities for enhancement
of potential mitigation programs.
For the most part, it was determined that each of these departments are staffed, trained, and funded to
accomplish their day-to-day missions. However, staff identified the need for expanded Information
Technology capability to enhance Countywide-planning capabilities. This need is further defined in the
mitigation actions.
City Government
All incorporated cities within Shawnee County, with the exception of the City of Topeka, have limited
staff and organizational resources to implement hazard mitigation strategies.
Page 48
The City of Auburn has a six-member elected City Council and Mayor. Council members are elected
at-large, and serve on the board for four-year terms, which are staggered with elections every two years.
The Mayor serves a two-year term. In addition, the City of Auburn has a City Administrator who serves
at the discretion of the City Council.
The City of Rossville has a five-member elected City Council and Mayor. Council members are elected
Mayoral terms are four years.
The City of Silver Lake has a five-member elected City Council and Mayor. Council members are elected
The City of Topeka has a nine-member elected City Council and Mayor. Council members are elected by
dedicated area, and serve on the board for four-year terms, which are staggered with elections every two
years. In addition, the City of Topeka has a City Administrator who serves at the discretion of the City
Council.
The City of Willard has a five-member elected City Council and Mayor. Council members are elected by
dedicated area, and serve on the board for two-year terms, which are not staggered.
Unified School Districts
The Boards of Education for USDs 321, 345, 437, 450, and 501 are responsible for the operation of the
county school systems, and are also elected at large by the people.
Washburn University (including Washburn Tech) consists of approximately 161 acres of land within the
City of Topeka. For fiscal year 2008-2009, Washburn University’s (including Washburn Tech) adopted
budgeted expenditures were $92,862,699. Washburn University is governed by a nine-member Board of
Regents. Three Regents, who must be residents of the State of Kansas, are appointed by the Governor.
Three residents of the city, one from each of the state senatorial districts, are appointed by the Mayor of
the City of Topeka. One is the Mayor or a member of the governing body of the city designated by the
Mayor. The Shawnee County Commission appoints one memmber, who must be a resident of Shawnee
County but not of the City of Topeka. The Kansas Board of Regents annually selects one of its members
to serve on the Washburn Board. Members of the Board (with the exception of the Kansas Board of
Regents' appointee) serve staggered four-year terms.
3.10.2 Legal and Regulatory Capability
In implementing a mitigation plan or specific action, a local jurisdiction may utilize any or all of the four
broad types of government authority granted by the State of Kansas. The four types are defined as: (a)
Regulation, (b) Acquisition, (c) Taxation, (d) Spending.
The scope of this local authority is subject to constraints, however, as all of Kansas’ political subdivisions
must not act without proper delegation from the State. Under a principle known as “Dillon’s Rule,” all
power is vested in the State and can only be exercised by local governments to the extent it is delegated.
Thus, this portion of the capabilities assessment will summarize Kansas’ enabling legislation which grants
the four types of government powers listed above within the context of available hazard mitigation tools
and techniques.
Regulation
General Police Power
Kansas’ local governments have been granted broad regulatory powers in their jurisdictions. Kansas
Page 49
General Statutes (K.A.R.) bestow the general police power on local governments, allowing them to enact
and enforce ordinances which define, prohibit, regulate or abate acts, omissions, or conditions detrimental
to the health, safety, and welfare of the people, and to define and abate nuisances (including public health
nuisances).
Since hazard mitigation can be included under the police power (as protection of public health, safety and
welfare), towns, cities, and counties may include requirements for hazard mitigation in local ordinances.
Local governments may also use their ordinance-making power to abate “nuisances,” which could
include, by local definition, any activity or condition making people or property more vulnerable to any
hazard.
Shawnee County (unincorporated) has enacted and enforces regulatory ordinances designed to promote
the public health, safety and general welfare of its citizenry. These ordinances are discussed in this
Section.
Shawnee County (unincorporated) adopted the Shawnee County, Kansas Code November 27, 2006. This
document is over four-hundred pages and outlines every regulation set forth by the county. The
regulations found in this document that are relevant to hazard mitigation provide guidance for growth and
development in the county.
Building Codes and Building Inspection
Many structural mitigation measures involve constructing and retrofitting homes, businesses and other
structures according to standards designed to make the buildings more resilient to the impacts of natural
hazards. Many of these standards are imposed through the building code.
Kansas does not have state mandatory building codes. However, municipalities and counties may adopt
codes for their respective areas if approved by the state as providing “adequate minimum standards”.
Local governments in Kansas are also empowered to carry out building inspections, and may empower
cities and counties to create an inspection department to enforce construction codes and ordinances.
Regulatory powers granted by the state to local governments are the most basic manner in which a local
government can control the use of land within its jurisdiction. Through various land use regulatory
powers, a local government can control the amount, timing, density, quality, and location of new
development. All these characteristics of growth can determine the level of vulnerability of the
community in the event of a natural hazard. Land use regulatory powers include the power to engage in
planning, enacting and enforceing zoning ordinances, floodplain ordinances, and subdivision controls.
Each local community possesses great power to prevent unsuitable development in hazard-prone areas.
Shawnee County (unincorporated) has not adopted any building codes. However, on October 19, 2006,
Shawnee County (unincorporated) adopted a Building Permit Ordinance to ensure a comprehensive
review of proposed construction or alteration of a structure, change of use, compliance with floodplain
ordinance, zoning , driveway entrance, subdivision, private sewage, construction, groundwater
regulations, and other applicable policies.
The City of Auburn has adopted the 1997 Uniform Building Codes (UBC) to manage and control growth
in the community. Auburn has also adopted the 1996 National Electric Code and the 1997 Uniform
Plumbing Code.
The City of Rossville has adopted the International Building Code, 2000 Edition; the Uniform Plumbing
Code, 2000; and the 1999 National Electric Code to manage and control growth in the community.
Page 50
The Cities of Silver Lake and Willard have not adopted any building or inspection codes for their
communities.
The City of Topeka has adopted the International Building Code 2006; the International Residential Code
for one- and two-family dwellings 2003; the Uniform Code for Building Conservation, 1997; the National
Electrical Code, 2005; the Uniform Plumbing Code, 2000; Uniform Mechanical Code, 1997; the Uniform
Fire Code, 1997; and Life Safety Code, 1991.
Planning
In order to exercise the regulatory powers conferred by the General Statutes, local governments in Kansas
are required to create or designate a planning agency. The planning agency may perform a number of
duties, which include the following: make studies of the area; determine objectives; prepare and adopt
plans for achieving those objectives; develop and recommend policies, ordinances, and administrative
means to implement plans; and perform other related duties. The importance of the planning powers of
local governments is emphasized in Kansas statutes, which require that zoning regulations be made in
accordance with a comprehensive plan. While the ordinance itself may provide evidence that zoning is
being conducted “in accordance with a plan”, the existence of a separate planning document ensures that
the government is developing regulations and ordinances that are consistent with the overall goals of the
jurisdiction.
Shawnee County established a Planning Commission on October 6, 2003, with the passage of Home Rule
Resolution No. 2003-14. As established by the Home Rule Resolution, the primary functions of the
Planning Commission include preparing and updating plans showing the physical development of the
county and the conservation of natural resources; making recommendations to the County Commission
regarding the development and adoption of the Capital Improvement Plan; developing and maintaining a
Comprehensive Plan for the County; preparing and making recommendations to the County Commission
for the adoption of zoning and subdivision regulations and other regulatory tools designed to implement
the long-term strategies of the Comprehensive Plan; reviewing all proposals for the subdivision of land
within unincorporated Shawnee County for conformance to specified standards; and reviewing all
proposals for amendments to the Zoning Regulations and making recommendations to the County
Commission.
The Cities of Auburn and Silver Lakes have established Planning Commissions to oversee the future
development within the respective cities.
The City of Willard has not established a Planning Committee for the city.
The City of Rossville has established a Planning Commission to consider any proposed amendments to
the city zoning ordinances.
The City of Topeka currently employs a full-time Planner and has established a Planning Committee to
assist the Planner with future development within the city.
County Ordinances
Shawnee County has adopted ordinances that are relevant to hazard mitigation. The ordinances will be
considered when developing this Plan’s Mitigation Strategy.
Shawnee County (unincorporated) has established an Emergency Management Department for protection
of people, property and environment within the county.
Shawnee County (unincorporated) adopted the Shawnee County, Kansas Code November 27, 2006. This
document is over four-hundred pages and outlines every regulation set forth by the county. Many of the
regulations found in this document are relevant to hazard mitigation.
Page 51
Shawnee County (unincorporated) has adopted zoning regulations that were adopted by the Board of
County Commissioners on August 31, 2006.
Shawnee County (unincorporated) has established a Floodplain Management Plan on June 1, 1983 to
maintain the county's eligibility for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).
Shawnee County (unincorporated) has adopted subdivision regulations that were adopted by the Board of
County Commissioners on March 24, 2004.
The county burn ban ordinance, County Resolution Sec. 17-109, was adopted November 27, 2006 in
accordance with the Shawnee County, Kansas Code.
City Ordinances
The City of Auburn has enacted and enforces regulatory ordinances or regulations designed to promote
the public health, safety and general welfare of its citizenry, including building codes, zoning and
permitting ordinances, floodplain management ordinance (zoning and permitting), planning commission,
Comprehensive Land Plan, subdivision regulations, and participation in the NFIP.
The City of Rossville has enacted and enforces regulatory ordinances or regulations designed to promote
the public health, safety and general welfare of its citizenry, including building codes, subdivision
regulations, zoning and permitting ordinances, floodplain management ordinance (zoning and permitting),
and participation in the NFIP.
The City of Silver Lake has enacted and enforces regulatory ordinances or regulations designed to
promote the public health, safety and general welfare of its citizenry, including zoning and permitting
ordinances, planning commission, stormwater management plan, subdivision regulations, floodplain
management plan, Comprehensive Land Plan, and participation in the NFIP.
The City of Topeka has enacted and enforces regulatory ordinances or regulations designed to promote
the public health, safety and general welfare of its citizenry, including building codes, zoning and
permitting ordinances, planning commission, stormwater management plan, subdivision regulations,
floodplain management regulations (zoning and permitting), Comprehensive Land Plan, and participation
in the NFIP.
The City of Willard did not identify any regulatory functions that the town enforces for hazard mitigation,
but is a participant in the NFIP.
Zoning
Zoning is the traditional and most common tool available to local governments to control the use of land.
Kansas statutes grant municipalities and counties broad enabling authority to engage in zoning for land
use. Counties may also regulate inside municipal jurisdiction at the request of a municipality. The
statutory purpose for the grant of zoning power is to promote health, safety, morals, and the general
welfare of the community. Land “uses” controlled by zoning include the type of use (e.g., residential,
commercial, industrial) as well as minimum specifications for use such as lot size, building height and set
backs, density of population, etc.
Local governments are authorized to divide their territorial jurisdiction into districts, and to regulate and
restrict the erection, construction, reconstruction, alteration, repair or use of buildings, structures, or land
within those districts. Districts may include general use districts, overlay districts, special use districts or
conditional use districts. Zoning ordinances consist of maps and written text.
Shawnee County (unincorporated) and the Cities of Auburn, Rossville, Silver Lake, and Topeka have
Page 52
established zoning regulations for their communities. The City of Willard has not established zoning
regulations to guide the growth of the community.
Subdivision Regulations
Subdivision regulations control the division of land into parcels for the purpose of building development
or sale. Flood-related subdivision controls typically require that sub-dividers install adequate drainage
facilities and design water and sewer systems to minimize flood damage and contamination. They prohibit
the subdivision of land subject to flooding unless flood hazards are overcome through filling or other
measures, and they prohibit filling of floodway areas. Subdivision regulations require that subdivision
plans be approved prior to the division and/or sale of land. Subdivision regulations are a more limited tool
than zoning and only indirectly affect the type of use made of land and the specifications for structures
on that land.
Broad subdivision control authority resides with the county for areas outside of municipalities and
municipal extra-territorial planning jurisdictions. Subdivision is defined as all divisions of a tract or parcel
of land divided into two or more lots and all divisions involving new streets. Application and approval for
water meter installation play an important part in the planning process.
Shawnee County (unincorporated) adopted Subdivision Ordinances to enhance and manage growth in
their communities on March 24, 2004.
The Cities of Auburn, Rossville, Silver Lake, and Topeka enforce subdivision regulations to guide growth
in their communities.
The City of Willard has not adopted subdivision regulations for the jurisdiction.
Floodplain Regulation
In February of 1992, the Kansas General Assembly approved legislation for floodplain management
(K.S.A. 12-766, entitled “Floodplain Management”) authorizing the Department of Agriculture, Division
of Water Resources, as the primary department to oversee and approve local zoning regulation. The
regulation requires planning and approval to prevent inappropriate development in the one hundred-year
floodplain and to reduce flood hazards (Reference Kansas Statute for details).
The purpose of the law is threefold: (1) minimize the extent of floods by preventing obstructions that
inhibit water flow and increase flood height and damage; (2) prevent and minimize loss of life, injuries,
property damage and other losses in flood hazard areas; and (3) promote the public health, safety and
welfare of citizens of Kansas in flood hazard areas. The new statute affects local governments by
directing, not mandating, them to do the following: (1) manage planned growth; (2) adopt local
ordinances to regulate uses in flood hazard areas; (3) enforce those ordinances; (4) grant permits for use in
flood hazard areas that are consistent with the ordinance. The act also makes certain that local ordinances
meet the minimum requirements of participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).
The incentive for local governments adopting such ordinances is that they will afford their residents the
ability to purchase flood insurance through the NFIP. In addition, communities with such ordinances in
place will be given priority in the consideration of applications for loans and grants from the Clean Water
Revolving Loan and Grant Fund. Additional points may be awarded for actions taken toward the
implementation of a comprehensive land-use plan, such as the adoption of a zoning ordinance or any other
measure that significantly contributes to the implementation of the comprehensive land-use plan and the
flood management ordinance.
Shawnee County (unincorporated), and the Cities of Auburn, Rossville, Silver Lake, Willard, and Topeka
have adopted Floodplain Management Ordinances to monitor and restrict development in suspected
flood-prone areas, and all are participants in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).
Page 53
The County Flood Prevention and Protection Regulations (Shawnee County Resolution No. 89-35, dated
February 14, 1988) for Shawnee County (unincorporated) requires a floodplain development permit for all
proposed construction or other development, including the placement of manufactured homes in all lands
identified as unnumbered A zones on the Flood Insurance Rate Map and in Shawnee County Zoning
Districts identified as Floodway Overlay Districts (FW) and Floodway Fringe Overlay District (FF).
Permits may only be granted by the Shawnee County Zoning Administrator or its duly designated
representative.
Acquisition
The power of acquisition can be a useful tool for pursuing local mitigation goals. Local governments may
find the most effective method for completely “hazard-proofing” a particular piece of property or area is
to acquire the property (either in fee or a lesser interest, such as an easement), thus removing the property
from the private market and eliminating or reducing the possibility of inappropriate development
occurring. Kansas legislation empowers cities, towns, counties to acquire property for public purpose by
gift, grant, devise, bequest, exchange, purchase, lease or eminent domain (County Home Rule Powers,
K.S.A. 19-101, 19-101a, 19-212).
Shawnee County (unincorporated) and the Cities of Auburn, Rossville, Silver Lake, Topeka, and Willard
reported that they have not used acquisition as a local mitigation tool.
Taxation
The power to levy taxes and special assessments is an important tool delegated to local governments by
Kansas law. The power of taxation extends beyond merely the collection of revenue, and can have a
profound impact on the pattern of development in the community. Communities have the power to set
preferential tax rates for areas which are more suitable for development in order to discourage
development in otherwise hazardous areas.
Local units of government also have the authority to levy special assessments on property owners for all
or part of the costs of acquiring, constructing, reconstructing, extending or otherwise building or
improving flood control within a designated area. This can serve to increase the cost of building in such
areas, thereby discouraging development.
Because the usual methods of apportionment seem mechanical and arbitrary, and because the tax burden
on a particular piece of property is often quite large, the major constraint in using special assessments is
political. Special assessments seem to offer little in terms of control over land use in developing areas.
They can, however, be used to finance the provision of necessary services within municipal or county
boundaries. In addition, they are useful in distributing to the new property owners the costs of the
infrastructure required by new development.
Shawnee County (unincorporated), and the Cities of Auburn, Rossville, Silver Lake, Topeka, and Willard
levy property taxes, but do not use any preferential tax districts or special assessments for purposes of
mitigation planning, other than some public funds that are used for economic development and general
improvement, water/sewer/storm sewer improvement, and support of the recreation commission that
supports public use facilities.
Spending
The fourth major power that has been delegated from the Kansas General Assembly to local governments
is the power to make expenditures in the public interest. Hazard mitigation principles can be made a
routine part of all spending decisions made by the local government, including the adoption of annual
budgets and a Capital Improvement Plan (CIP).
A CIP is a schedule for the provision of municipal or county services over a specified period of time.
Capital programming, by itself, can be used as a growth management technique, with a view to hazard
Page 54
mitigation. By tentatively committing itself to a timetable for the provision of capital to extend services, a
community can control growth to some extent, especially in areas where the provision of on-site sewage
disposal and water supply are unusually expensive.
In addition to formulating a timetable for the provision of services, a local community can regulate the
extension of and access to services. A CIP that is coordinated with extension and access policies can
provide a significant degree of control over the location and timing of growth. These tools can also
influence the cost of growth. If the CIP is effective in directing growth away from environmentally
sensitive or high hazard areas, for example, it can reduce environmental costs.
Shawnee County (unincorporated) currently does not utilize capital improvement planning capabilities for
growth management in the County.
The Cities of Rossville and Willard currently do not utilize capital improvement planning capabilities for
growth management in their communities.
The Cities of Auburn, Silver Lake, and Topeka utilize capital improvement planning for growth
management of infrastructure.
3.10.3 Program Capability
This part of the capabilities assessment includes the identification and evaluation of existing plans,
policies, practices, programs, or activities that either increase or decrease the community’s vulnerability to
natural hazards. Positive activities, which decrease hazard vulnerability, should be sustained and
enhanced if possible. Negative activities which increase hazard vulnerability should be targeted for
re-consideration and be thoroughly addressed within the Mitigation Strategy for the entire Shawnee
County planning area.
National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP)
The decision on whether to join the NFIP is very important for a jurisdiction (community). There is no
Federal law that requires a jurisdiction to join the program, and participation is voluntary. A benefit of
participation is that the citizens are provided the opportunity to purchase flood insurance to protect
themselves against flood losses. Another consideration is that a jurisdiction that has been identified by
FEMA as being flood-prone and has not joined the NFIP within one year of being notified of being
mapped as flood-prone will be sanctioned.
Jurisdictions that regulate development in floodplains are able to participate in the National Flood
Insurance Program (NFIP). To participate in the NFIP the jurisdiction must adopt and enforce floodplain
management regulations that meet or exceed the minimum requirements of the program.
The jurisdiction must submit an application package that includes the following:
• The jurisdiction must make an Application for Participation in the NFIP (FEMA Form 81-64);
• The jurisdiction must adopt a Resolution of Intent, which indicates an explicit desire to participate
in the NFIP and a committment to recognize flood hazards and carry out the objectives of the
program;
• The jurisdiction must adopt and submit Floodplain Management Regulations that exceed the
minimum flood plain management requirements of the NFIP (Title 44 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (44 CFR) section 60.3);
• The jurisdiction's floodplain management regulations must be legally enforceable.
Page 55
Currently, 251 residents within the unincorporated area of the county have flood insurance with total
coverage of $48,539,500. Since 1978, 584 claims for a total of $769,352 have been made.
The City of Auburn passed a Floodplain Management Ordinance June 6, 2005 (Ordinance No. 258).
Currently, two residents have flood insurance with coverage of $420,000. The City of Auburn has not had
any insurance claims since 1978.
The City of Rossville passed Floodplain Management Ordinance No. 576 at an unknown date. Currently,
183 residents have flood insurance with coverage of $21,597,000. The City of Rossville has had 115
insurance claims since 1978 totaling $1,092,280.
The City of Silver Lake passed a Floodplain Management Ordinance on September 28th, 1987 (Ordinance
No. 1375). Currently, 14 residents have flood insurance with coverage of $2,394,900. The City of Silver
Lake has had three insurance claims since 1978 totaling $14,784.
The City of Topeka passed a Floodplain Management Ordinance on November 19, 1991 (Ordinance No.
16392). Currently, 497 residents have flood insurance with coverage of $71,692,500. The City of Topeka
has had 76 insurance claims since 1978 totaling $1,084,368.
The City of Willard passed a Floodplain Management Ordinance on July 21, 2009 (Ordinance No.
2009-04). Currently, two residents have flood insurance with coverage of $194,500. The City of Willard
has had two insurance claims since 1978 totaling $16,447.
USDs 450 and 437 reported that there were no school facilities within a floodplain, and did not identify a
need for flood insurance for their facilities.
USD 501 reported that there were no school facilities within a floodplain, but they do have flood
insurance for their facilities.
USD 321 reported that one of their schools located in Shawnee County, Rossville Grade School, is located
in a floodplain, and they have flood insurance for the school. USD 321 reported that their other school
located in Shawnee County, Rossville Jr./Sr. High School, was not located in a floodplain, and the District
does not have flood insurance for the Jr./Sr. High School.
USD 345 reported that, district-wide, they do have flood insurance for their buildings, with the exception
of the Elmont Elementary School, which is located within a floodplain in the City of Topeka. USD 345
reported that, due to cost restraints, the district does not plan on purchasing flood insurance for the school,
but reported that they have other insurance that would cover any flood damage to the school.
Washburn University reported that there were no university facilities within a floodplain, but they do have
flood insurance for their facilities.
Shawnee County (unincorporated) and the Cities of Auburn, Rossville, Silver Lake, Topeka, and Willard
are committed to continued participation and compliance with the National Flood Insurance Program
(NFIP).
Community Rating System Activities (CRS)
Insurance Program (NFIP). In return, the NFIP makes federally backed flood insurance policies available
Page 56
for properties in the jurisdiction. The Community Rating System (CRS) was implemented in 1990 as a
program for recognizing and encouraging jurisdiction floodplain management activities that exceed the
minimum NFIP standards. There are ten CRS classes. Class 1 requires the most credit points and earns the
largest premium reduction, while Class 10 receives no premium reduction. It is a long process to become
a participating CRS community, taking almost one year from application to acceptance. New CRS
communities are admitted only on October 1 and May 1 of each year.
Shawnee County (unincorporated) and the incorporated cities in Shawnee County do not currently
participate in the CRS. The City of Topeka was previously a participant in the CRS, but has
subsequently rescinded from the program.
Recent Hazard Mitigation Efforts
Shawnee County (unincorporated) has undertaken specific hazard mitigation efforts in the past.
In March of 2004 Shawnee County Emergency Management has provided FEMA endorsed plans for
construction of personal safe rooms.
Shawnee County Emergency Management has provided documents about the design and construction of
community shelters.
The Small Business Administration (SBA) and the Institute for Business & Home Safety (IBHS) in
conjunction with Shawnee County Emergency Management have provided the county with a Small
Business Disaster Recovery Planning Program.
The Cities of Auburn, Rossville, Silver Lake, Topeka, and Willard did not identify any previous hazard
mitigation efforts for their communities.
Emergency Operations Plan
Shawnee County has developed and adopted a Local Emergency Operations Plan (LEOP) that
pre-determines actions to be taken by government agencies and private organizations in response to an
emergency or disaster event. This plan was developed according to the requirements of the Kansas
Planning Standard which incorporates Federal requirements in place at the time of development. The Plan
was first adopted in 1987. The county recently updated their LEOP to current State and Federal standards.
For the most part, the Plan describes the county’s capabilities to respond to emergencies and establishes
the responsibilities and procedures for responding effectively to the actual occurrence of a disaster.
The plan does not specifically address hazard mitigation, but it does identify the specific operations to be
undertaken by the county to protect lives and property immediately before, during and immediately
following an emergency. There are no foreseeable conflicts between this Hazard Mitigation Plan and
Shawnee County’s Emergency Operations Plan, primarily because they are each focused on two separate
phases of emergency management (mitigation vs. preparedness and response).
The Cities of Auburn, Rossville, Silver Lake, Topeka, and Willard are not designated as "jurisdictions" as
defined by the State of Kansas and therefore have not developed and adopted an Emergency Operations
Plan. The cities rely on the Shawnee County Emergency Operations Plan in the event of an emergency or
disaster event.
Comprehensive Land Use Plan
A Comprehensive Land Use Plan is designed with the goal of balancing environmental protection with
economic development in all areas of the jurisdiction. This plan coupled with various other planning
efforts provides resources to local leaders to establish policies to guide the development of the
community. Annexation, expansion, and building projects are generally guided by these documents.
Shawnee County (unincorporated) and the Cities of Auburn, Silver Lake, and Topeka have adopted
Comprehensive Land Plans for their communities. The land plans are meant to manage growth through
Page 57
past and present research and conventional city planning principles to guide the future development of the
communities
The Cities of Rossville and Willard have not developed Comprehensive Land Plans for their communities.
Shawnee County (unincorporated) and all incorporated communities support the use of best management
practices recommendations of the United States Soil Conservation Service.
Floodplain Management Plan
A Floodplain Management Plan (FMP) is a future-oriented approach to planning in flood risk areas. It’s a
pre-disaster planning approach that is required by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
to continue to participate in the National Flood Insurance Program's Community Rating System (CRS).
Shawnee County (unincorporated) does regulate new improvements through Flood Prevention and
Protection Regulations, Shawnee County Resolution No. 89-35, that was adopted February 14, 1988.
The Cities of Auburn, Rossville, Silver Lake, Topeka, and Willard do not currently have comprehensive
floodplain management plans for purposes of the National Flood Insurance Program's Community Rating
System (CRS). However, this Hazard Mitigation Plan is intended to fulfill the CRS planning requirement
when it becomes adopted, and will be maintained as such.
Stormwater Management Plan
The purpose of the Stormwater Management Plan is to comprehensively address how to meet the many
different but related regulations, adopted plans and programs, and policies that affect urban stormwater,
flooding and associated water-dependent resources.
Shawnee County (unincorporated) does not apply stormwater management provisions through their
subdivision regulations. Stormwater management is addressed by Shawnee County Kansas Code Article
VI. Sec. 23-401 but pertains to the regulation of drainage pollutants and compliance with the National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) rather than actual stormwater drainage regulations.
The City of Silver Lake has a Storm Drainage Master Plan, dated 1993, that is specific to storm drainage
areas within the city limits of Silver Lake. The plan is designed to provide the City with assistance in
making decisions concerning improvements and maintenance of the existing storm drain system.
The City of Topeka has a NPDES Stormwater Management Program (SMP) document, dated 2007, that
identified revisions to the previous SMP as required by the City's NPDES Stormwater Discharge Permit
and Federal NPDES permit. The six controls addressed by the SMP included public education and
outreach; public participation and involvement; illicit discharge detection and elimination; construction
site stormwater runoff control; post-construction stormwater management in new development and
redevelopment; and pollution prevention for municipal operations.
The Cities of Auburn, Rossville, and Willard have not adopted stormwater management plans for their
jurisdictions.
3.10.4 Fiscal Capability
Shawnee County (unincorporated) has reported that they have limited fiscal capability to implement
hazard mitigation strategies due to the general economic, environment, and budget pressures in the
county. For fiscal year 2007, Shawnee County’s adopted budgeted expenditures were $112,509,010. The
majority of these funds are obligated to basic county Public Safety (Sheriff, Department of Corrections,
Emergency Management). Shawnee County receives 64.65% of its revenues through Ad Valorem taxes
with the remaining revenues coming from various other sources.
Shawnee County (unincorporated) reported that they could not afford to provide the local match for the
Page 58
existing hazard mitigation grant programs if the State of Kansas did not do so itself. Considering the
current budget deficits at both the state and local government level in Kansas, combined with the apparent
increased reliance on local accountability by the federal government, this is a significant and growing
concern for Shawnee County.
The City of Auburn has reported that they may have fiscal capability to implement the hazard mitigation
strategies, dependent upon the cost of such strategies and city council approval. For fiscal year 2008, the
City of Auburn's adopted budgeted expenditures were $2,885,485. The majority of these funds are
obligated to personnel services, contracted services, commodities, and capital outlay.
The City of Rossville has reported that they may have the fiscal capability to implement hazard mitigation
strategies. For fiscal year 2008, the City of Rossville's adopted budgeted expenditures were $1,182,681.
The majority of these funds are obligated to general expenditures, special lighting and highway
expenditures, and water, sewer, and solid waste services.
The City of Silver Lake has reported that they may have the fiscal capability to implement hazard
mitigation strategies. For fiscal year 2008, the City of Silver Lake's adopted budgeted expenditures were
$870,000. The majority of these funds are obligated to general expenditures, park improvements, and
water, sewer, and solid waste services.
The City of Topeka has reported that they may have the fiscal capability to implement hazard mitigation
strategies. For fiscal year 2009, the City of Topeka's adopted budgeted expenditures were $207,400,000.
These funds are obligated to employee salaries and benefits, goods and services, community grants, debt
service, depreciation of assets, and miscellaneous expenditures.
The City of Willard has reported that they may have the fiscal capability to implement hazard mitigation
strategies, dependent upon the actual share percentage amount. For fiscal year 2008, the City of Willard's
adopted budgeted expenditures were $11,163. The majority of these funds are obligated to general
expenditures and the highway fund.
USD 321 is funded through local taxation. For the two schools located in Shawnee County, the county is
responsible for property tax valuation and collection in support of operation of the public school system
based on public education levy. Taxes are paid to the state then re-distributed back to the counties based
on State formula. These funds generally maintain buildings, provide funds for capital projects, and also
include paying salaries, purchasing textbooks and supplies. The operating budget for the district in 2009
was $18,803,701. USD 321 estimates that it could possibly afford to provide the local match for the
existing hazard mitigation grant programs through bond issues, if the State of Kansas did not provide a
means to obtain the matching funds.
USD 345 is funded through local taxation. Shawnee County is responsible for property tax valuation and
collection in support of operation of the public school system based on public education levy. Taxes are
paid to the state then re-distributed back to the counties based on State formula. These funds generally
maintain buildings, provide funds for capital projects, and also include paying salaries, purchasing
textbooks and supplies. The operating budget for the district in 2009 was $38,232,805. USD 345
estimates that it could possibly afford to provide the local match for the existing hazard mitigation grant
programs through bond issues, if the State of Kansas did not provide a means to obtain the matching
funds.
Page 59
textbooks and supplies. The operating budget for the district in 2009 was $75,314,424. USD 437
funds.
textbooks and supplies. The operating budget for the district in 2008 was $23,000,000. USD 450 does not
believe that it could afford to provide the local match for the existing hazard mitigation grant programs
through bond issues or other resources.
textbooks and supplies. The operating budget for the district in 2007-2008 was $160,973,429. USD 501
funds.
Washburn University has reported that they have limited fiscal capability to implement hazard mitigation
strategies due to limited budget capabilities, and may be able to provide the local match for the existing
hazard mitigation grant programs through bond issues, dependent upon the price and scope of projects, if
the State of Kansas did not provide a means to obtain the matching funds. For fiscal year 2008-2009,
Washburn University’s (including Washburn Tech) adopted budgeted expenditures were $92,862,699.
Small Impoverished Community Criteria
Under the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000, FEMA has made special accommodations for "small and
impoverished communities", who will be eligible for a 90% Federal share, 10% non-Federal cost split for
projects funded through the Pre-Disaster Mitigation Grant Program. The community must meet all of the
following criteria:
• Must be a community of 3,000 or fewer individuals that is identified by the state as a rural
community, and is not a remote area within the corporate boundaries of a larger city;
• Must be economically disadvantaged, with residents having an average per capita annual income
not exceeding 80 percent of the national per capita income, based on best available data;
• Must have a local unemployment rate that exceeds by one percentage point or more the most
recently reported, average yearly national unemployment rate;
• Must meet any other factors as determined by the state/Indian tribe/territory in which the
community is located.
Each jurisdiction should consider potential eligibility under this criteria when developing project grant
applications and funding alternatives.
3.10.5 Political Willpower
Many Shawnee County residents are becoming more knowledgeable about the potential hazards that their
jurisdiction faces, and in recent years, they have become more familiar with the practices and principles of
mitigation. The County's adoption and participation in the National Flood Insurance Program and the
steps taken to update emergency operations programs in the county provide some insight into the
communities desire to comply with mitigation policy and procedure. It is strongly believed that such
tangible changes within the county have created a greater sense of awareness among local residents, and
Page 60
that hazard mitigation is a concept that they are beginning to readily accept and support.
Because of this belief, coupled with Shawnee County’s history with natural disasters, it is expected that
the current and future political climates are favorable for supporting and advancing future hazard
mitigation strategies.
Page 61
4.0 Risk Assessment
This risk assessment identifies the natural hazards affecting Shawnee County. It provides information on
the history and severity of hazards, evaluates the possible effects, identifies vulnerable populations and
assets (buildings, critical facilities and essential infrastructure), and estimates potential losses that might
occur. This risk assessment process identifies the most critical problems and issues--identified as "high"
and "moderate"--that require mitigation actions. In summary, the assessment identifies the hazards,
assigns a likelihood value, evaluates vulnerability, and then calculates an overall risk index value.
The goal of risk analysis is to formulate an assessment of the probability of occurrence for a hazardous
event in tandem with its anticipated severity. Probability or likelihood of occurrence is expressed in terms
of events over time. Occurrence probability is determined from actual historical data when available.
Otherwise, it may be described in relative terms (negligible, low, moderate, and high). Severity is
expressed in relative terms of damage, injury, and overall residual impact resulting from the event.
Severity is determined from utilizing established rating systems (e.g., National Fire Protection Association
(NFPA) Material Factors, Fujita Scale, Mercalli/Richter Scale, etc.) or may be derived from subjective
criteria based on justifiable assumptions. Worst-case scenarios can be assumed. Elaborate quantitative
release probabilities are generally not required. Risk analysis should focus on creating reasonable
estimates based on the best available data.
Primary components:
• Probability that a release will occur and any unusual environmental conditions, such as flood plain
areas, seismic activity, or potential for simultaneous occurrence of emergency incidents (e.g.,
flooding or fire hazards associated with the release of hazardous materials).
• Classification of potential harm to humans (acute, delayed, chronic) and identification of high-risk
groups.
• Classification of potential harm and damage to commercial livestock (when applicable).
• Classification of potential damage to property (temporary, repairable, permanent).
• Classification of potential damage to the environment (recoverable, permanent).
4.1 Identification of Hazards
State Hazards Review
When considering the hazards identified for Shawnee County, the State Mitigation Plan was referenced as
a comparison to the identified county hazards. The hazards identified on the State list were
compared/eliminated based on the county-specific hazard analysis.
TABLE 4.1 (1) STATE OF KANSAS HAZARDS LIST (Alphabetically)
Agricultural Infestation
Dam and Levee
Failure
Drought
Earthquake
Expansive soils
Extreme Temperatures
Flood
Fog
Hailstorm
Hazardous Materials
Land Subsidence
Lightning
Major Disease Outbreak
Radiological
Soil Erosion and Dust
Terrorism/Agri-Terrorism/Civil
Disorder
Tornado
Utility/Infrastructure
Failure
Wildfire
Windstorm
Winter Storm
The State, County, and local plans do not address the FEMA listed hazards in Table 4.1 (2) because they
Page 62
do not exist or threaten the jurisdictions of Kansas. As an example, the topography of Kansas does not
contain mountainous areas which would support the possibility of avalanche; the county is not adjacent to
a coastline.
TABLE 4.1 (2) NON-PROFILED HAZARDS
*Thunderstorm
Avalanche
Coastal Erosion
Coastal Storm
Hurricane
Tsunami
Volcano
*FOOTNOTE: Thunderstorm, as a specific event, is not included in this analysis. Thunderstorms are
common occurrences in Shawnee County, but are considered low-risk due to their typical weak intensity.
However, this plan does address the more significant and severe effects of thunderstorms (i.e., severe
thunderstorms can include lightning, hail, flood, and tornadoes, which can co-exist with microbursts) as
stand-alone events in this report.
The jurisdictions comprising this plan have chosen to use the 58 years of data available from NOAA’s
National Weather Service (NWS) in order to identify hazards which have had an impact on a local basis.
The advantage to using this database is that it provides location, extent, and probability for documented
and reported events over the 58 year period. The intent is to compare the hazards to the State Hazard list
and then to apply extent and probability in order to prioritize and rank the hazards.
It should be recognized that the NOAA data for the overall multi-jurisdictional area did not document or
report events for the following State listed hazards. The MPC found no local data to document or report
on these hazards; estimated the overall probability as low; or found that they are covered by other
circumstances or plans as noted below. Consequently, the MPC eliminated them as hazards to address in
the plan.
Agricultural Infestation - The MPC found no jurisdiction specific data to support this hazard as a High or
Moderate type. Generally, local infestations are mitigated by the land owner with limited other assistance.
Livestock related infestation would be covered by the County Foreign Animal Disease Plan.
Soil Erosion and Dust – No documented or reported significant events. Related crop or agro damage was
found to be covered by private insurance.
Expansive soils; Land Subsidence - The MPC found no jurisdiction specific data to support this hazard as
a High or Moderate type. Geology would not indicate a significant issue.
Extreme Temperatures – NOAA data for Excessive Heat has been matched to this hazard and is addressed
in the plan as such.
Drought - NOAA data for drought has been matched to this hazard and is addressed in the plan as such.
Fog - NOAA data for fog has been matched to this hazard and is addressed in the plan as such.
Page 63
Hazardous Materials – The MPC found that this potential hazard is addressed by the County Local
Emergency Operations Plan (LEOP) and other requirements of SARA Title III. Preparation, mitigation,
and funding is addressed by the LEOP.
Lightning - NOAA data for TSTM (Thunderstorm) Wind has been matched to this hazard and is
addressed in the plan as such.
Major Disease Outbreak – The MPC found that this potential hazard is addressed by the County Public
Health Plan (CPHP) and its continuing development. Preparation, mitigation, and funding is addressed by
the CPHP.
Radiological - No documented or reported significant events. No reported facilities in the jurisdictions
with reportable quantities per SARA Title III. This hazard would also be addressed as part of the Local
Emergency Operations plan when identified.
Windstorm - NOAA data for High Wind has been matched to this hazard and is addressed in the plan as
such.
Flood, Flash Flood, Heavy Rain, and Urban Flood are addressed as Flood for planning purposes.
NOAA also documents and reports several other potential hazards in a more detailed fashion. This would
include TSTM Wind, High Wind, Blizzard, Heavy Snow, Extreme Wind Chill, and Winter Storm. After
reviewing the NOAA definitions, the MPC elected to address TSTM Wind and High Wind as TSTM
Wind; and to address Winter Storm, Blizzard, Exteme Wind Chill, Ice Storm, and Heavy Snow as Winter
Storm. Where provided, the table data for all is listed for informational purposes and future planning
consideration.
The following table is a cumulative view of the overall events that were documented and reported for
Shawnee County over the 58 year period. This table also summarizes the extent, or severity, and allows
for calculation of probability. Although shown here for purposes of listing all potential hazards, it is the
basis for the balance of this section including the vulnerability discussion.
Please note the following with regard to the following Tables and Figures:
• Magnitude classifications for tornadoes are based upon the accepted intensity scales for each.
Other hazards are classified by their maximum potential severity or as otherwise deemed
appropriate.
• The following tables illustrate the results from applying the risk-rating algorithm for analysis and
hazard profile, and form the basis of risk for each type of potential hazard event identified in
Shawnee County.
• The hazards Dam/Levee, Terrorism/Agri-Terrorism/Civil Disorder, and Utility Failure are State
mandated hazards which must be considered and addressed in all Kansas plans. Table 4.1 (3)
indicates no documented or reported events in the NOAA database. Any documentation of events
outside this database will be discussed in the Hazard Profile. Since the MPC has elected to address
only hazards ranked as High and Moderate, these hazards were given a Risk Rating of 1, which
would cause them to rank in the Moderate category. This will also incorporate the hazards into the
review process over the next five years.
Page 64
TABLE 4.1 (3) SHAWNEE COUNTY RISK RATING
Event
#
Events
Likelihood
(Li)
Severity
Index
(Avg)
Severity
Index
(Avg)
Severity
Index
(Avg)
Severity
Index (Avg)
Severity Index (Avg)
Severity Rating
Risk Rating
Events/
Years
M
D
I
Pd
Cd
Sr=M+D+ I+Pd+Cd
R=(Sr) x (L)
* Wildfire
1636
31.46
0.5
0.5
0.5
0
0.5
2
62.92
Hail
390
7.36
3
0.5
0.5
1
1
6
44.15
Winter
Storm
62
4.13
3.5
1
1
2.5
1
9
37.20
TSTM
Wind
342
6.58
1
0.5
0.5
1.5
0.5
4
26.31
Flood
51
3.92
2.5
0.5
0.5
1.5
0.5
5.5
21.58
Tornado
38
0.67
2
1
2
3
1
9
6.00
Excessive
Heat
12
0.80
2
1
1
0.5
0.5
5
4.00
Drought
4
0.27
4
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
6
1.60
Fog
9
0.60
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
2.5
1.50
(M)
Dam/Levee
0
0.00
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.00
(M)
Terrorism /
AT / CD**
0
0.00
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.00
(M) Utility
Failure
0
0.00
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.00
**
Earthquake
25
0.23
1
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
2.5
0.68
Table Footnotes:
*Reported events and likelihood estimates are based on averages from wildfire exponential smoothing of
Kansas Fire Marshal data.
**Reported events and likelihood estimates are based on KSGS data for earthquake, and include an
analysis for the State average of occurrences.
M = State-mandated planning hazard. (Dam data is provided by the State of Kansas Department of
Agriculture-Water Resources, and provides dam “classifications” based on potential downstream damage,
and is not an evaluation of dam condition or determination of “likelihood”.)
Page 65
4.2 Risk and Vulnerability
Due to the limitations of capabilities, discussed in other sections, and the overall desire to focus on the key
hazards, the participating jurisdictions chose to rank or prioritize the local hazards. As most jurisdictions
are just beginning the overall mitigation planning process and are cognizant of the need to focus the
available time and effort, the following methods were used to produce the overall priority rankings of the
local hazards. Each year the jurisdictions will review and update its available resources and evaluate the
benefit of including low or negligible hazards.
The availability of detailed, consistent, and reliable data provided by the National Climatic Data Center
(NCDC) allows the calculation of relative risk values for natural weather events. A standardized set of
data is routinely tracked by the NCDC for an established inventory of individual natural hazard types.
NCDC has tracked this type of data for over 58 years, and has set the standard for developing likelihood
and severity for damage events. For this reason, a similar algorithm has been established for other hazards
identified in this plan to formulate a hazard risk rating to normalize risk comparison.
The columns in Table 4.1 (3) record information regarding the frequency, and impact (or strength) of the
particular natural event and include the following:
• Likelihood (occurrences over time)
• Magnitude (in terms of Fujita Scale, hail diameter, or wind speed)
• Deaths
• Injuries
• Property damage
• Crop damage
This information provides the basis for establishing likelihood and severity ratings. The rate of occurrence
is established from the data record time interval and the number of events recorded. These primary
factors of severity and likelihood of occurrence provide the basis for calculating hazard risk.
As published in Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment by Geoff Wells (copyright 1996), a
reasonable determination of risk may be obtained through the combined calculation of measured severity
and the likelihood of occurrence for any particular hazard. Risk Rating can then be defined in the
following equation:
Risk Rating (RR) = Severity Index (Si) X Likelihood of Occurrence (Li)
Risk Ratings were calculated for individual weather events and are presented in column 10 of Table 4.1
(3) – Shawnee County Risk Rating. This table combines the categories of likelihood and vulnerability to
obtain the risk rating for each potential hazard.
The following table and figures have been completed to provide a summary of hazard events analysis, and
present a broad profile of each hazard relative to one another. Determining the risk rating establishes a
numeric ranking for each hazard relative to one another. The risk-rating process is then simplified into the
risk index, Table 4.3 (1), which leads to conclusions on hazard risk and forms a basis for prioritizing
future mitigation efforts as outlined in this plan.
The columns for Table 4.1 (3) are defined per the following two Figures. These assigned values are taken
directly from the NWS data and allow for a direct calculation of overall risk by providing severity and
likelihood.
The column labeled Severity Rating, or M, in Table 4.1 (3) is defined by Figure 4.2 (1) which is itself
Page 66
titled Event Magnitude Ratings (M) for natural events. Each event has been assigned a severity rating for
magnitude based on the probable impact of the event. Gradational rating systems were employed to allow
a more precise determination of magnitude. Where possible, gradational rating systems were developed
from widely accepted rating systems currently in use. Gradational rating systems have been established
for the following natural events: hail, wind, seismic, and wildfire. Magnitudes for hail events were
developed from an assessment of the NCDC severe weather event database and are based on hailstone
diameter. Magnitudes for tornado and high wind events are drawn directly from the Fujita Scale and are
based on wind speed ranges. Magnitudes for seismic events were assigned relative to the Modified
Mercali Index rating system which establishes earthquake magnitudes relative to damage thresholds.
Magnitudes for wildfire events were generated through an assessment of the State Fire Marshall Office
database and are based on financial loss in terms of appraised value per acre burned.
The columns labeled (D) Death, (I) Injury, (Pd) Property Damage, and (Cd) Crop Damage in Table 4.1 (3)
are defined by Figure 4.2 (2) Severity Ratings. All of these categories are common parameters to natural
events and are typically captured when recording and reporting natural event data. Death and injury
indices are measured in terms of population impacted. Property and crop damage indices are measured in
terms of financial loss (dollars). The gradational rating system for population and assets severity indices
was established through evaluation of severity categories published in the Geoff Wells text, Hazard
Identification and Risk Assessment (1996). These values are assigned based on the parameters listed in
the body of the matrix which is in the last column.
Table 4.1 (3) uses all this data to calculate the Likelihood, total a Severity value, and then uses the
formula of Likelihood X Severity = Risk to produce a risk or vulnerability value for each local hazard.
Page 67
The data in images 4.2 (1) and 4.2 (2) are either NOAA provided ratings or calculated ratings.
FIGURE 4.2 (1) MAGNITUDE RATINGS
FIGURE 4.2 (2) SEVERITY RATINGS
4.2.1 Likelihood of Occurrence
The data record time interval is determined from the difference between the beginning and ending dates of
the record inventory. For natural hazard data, the data record time varies from approximately 15 years to
58 years. (EFM updates its overall NCDC database every three years.) Table 4.1(3) provides the data
Page 68
record time in the “#Years” column. The total number of individual weather events can be extracted from
the inventory of data. Given this information, likelihood of occurrence (in units of events/year) for a
particular weather event is calculated as the quotient of the number of weather events as the numerator
and data record time interval as the denominator. Similar data is extrapolated for other hazards.
Likelihood of Occurrence (Li) = Number of Events / data record time interval (years).
Risk ratings for other types of hazards may be determined on the availability of historical frequency data
and a subjective assessment of predicted severity.
E-Fm updates the national weather data on a three-year basis. In some cases the reported number of
hazard events in E-Fm’s Risk Rating Table may vary from data found on the NCDC Storm Event
Reporting Tool.
The NCDC also reports certain types of storm events, such as blizzards, in regions or “zones”, and as a
consequence does not attribute certain hazard events to individual counties. To increase the accuracy of
individual county event reporting, E-Fm’s algorithm adjusts for the zone factor and attributes the events to
each county that is included in the zone.
4.2.2 Severity Rating
Severity rating tables were established for each of the standard data categories tracked by the NCDC and
assigned a lower limit of 0.5 and an upper limit of 5.0. From these tables, severity ratings were derived for
each of the possible natural events. The severity ratings are identified as follows:
• Magnitude Sr (M)
• Death Sr (D)
• Injury Sr (I)
• Property damage Sr (Pd)
• Crop damage Sr (Cd)
The Severity Index (Si) for a particular event (Column 9 in Table 4.1(3) is calculated as the sum of the
five individual Severity ratings (Sr)).
4.2.3 Other Likelihood and Severity Values
Kansas Wildfire Risk Rating Procedure
The State Fire Marshal’s Office has required counties to formally report wild/rangeland fires since 1997.
A summary of the database, by county, was provided to E-Fm for use in developing a severity and risk
rating for this hazard event. Relatively little historical data was available, making a comparative analysis
to other hazard events difficult. It was necessary to develop an events/time baseline for comparison of
wildfire to other reported hazard events. To obtain the desired results, the consultant normalized existing
data to more closely resemble reporting patterns found in the NCDC database, and expands the time
element of the wildfire reporting data. Our target was to predict data for the time period of approximately
1950 to 2002.
The Plan Author compiled a state-wide database from all reported NCDC weather events since 1950 to
develop the annual reporting events for the State of Kansas. This data was then sorted by year and
analyzed utilizing exponential smoothing of the data. This is an accepted methodology to produce a
smoothed Time Series. Comparatively, in single moving averages, the past observations are weighted
equally, exponential smoothing assigns exponentially decreasing weights as the observations get older. In
other words, recent observations are given relatively more weight in forecasting than the older
observations. Based on the review of weather data, the assumption that wildfire reporting would follow a
similar pattern was adopted.
Page 69
In the case of moving averages, the weights assigned to the observations are the same and are equal to
1/N. In exponential smoothing, however, there are one or more smoothing parameters to be determined
(or estimated) and these choices determine the weights assigned to the observations. For this analysis,
0.25 was used as the damping factor to eliminate unwanted cyclical and irregular variations. The result
was a representative curve which could be used to predict past reporting of wildfire data.
The seven years of county data was averaged and used as the maximum value on the curve. The
exponential curve was applied using this maximum value and individual yearly data were produced. This
process provided a longer reporting period which effectively lowered the overall likelihood value and
placed the risk rating for wildfires in a more usable range.
For more information regarding risk and vulnerability analysis reference Shawnee County’s Hazard
Analysis.
Seismic Risk Rating
Advances in technology, coupled with numerous federal, state and local research institutions have
increased our awareness and understanding of seismic events through monitoring and tracking seismic
activity across the country. There are two generally accepted methods for measuring the strength of a
seismic event. The Richter scale is the most common method used by seismologists to quantify the
“magnitude” of an earthquake. The modified Mercalli Scale (MMI) provides a semi-quantitative method
for expressing earthquake “intensity” and is based on the type and amount of damage caused by the
earthquake and the observations of people within the area where the activity is felt. By comparative
conversion of the Richter and Mercalli measurements, in conjunction with past-recorded events and the
seismic zone rating map of the United States, it possible to develop relative probability of occurrence for
seismic events in tandem with its anticipated severity.
An objective assessment of this information will be made to determine the best available data for risk
calculation. Likelihood of Occurrence will be measured in units of events/year. In cases where local or
regional data is unavailable, state averages for occurrence frequencies will be used. Risk ratings for other
hazards may be based on the availability of historical frequency data and a subjective assessment of
predicted severity. Seismic event (earthquake) likelihood is based on statewide recorded events across a
database timeframe of ~110 years.
Page 70
4.3 Risk and Vulnerability Index
In order to accomplish the final relative priority ranking, a statistical analysis of the Risk Ranking values
was undertaken for a representative number of values from across the state. The analysis was used to
produce quadrants which could be used to identify the highest ranking through the lowest ranking hazards.
The graphing of the data produced the normal curve of values and the three interior break points
(changes in the slope of the curve) were identified. The analysis suggested the following values as
dividing lines to form four ranking quadrants. The jurisdictions agreed to use the following definitions
based on the Risk Ranking value analysis.
• High Risk = 5.0 or greater
• Moderate Risk = 1.00 to 5.0
• Low Risk = 0.76 - 0.99
• Negligible Risk = less than 0.75
Risk Index: reference the methodology section for greater detail in development of hazard risk-ratings for
the identified hazards. For ease of interpretation in this format the Hazard Risk Index Ratings are based on
either:
• 1 = “High Risk”
• 2 = “Moderate Risk”
• 3 = "Low Risk"
• 4 = "Negligible"
TABLE 4.3 (1) SHAWNEE HAZARD RISK INDEX
Hazard
Relative Risk Rating
Hazard Risk Index Rating
Wildfire
62.92
1
Hail
44.15
1
Winter Storm
37.2
1
TSTM Wind
26.31
1
Flood
21.58
1
Tornado
6
1
Excessive Heat
4
2
Drought
1.6
2
Fog
1.5
2
Dam/Levee
1
2
Terrorism / AT / CD**
1
2
Utility Failure
1
2
Earthquake
0.68
4
Table Footnote: M - State Mandated
4.3.1 Shawnee County Hazards Index
In many cases, the hazards common to the State Plan and Shawnee County's hazard assessment were
determined to be low or negligible risk, and as a consequence, are not included as primary planning risks
for the county. The focus of this mitigation plan is natural hazards, and also includes State-required
planning hazards for Terrorism/Agri-terrorism/Civil Disorder, and Dams/Levees planning requirements.
Shawnee County, Kansas, is faced with the following prioritized hazards and potential hazardous events.
For the purposes of this planning event, Shawnee County has elected to only address the hazards
classified as “High” and "Moderate”, based on severity and frequency of occurrence. The results are
presented in the following table:
Page 71
Table 4.3.1 (1) NATURAL HAZARDS PRIORITIZATION (High, Moderate, Low, Negligible)
High Risk
Moderate Risk
Wildfire
Excessive Heat
Hail
Drought
Winter Storm
Fog
TSTM Wind
Dam/Levee
Flood
Tornado
Utility Failure
Low Risk
Negligible Risk
Earthquake
4.3.2 Conclusions on Hazard Risk
Based upon the completion of the hazard identification and analysis, hazards of significance have been
classified as “high” or “moderate”. A majority of these hazards impact the entire county and are
considered multijurisdictional hazards. FEMA and the State of Kansas has further delineated
Terrorism/Agri-Terrorism/Civil Disorder, Dams/Levees, and Wildfire as hazards that vary across the
planning area, and will be addressed as such in this plan. These classifications will be used as a basis for
concentrating and prioritizing current and future mitigation efforts.
A summary of hazards is provided in Table 4.3.2 (1) for jurisdictions included in the Shawnee County
Plan.
Page 72
TABLE 4.3.2 (1) SHAWNEE COUNTY HAZARDS
SUMMARY
Shawnee (UnInc.)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Auburn
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Rossville
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Silver Lake
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Willard
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Kaw Valley USD 321
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Seaman USD 345
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
Washburn University
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Topeka
X
X
X
X
X
Page 73
4.4 Moderate / High Hazard Profiles
A descriptive analysis follows with the general hazard profile, history and jurisdiction impacts, location
and extents, and probability of occurrence for the significant hazards identified in Shawnee County.
Historical records are used to help identify the level of risk, with the methodological assumption that the
data sources cited are reliable and accurate.
Due to its unique geographical setting, Shawnee County is vulnerable to a wide array of natural and
manmade phenomena that pose a threat to life and property. This multi-jurisdictional mitigation plan is
developed to address only the High and Moderate hazards classified in the hazard/risk assessment. Other
hazards identified during the assessment which were classified as “Low” or “Negligible” were statistically
eliminated from priority planning based on the probability (likelihood) and vulnerability (severity) of
these hazard events.
Shawnee County Profiles
Some hazards common to the State Plan and Shawnee County's hazard assessment were determined to be
low or negligible risk, and as a consequence, are not included as primary planning risks for the county.
The focus of this mitigation plan is natural hazards, and also includes FEMA and State required planning
hazards for Flood, Terrorism/Agri-terrorism/Civil Disorder, and Dams/Levees planning requirements.
In some instances, local jurisdictions have identified unique hazards not identified at the county level.
These hazards are profiled by the specific jurisdiction.
Shawnee County and Surrounding Counties
Page 74
4.4.1 MultiJurisdictional Hazard Profiles
Page 75
Utility Failure
Hazard Profile
The concept of “cascading hazards” relates to the propensity of a primary or source hazard to spawn or
generate additional hazards, commonly known as cascading hazards. On the first level, primary hazards
can bring about secondary hazards. Subsequently, secondary hazards may escalate into tertiary hazards
and so forth. The extent of cascading hazards is potentially limitless.
Power failure can be defined as any interruption or loss of electrical service due to disruption of power
transmission caused by natural hazards (weather events), accident, sabotage, or equipment failure. A
significant power failure is defined as power incident which would require the involvement of the local
and/or state emergency management organizations to coordinate provision of food, water, heating, shelter,
etc. Typically, a power outage is a cascading effect of a larger natural hazard.
In terms of electric power, the City of Topeka, for the most part, and rural portions of Shawnee County
are serviced by Westar Energy and Kaw Valley Electric.
This hazard deals with the loss of electric power supplied by the local utility providers for potential loss of
electricity during severe storms, or ice accumulation on lines causing large areas of power outages within
Shawnee County.
Additionally, this hazard could also cover very high levels of power usage during a severe heat wave that
causes a utility company to resort to a series of rolling blackouts in which certain areas would be
purposely shut off from power during peak usage times for four to five hours or more.
The failure of larger main electric feeder lines can also result in large area power outages.
History and Jurisdiction Impacts
The State of Kansas is part of one of four interdependent power grids (Eastern Interconnection) spanning
the United States and Quebec, Canada. The electric power grid is a highly interconnected and dynamic
system of over 3,000 public and private utilities and rural cooperatives. These utilities have incorporated a
wide variety of information and telecommunications systems to automate the control of electric power
generation, transmission, and distribution. Due to this interconnectivity, small outages can sometimes
create problems on a large scale.
In recent years, regional electric power grid system failures in the western and northeastern United States
have demonstrated that similar failures could happen in Kansas. This vulnerability is most appropriately
addressed on a multi-state regional or national basis. Another recent concern that could affect the
functioning of utilities and infrastructure is cybersecurity.
For the most part, it appears severe winter storms create the most widespread threat to electrical
transmission failure in Shawnee County.
Location and Extents
Electrical power outages/blackouts or loss of transmission lines are hard to quantify, and are generally
unpredictable in nature. Additionally, power outages could have a county-wide impact.
Probability of Future Occurrences
Statistical data for analysis at the county level was non-existent, so Shawnee County relied on the data
provided in the State of Kansas Mitigation Plan in conjunction with Winter Storm Events to quantify this
hazard. This hazard’s probability for significant events in Shawnee County is considered to be moderate.
Although we can extract data and probability of occurrence from historical information, the risk of a
Page 76
severe event occurring and the location of damage appear to be a random event.
Page 77
Drought
Hazard Profile
Drought can be defined as a period of abnormally dry weather sufficiently long enough to cause serious
effects on agriculture and other activities in the affected area.
Categories of Drought
Droughts can be grouped into four basic categories based on the severity and impact of the occurrence.
These are meteorological, hydrological, agricultural, and socioeconomic. Since they are largely
categorized by impact, it is possible, if not likely, that these conditions could exist simultaneously.
Meteorological drought is defined solely on the basis of the degree of dryness, expressed as a relationship
between actual precipitation and the expected average or normal amount, based on monthly, seasonal, or
annual time scales. A meteorological drought description considers only the physical at tributes of the
event and not the impact on social or environmental systems.
The other three categories consider both the meteorology of the event as well as the various impacts.
Hydrological drought is associated with the effects of periods of precipitation (including snowfall) short
falls on surface or subsurface water supply (e.g., streamflow, 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 from 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 behind the occurrence of meteorological and agricultural droughts. I t takes longer for
precipitation deficiencies to show up in components of the hydrological system such as soil moisture,
streamflow, and ground water and reservoir levels. As a result, these impacts are also 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 lake and stream levels may not affect fisheries or recreational uses for many months.
Agricultural drought links various characteristics of meteorological (or hydrological) drought to
agricultural impacts. This view of drought focuses on precipitation shortages, differences between actual
and potential evapo-transpiration, soil water deficits, and reduced groundwater or reservoir levels, and
their effects on agricultural product ion. 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. The definition of agricultural drought accounts for the variable susceptibility of
crops during different stages of crop development, from emergence to maturity.
Socioeconomic definitions of drought associate the supply and demand of economic goods with elements
of meteorological, hydrological, and agricultural drought . The supply of many economic goods, such as
water, forage, food grains, fish, and hydroelectric power, depends on weather. Because of the natural
variability of climate, water supply is ample in some years but unable to meet human and environmental
needs in other years. Socioeconomic drought occurs when the demand for an economic good exceeds
supply as a result of a weather- related short fall in water supply.
Heat Wave
Although there is no official definition of heat wave (extreme heat), it can be described as a period of time
when temperatures hover ten degrees or more above the average high temperature for the region and last
for several weeks. Humid or muggy conditions occur when a “dome” of high atmospheric pressure traps
hazy, damp air near the ground. The combination of high temperatures and humid conditions increase the
Page 78
level of discomfort and the potential for danger to humans. Droughts occur when a long period passes
without any substantial rainfall. A heat wave combined with a drought is a dangerous situation.
The human risk associated with extreme heat includes heatstroke, heat exhaustion, heat syncope, and heat
cramps.
Extreme heat often brings about drought. Risks associated with drought include, effects to the water
supply, impact on agriculture, increase in wildfires, negative impact on hydroelectric power, and other
activities dependent upon water such as recreation and navigation.
Shawnee County falls in an area that experiences arrid and dry periods that can become a drought, and
include extreme summer heat. Drought can have a negative impact on the economy of Shawnee County
by affecting the agriculture of this community. Commercial and industrial activity is the mainstay for
Shawnee County, although agriculture remains strong in the county. It also serves as the capitol of the
State of Kansas. The 2007 U.S. Census of Agriculture indicates 900 farms, ranking 18th in the State, and
217,000 acres of land in farms, ranking 99th in the State. Shawnee County ranks 72nd in farm value of
crops harvested ($20,622,500), and cattle and milk production in the county totaled $7,590,400. Crops
consist of wheat (154,000 bushels), corn (3,086,300 bushels), sorghum (139,900 bushels), and soybeans
(1,504,300 bushels). Cattle and calves inventory in January 2008 was 20,400 head valued at $17,750,000,
which ranked 98th in the state. Data for hogs, sheep, and poultry were not available at the county level. A
summary of three droughts reported for Shawnee County are provided as follows:
November 1, 1999: extreme dryness and above normal warmth persisted throughout most of the month for
the twenty-three county area. The excessive dryness affected many crops such as winter wheat and also
contributed to a number of reported wildfires. There were no reported property damages, crop damages,
deaths or injuries for this event.
September 1, 2002: The drought conditions that started in July continued through September. Many crops
and pasturelands over the area were greatly affected. Farm ponds were void of ample water for cattle and
crops were either plowed up or made into fodder for farm animals. No actual crop damage figures were
available but estimates for all of northeast Kansas were likely to exceed 25 million dollars. Additionally,
there was no reported property damages, deaths, or injuries.
November 1, 2002: After a brief respite from an unusually wet October the dry weather of this past
Summer returned in November. Although temperatures averaged near normal over the twenty-three
county area, precipitation amounts averaged 1.5 to 2 inches below normal. There was no reported property
damage, crop damage, deaths, or injuries for this event.
There is no distinct geographic boundary to Drought, and it can occur in every area of the county equally.
While Shawnee County buildings, critical facilities, infrastructure and lifelines, and hazardous materials
facilities may be exposed to extreme weather related conditions brought on by a period of drought and
could potentially be impacted, it is expected that the greatest exposure to this hazard is on the population,
agriculture, and livestock of Shawnee County. Hazard workshops are considered a viable option to
educate the local residents and will be considered in the future. See Section 5.2 Mitigation Actions.
The probability of a drought depends on summer weather patterns that pass through the state. The
likelihood of future events is estimated to remain the same as currently calculated. Shawnee County can
expect drought conditions once every 3.75 years (0.27 probability/year).
Page 79
Although we extract data and probability of occurrence from historical information, the risk of drought
occurring and the location of damage appear to be a random event. This hazards probability for significant
events in Shawnee County is considered to be moderate.
Page 80
Excessive Heat
Hazard Profile
Severe Excessive Heat is characterized by a combination of a very high temperatures and exceptionally
humid conditions. When persisting over a period of time, it is called a heat wave. Many areas of the
country, especially the Rio Grande Border Region, are susceptible to heat waves.
The major human risks associated with Excessive Heat include heatstroke, heat exhaustion, heat syncope,
and heat cramps. Most at risk are outdoor laborers, the elderly, children, and people in poor physical
health. The effects of Excessive Heat are always more pronounced in urbanized areas than in rural areas.
Within urbanized areas, the problem is exacerbated by what is known as the heat island effect, in which
the concrete and metal infrastructure absorbs radiant heat energy from the sun during the day and radiates
that heat energy during the night. This cyclical process essentially “traps” the heat in the urbanized area
and makes it as much as 10 degrees warmer than the surrounding hinterland.
Excessive Heat is an invisible killer. Although a heat wave does not happen with the spectacle of other
hazards such as tornadoes and floods, the National Center for Environmental Health reports that, from
1979 to 1999, Excessive Heat exposure caused 8,015 deaths in the United States. In other words, during
this period, more people in the U.S. died from severe summer heat than from hurricanes, lightning,
tornadoes, floods and earthquakes combined.
During the summer months, the State of Kansas is frequently affected by severe heat hazards. Persistent
domes of high pressure establish themselves, which set up hot and dry conditions. This high pressure
prevents other weather features such as cool fronts or rain events from moving into the area and providing
necessary relief. Daily high temperatures range into the upper 90’s and low 100’s. When combined with
moderate to high relative humidity levels, the heat index moves into dangerous levels, and a heat index of
105 degrees is considered the level where many people begin to experience extreme discomfort or
physical distress.
Excessive Heat has not produced damages to personal property or crops but has been the cause of 14
injuries and 1 death.
July 18, 1996: an afternoon high temperature of 100 degrees and a dew point of 71 resulted in a record
level of electricity consumption on the 18th. There were no reported fatalities or injuries reported for the
July 18th event in Shawnee County.
July 23, 1997: temperatures in the upper 90s to near 105 combined to produce heat indices as high as 110.
In Topeka, the temperatures never quite reached 100 but did reach 99 on the 24th, 25th and 27th. The heat
index in Topeka soared to 110 at 2 PM CDT on the 24th. Kansas Power and Light Company, which
provides electricity to these areas, set an electrical consumption record at 4 PM on the 24th. There were
no reported fatalities or injuries for the July 23rd event in Shawnee County.
September 1, 2000: the excessive heat of August continued into the first 3 days of September.
Temperatures soared well above 100 degrees in many locations. Topeka recorded a high of 109 degrees
on the 2nd, the highest temperature of the summer and the highest temperature in 16 years (110 degrees
was recorded on August 29, 1984). There were no deaths or injuries reported from the heat, and no
property or crop damage was reported in connection with this Excessive Heat event.
There is no distinct geographic boundary to Excessive Heat. Excessive Heat can occur in every area of
Page 81
the county equally. While Shawnee County buildings, critical facilities, infrastructure and lifelines, and
hazardous materials facilities may be exposed to Excessive Heat and could potentially be impacted, it is
expected that the greatest exposure to this hazard is on the population of Shawnee County rather than
impacting physical County assets.
The likelihood or future probability of a significant occurrence of excessive summer heat in the county is
considered moderate. Based on historical data the county can expect an excessive heat event every 1.25
years (0.80 chance per year). Although we extract data and probability of occurrence from historical data,
the risk of excessive heat occurring, and the location of damage, appear to be random.
Page 82
Terrorism / AT / CD
Hazard Profile
Vector-based hazards have become an "emerging" threat to the state, local governments, and its citizens.
Insects, infectious diseases, and naturally-occurring and manmade biological agents can pose a direct or
indirect hazard to humans, livestock, and the state's economy. The State of Kansas has made this hazard a
priority for the State and local government planning requirements.
Numerous definitions for “vector” have been proposed, and vary with the nature and focus of the specific
discipline of research such as epidemiology, public health, mathematics, and most recently - Emergency
Management. This section will focus primarily on Emergency Management’s role with infectious Foreign
Animal Disease (FAD), biological agents, and/or by-products utilized to create weapons of mass
destruction (WMD), which could otherwise require a response from emergency management departments.
Other forms of communicable disease and biological/chemical agents are causes for concern. However,
authority and response to these potential health issues resides with agencies and disciplines such as the
Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Center for Disease Control (CDC), and Public Health
Departments, and therefore will not be mentioned in this section. Emergency Management roles and
responsibilities will likely change with time requiring refinement and expansion of response for this
discipline.
Potential threats to U.S. agriculture and livestock can arise from a variety of pathogens and causative
agents. Terrorist attacks against agricultural assets might be tempting, due to the perceived relative ease of
attack, the plausible deniability toward accusations, and the limited number of plant seed varieties in use.
Highly infectious naturally-occurring plant and animal pathogens exist outside the U.S. borders, and some
agents are readily transported, inadvertently or intentionally, with little risk of detection.
Nature has already shown how easy it might be for a sophisticated, technically-informed state, group, or
individual to attack crops and livestock by introducing a new parasite, predator, or disease. There are a
host of “rusts” and “smuts” that can attack grain crops, as evidenced by past naturally-occurring events in
the U.S.
The list of threats (exotic diseases) to livestock is substantial. They include, but are not limited to, animal
disease, plant disease, Foot and Mouth Disease (FMD), vesicular stomatitis, Bovine Spongiform
Encephalopathy (BSE), rinderpest, gibberella, African swine fever, highly pathogenic avian influenza,
Rift Valley fever, lumpy skin disease, blue tongue, sheep and goat pox, swine vesicular disease,
contagious bovine pleuropneumonia, Newcastle disease, African horse sickness, and classical swine fever.
Animal health officials define an exotic or FAD as an important transmissible livestock or poultry disease
believed to be absent from the United States and its territories, and capable of generating potential
significant health or economic impact. FMD, anthrax, BSE, rinderpest, and swine fever are potential ways
to attack livestock.
Although terrorist-type activities/incidences are a relatively new type of threat to Kansas, these types of
activities, if present, are not readily available or reported to the public. Shawnee County has not
documented terrorist activities in their county, but the State of Kansas has made this hazard a priority for
the State and local government planning requirements. Federal and state officials understand local-level
resources will be the first to respond to any emergency situation and have acknowledged the fact that local
planning and preparation, even if resources are exhausted quickly, will play a major role in mitigating a
terrorist attack or outbreak of an exotic disease. Research suggests the best approach is to broaden the
Page 83
prevention, response and recovery spectrum for emergency operations planning to include all hazards,
with the understanding that limited resources and funding at the local level will require quick evaluation
of an event in order to efficiently respond to the emergency and to obtain state and federal assistance in a
timely fashion.
The Department of Homeland Security required all states and local jurisdictions to update their terrorist
security databases in 2003. Shawnee County provided a self-assessment of risk and vulnerability during
this planning event. Additionally, the State of Kansas required all jurisdictions to plan for potential
bio-terrorism events, and develop local foreign animal disease plans. As a result, Shawnee County has
selected this hazard category as a priority for inclusion in the county's Mitigation Plan, as the role of
emergency management will be fine tuned for prevention, response, and recovery activities involving a
FAD and/or bio-terrorist event to provide the resource support needed to effectively and efficiently deal
with the disease onset and lifespan.
The entire county is considered equally susceptible to terrorism and FAD.
Although initial detection of this type of event is considered uncontrollable, it is highly possible an act of
terrorism (domestic or other) could occur at any time given the right circumstances. However, the
probability of future occurrence is reduced due to proactive preventative action on the part of Federal,
State and local authories. This proactive approach to preparation and prevention will help reduce the
potential for losses to property and life as a result of terrorist or FAD outbreaks. The risks associated with
terrorism and FAD appear to be a random event with a low risk probability, but is included in the plan as a
state-mandated planning hazard.
Page 84
Fog
Hazard Profile
Fog is a cloud at ground level, water droplets suspended in the air at the earth’s surface. Fog forms when
the air cannot hold all the moisture it contains. This happens when air is cooled to its dew point, which is
the temperature at which air is holding as much moisture as it can. When air reaches its dew point it
condenses into very small particles, forming the tiny water droplets that comprise fog.
The intensity and duration of fog varies with the location and type of fog - from early morning ground fog
that burns off easily to prolonged valley fog that can last for days. Generally, strong winds tend to
prevent fog formation. The following summarizes several possibilities for the formation, intensity, and
duration of fog in the Midwest.
Ground Fog is associated with clear nights, stable air (winds less than five mph), and a small- temperature
dew point range. It forms when heat radiates away from the ground, cooling the ground and surface air.
When air cools to its dew point, fog forms, usually a layer of less than 100-200 feet. It is common in
many areas of the United States and generally burns off by morning sun.
Advection Fog is associated with horizontal wind, warm, humid air, and winter temperatures. It forms
when wind pushes warm humid air over the cold ground or water, where it cools to the dew point and
forms fog. Advection fog can cover wide areas of the central U.S. in winter. During the winter this is
common when snow covers much of the Midwest. The snow cools the bottom portion of the moist air
mass often resulting in condensation. This type of fog can be widespread, covering very large areas.
Evaporation Fog is associated with bodies of water. It forms as cold air blows over warmer water, causing
the water to evaporate into the cold air, increasing the humidity to the dew point . Vapor condenses,
forming a layer of fog one to two feet thick over the water. It can form over ponds and streams on fall
days.
Precipitation Fog is associated with warmer rain and cooler air. It forms when rain evaporates, and the
added vapor increases the air to its dew point. The vapor then condenses into fog. Precipitation fog forms
on cool, rainy days.
Areas of Shawnee County along the river valleys and other low-lying areas can be at greater risk for fog
under certain meteorological conditions. However, no part of the county is free of the possibility of
experiencing fog. There have been nine significant fog events reported for Shawnee County over the past
15 years.
January 10, 2003, dense morning fog reduced visibility to a quarter mile or less across a fifteen county
area. There were no reported injuries or damages for this fog event.
July 1, 2005, widespread dense fog reduced visibility to less than a quarter mile, creating very hazardous
driving conditions, from 2:00 AM to 8:00 AM across a nineteen county area. There were no reported
injuries or damages for this fog event.
December 25, 2005, dense fog on Christmas evening compounded the already dangerous high traffic.
However, no major accidents, injuries, or damages were reported for this fog event.
The entire county is considered equally susceptible to occasional periods of fog.
Page 85
Although we can estimate probability of occurrence from historical information, the risk of fog occurring
is considered to be a random event with a moderate risk probability.
Page 86
Hail
Hazard Profile
Hail can be produced from many different storm types. Typically, hail is a cascading hazard of a
thunderstorm event. It is estimated that damage from hail approaches $1 billion in the U.S. annually. U.S.
agriculture is typically the most affected by such hail storms. Hail causes severe crop damage, and even a
minor storm with relatively small-size hailstones can have a devastating effect. Damage to vehicles, roofs
(residential/commercial), and landscaping are also commonly damaged by hail, according to the National
Weather Service (NWS) and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
Early in the developmental stages of a hailstorm, ice crystals form within a low-pressure front due to the
rapid rising of warm air into the upper atmosphere and the subsequent cooling of the air mass. Frozen
droplets gradually accumulate on the ice crystals until, having developed sufficient weight, they fall as
precipitation—as balls or irregularly shaped masses of ice greater than 0.75 in. (1.91 cm) in diameter. The
size of hailstones is a direct function of the size and severity of the storm. High velocity updraft winds are
required to keep hail in suspension in thunderclouds. The strength of the updraft is a function of the
intensity of heating at the Earth’s surface. Higher temperature gradients relative to elevation above the
surface result in increased suspension time and hailstone size. Figure (1) shows the annual frequency of
hailstorms in the State of Kansas.
Figure 1 - FEMA Hailstorm Map
There were 390 reported hail events in the 53 year recorded time frame for Shawnee County. No deaths or
injuries were attributed to any of the reported events. The National Climatic Data Center (NCDC)
reported $635,000 in accumulative property damage and $90,000 in crop damages.
The largest events reported in the county were four-inch hail events occurring on May 19, 1960 and June
8, 1990. There were no deaths, injuries, property damage, or crop damage reported through the NCDC for
these events.
Page 87
On April 12, 1993, soft hail, mainly 0.25 to 0.50 inch, fell for nearly 30 minutes, causing significant
accumulations, drifts, minor temporary flooding from heavy rains, and several fender-bender automobile
accidents. There was $5,000 reported in property damages and $5,000 in crop damage.
On May 17 1995, large hail and wind gusts to 59 mph damaged vehicles, roofs, and tore down trees and
tree limbs. Property damages were estimated at $30,000 and crop damages were estimated at $5,000
There were no deaths or injuries reported in association with this event.
On May 24, 2004, large hail damaged windows, roofs, and vehicles near Topeka. The hail also knocked
holes in the vinyl siding of a house. Property damages were estimated at $500,000, with no crop damage
reported and no death or injuries reported in association with the May 24th event.
The entire Shawnee County area is equally susceptible to damage from hail events.
The probability of a hailstorm event depends on certain atmospheric and climatic changes. The likelihood
of future events is estimated to remain the same as currently calculated. Shawnee County can expect
approximately 7.36 instances of hail events per year. Average annual damages from hail storm events are
estimated at $13,679. Although we extract data and probability of occurrence from historical information,
the risk of a severe event occurring and the location of damage appear to be a random event.
Page 88
Tornado
Hazard Profile
A tornado is a violent windstorm characterized by a twisting, funnel-shaped cloud extending to the
ground. It is most often generated by a thunderstorm and produced when cool, dry air intersects and
overrides a layer of warm, moist air forcing the warm air to rise rapidly. The damage from a tornado is a
result of the high wind velocity and wind-blown debris, although they are commonly accompanied by
large hail as well. The most violent tornadoes have rotating winds of 250 miles per hour or more and are
capable of causing extreme destruction, including uprooting trees and well-made structures, and turning
normally harmless objects into deadly missiles.
Most tornadoes are just a few dozen yards wide and touch down only briefly, but highly destructive
tornadoes may carve out a path over a mile wide and several miles long. The destruction caused by
tornadoes may range from light to inconceivable depending on the intensity, size and duration of the
storm. Typically, tornadoes cause the greatest damages to structures of light construction, such as
residential homes, and are quite localized in impact.
Each year an average of 800-1,000 tornadoes are reported nationwide and they are more likely to occur
during the spring and early summer months of March through June. Tornadoes can occur at any time of
day but are mostly likely to form in late afternoons and early evenings.
The magnitude or severity of a tornado was originally categorized using the Fujita Scale or Pearson Fujita
Scale (introduced in 1971). The Fujita Scale categorizes tornadoes from F0 (Gale) to F5 (Inconceivable)
based on wind speed. It is used to rate the intensity of a tornado by examining the damage caused by the
tornado after it has passed over a manmade structure.
Other scales have been developed to measure wind and tornado intensity including the Beaufort Wind
Scales (B-Scales) and Britain’s Tornado Storm and Research Organization (TORRO) Scale (T-Scale).
However, the Beaufort and TORRO scales are generally not used to identify the severity or intensity of a
tornado or wind event in the United States.
However, the original Fugita Scale recently become obsolete, due to many weaknesses in the system that
have resulted is misuse and/or misunderstanding of the scale. It was replaced on February 1, 2007, by the
Enhanced Fujita Scale, or EF Scale, (Figure 1). This new scale continues to rate the strength of tornadoes
in the United States based on the damage caused. The scale has the same basic design as the original
Fujita Scale (six categories from 0 to 5 representing increasing degrees of damage). It was revised to
reflect better examinations of tornado damage surveys, to align wind speeds more closely with associated
storm damage. As with the Fujita Scale, though, each damage level is associated with a wind speed; the
Enhanced Fujita Scale is a damage scale and the wind speeds associated with the damage listed remain
unverified and little more than educated guesses. The EF Scale improved on the old scale on many counts
- it accounts for different degrees of damage that occur with different types of structures based on how
they are designed, both man-made and natural. It also provides much better estimates for wind speeds and
sets no upper limit on the wind speeds for the strongest level, EF5 (NOAA-SPC, 2007).
Page 89
Figure 1 - Enhanced Fujita Scale
There have been 3,454 confirmed tornadoes in Kansas since 1950-2008, resulting in 228 deaths and 2,699
injuries, with total damages estimated at $2,602,507,870. Typically, Kansas’s tornadoes can be severe
when compared to other parts of the country. Compared with other states, Kansas ranks number four in
the country for frequency of tornadoes, third for number of deaths, third for injuries, and third for cost of
damages.
According to the National Climatic Data Center, there have been 38 confirmed tornadoes in Shawnee
County since 1951 which have resulted in 18 deaths, 607 injuries and approximately $283 million dollars
in property damages. The strongest tornado recorded in Shawnee County had a magnitude of F5. This
event occurred June 8, 1966, the tornado was reported be 880 yards wide, and while on the ground for 21
miles caused 16 fatalities and 450 injuries. To view the entire record of Shawnee County tornado events
reference Figure 3.
A tornado with a magnitude of F0 was reported May 17, 1995, on the west side of Silver Lake, near the
COOP business damaging several buildings, a storage tank and a shed. There was a reported $100,000 in
property damages and $15,000 in crop damage, but there were no deaths or injuries attributed to the May
17th event.
A tornado with a magnitude of F1 was reported on October 4, 1998, and touched down two miles
northeast of Auburn, moving northeast about one mile before dissipating. There was $5,000 in property
damage reported, but no reported crop damage, deaths, or injuries were attributed to the October 4th
event.
A tornado with a magnitude of F1 was reported May 24, 2004, five miles south of Topeka, which moved
to the east-northeast for about a mile before lifting. The tornado was reported to be 75 yards wide and on
the ground for one mile. A building and a shed were damaged. Power lines were downed and an
unoccupied vehicle was rolled over. There was a total of $100,000 in property damage reported, but there
Page 90
was no reported crop damage, deaths, or injuries attributed to the May 24th event.
The Wind Zones in the State of Kansas (Source: FEMA), depicted in Figure 2, provides an overview of
the potential wind strength potential. Shawnee County lies within Zone IV, with wind speeds capable of
up to 250 miles per hour based on past historical data.
Figure 2 - FEMA Wind Zones Map
The damage from a tornado is a result of high wind velocity and wind-blown debris. The potential damage
resulting from a tornado is directly correlated to the strength of the particular tornado and is qualified
utilizing the Enhanced Fujita Scale. The EF Scale assigns numerical values based on wind speeds and
categorizes tornadoes from EF0 through EF5. The Enhanced Fujita Scale is shown in Figure 1.
The entire planning area is equally susceptible to damage from tornadoes.
The likelihood of future events is estimated to remain the same as currently calculated. Shawnee County
can expect a tornado once every 1.5 years (0.67 probability/year) with expected damages of $4,965,578 a
year. Although we extract data and probability of occurrence from historical information, the risk of a
tornado occurring and the location of damage appear to be a random event.
Figure 3 shows the reported tornadoes for Shawnee County since 1951. Due to the number of
thunderstorms Shawnee County experiences per year, there is a significant risk of tornadoes.
Page 91
Figure 3 - Historical Tornado Report
Date
Time
Mag
Dth
Inj
PrD
CrD
5/2/1951
7:30 PM
1
0
0
$250
6/15/1951
7:15 PM
0
0
0
$30
$0
3/18/1954
1:10 PM
1
0
0
$2,500
$0
6/11/1957
7:45 PM
0
0
0
$0
$0
7/11/1958
12:45 AM
2
0
0
$0
$0
7/11/1958
1:03 AM
2
0
0
$0
$0
5/19/1960
8:30 PM
0
0
0
$30
$0
5/19/1960
8:45 PM
2
0
0
$2,500
$0
5/19/1960
5:47 PM
4
1
91
$2,500,000
$0
5/26/1962
7:48 PM
3
0
4
$250,000
$0
6/18/1964
6:10 PM
0
0
0
$0
$0
5/11/1966
2:15 PM
3
0
0
$25,000
$0
6/8/1966
7:00 PM
5
16
450
$250,000,000
$0
6/11/1967
6:00 PM
3
0
0
$250,000
$0
11/8/1970
5:45 PM
2
0
0
$25,000
$0
6/6/1971
9:25 PM
1
0
0
$0
$0
3/8/1974
12:05 AM
2
0
0
$250,000
$0
3/8/1974
12:30 AM
2
0
0
$250,000
$0
6/8/1974
6:45 PM
4
0
0
$0
$0
5/5/1977
5:40 PM
1
0
0
$2,500
$0
4/11/1979
5:00 PM
1
0
1
$250,000
$0
5/31/1980
3:55 PM
2
0
0
$250,000
$0
4/13/1981
5:35 PM
0
0
0
$30
$0
7/19/1981
8:45 AM
2
0
9
$250,000
$0
5/6/1983
5:30 PM
3
1
25
$25,000,000
$0
4/26/1984
9:25 PM
2
0
4
$250,000
$0
7/7/1987
7:00 PM
0
0
0
$0
$0
11/15/1988
2:06 PM
2
0
22
$2,500,000
$0
3/12/1990
11:49 PM
1
0
1
$250,000
$0
6/7/1990
5:10 PM
0
0
0
$0
$0
3/1/1991
4:35 PM
0
0
0
$250,000
$0
4/26/1991
7:54 PM
1
0
0
$25,000
$0
4/26/1991
4:15 PM
2
0
0
$250,000
$0
5/6/1993
7:08 PM
0
0
0
$0
$0
Page 92
5/17/1995
2:21 AM
0
0
0
$100,000
$15,000
10/4/1998
4:45 PM
1
0
0
$5,000
$0
5/24/2004
6:25 PM
1
0
0
$100,000
$0
8/23/2004
6:12 PM
0
0
0
$0
$0
Source: National Climatic Data Center
Mag: Magnitude
Dth: Death
PrD: Property Damage
CrD: Crop Damage
Inj: Injury
Page 93
TSTM Wind
Hazard Profile
High winds are generally the result of severe thunderstorms. Straight-line winds, which in extreme cases
have the potential to exceed 100 miles per hour, are responsible for most thunderstorm wind damage. One
type of straight-line wind, the microburst, can cause damage equivalent to a strong tornado and can be
extremely dangerous to aviation. Thunderstorms are also capable of producing tornadoes and heavy rain
that can lead to flash flooding.
A severe thunderstorm is defined by the National Weather Service as a storm that has a wind velocity of
58 miles per hour or higher, or produces hail at least three-quarters of an inch in diameter, or produces a
tornado(es). Thunderstorms simply require moisture to form clouds and rain, coupled with an unstable
mass of warm air that can rise rapidly. Thunderstorms affect relatively small areas when compared with
hurricanes and winter storms; the average storm is 15 miles in diameter and lasts an average of 30
minutes. Nearly 1,800 thunderstorms are occurring at any moment around the world. However, of the
estimated 100,000 thunderstorms that occur each year in the United States, only about 10 percent are
classified as severe. Thunderstorms are most likely to happen in the spring and summer months and
during the afternoon and evening hours, but can occur year-round and at all hours.
Despite their small size, all thunderstorms are dangerous and capable of threatening life and property in
localized areas. Every thunderstorm produces lightning, which results from the buildup and discharge of
electrical energy between positively and negatively charged areas. Each year, lightning is responsible for
an average of 93 deaths (more than tornadoes), 300 injuries, and several hundred million dollars in
damage to property and forests across the United States.
Severe thunderstorms and high wind events are very common in Kansas, and cause a significant amount
of property and crop damage annually.
According to the National Climatic Data Center, there were a total of 342 reported severe thunderstorm /
high wind events in Shawnee County during the period of 1956 to 2008, causing an reported $5.42 million
in property damage and $500,000 in crop damage. Damages recorded included downed trees and
damaged roofs and structures (these events do not include tornadoes, as this hazard is discussed
separately). In this same time period there were five reported injuries but no fatalities. Some examples are
as follows:
On March 8, 2002, strong downburst winds damaged 40 cars at a dealership in Topeka. Roof damage was
also noted at the dealership salesroom. In total, there was $1,000,000 in property damage reported with
no crop damage, deaths, or injuries reported.
On April 19, 2002, a low-pressure system moved across Shawnee County and produced high winds in
excess of 60 mph. The winds did extensive damage to many homes and businesses, mainly in the northern
half of Topeka. Preliminary damage estimates from officials in Shawnee County totaled approximately
two million dollars, with no crop damage, deaths, or injuries reported.
On June 12, 2004, strong winds moved across Topeka, doing considerable damage, with numerous large
tree branches blown down. A Kansas Department of Transportation communications tower was blown
down onto an apartment complex, causing considerable damage but no reported injuries. Downed tree
limbs damaged power lines and power transformers, resulting in power outages to 26,000 Topeka
residents. On the outskirts of Topeka, crops suffered considerable damage. Wind gusts of 64 knots were
officially measured at Topeka Billard Airport, with unofficial reports of much higher gusts across the city.
Page 94
There was $1,000,000 in property damage and $10,000 in crop damages reported for Shawnee County,
with no reported deaths or injuries.
The entire planning area is equally susceptible to damage from thunderstorm wind (TSTM Wind).
The probability of a thunderstorm event depends on certain atmospheric and climatic changes. The
likelihood of future events is estimated to remain the same as currently calculated. Shawnee County can
expect approximately 6.58 instances of thunderstorm high wind events per year, with $104,230 in
estimated annual damages. Although we can extract data and probability of occurrence from historical
information, the risk of a severe event occurring and the location of damage appear to be a random event.
Page 95
Winter Storm
Hazard Profile
Severe winter storms can produce an array of hazardous weather conditions, including heavy snow,
freezing rain and ice pellets, high winds and extreme cold. Severe winter storms are usually fueled by
strong temperature gradients and an active upper-level cold jet stream. Winter storms can paralyze a
community by shutting down normal day-to-day operations, as accumulating snow and ice result in
downed trees, power outages and blocked or hazardous transportation routes. Heavy snow can also lead to
the collapse of weak roofs or unstable structures. Frequently the loss of electric power means loss of heat
for residents, which poses a significant threat to human life, particularly the elderly.
The level of impact severe winter weather will have upon a community greatly depends on its ability to
manage and control the effects, such as the rapid mobilization of snow removal equipment. Severe winter
weather is a frequent occurrence in Kansas, and can reach blizzard proportions under the right weather
conditions. Many Kansas counties are small, and the costs to acquire and maintain the necessary resources
to combat winter storm effects is expensive, hence, many small communities are not prepared for such
events.
Severe winter storms are typically associated with cold climates; but it is not uncommon for the State of
Kansas to experience significant and even disastrous winter weather events. Since 1993, 38 deaths and 98
injuries have been attributed to snow and ice events throughout the state, along with an estimated
$81,900,000 in property damage. In most instances, these impacts are determined by weather patterns and
cannot be readily identified to particular regions of the state.
Shawnee County averages 18.6 inches of snow per year and has reported 62 Winter Storms between 1993
and 2008.
On December 8, 1995, one to four inches of snow fell a few hours before an arctic cold front swept across
the area. The front dropped temperatures from the lower 30s into the teens in about one hour. The sharp
temperature drop created very slippery travel conditions and winds of 20 to 35 mph produced wind chills
of 20 to 40 below zero. Numerous minor accidents were reported throughout the area. There were no
reported property or crop damage, and no deaths or injuries associated with the December 8th event.
On January 18, 1996 (beginning on January 17th), a powerful cold front passed through the area,
producing scattered thunderstorms that quickly changed to sleet and freezing rain, then snow. Total
accumulations were under five inches, but winds of 50 to 60 mph caused blizzard conditions with zero
visibility and considerable drifting snow. The winds continued well after the snow had ended, causing
blowing and drifting snow. Wind chill readings ranged from 40 to 60 degrees below zero. Travel was
difficult, if not impossible, in some rural areas while many schools and business were closed both
Thursday and again Friday, the 19th. Scattered damage occurred to roofs, buildings and homes with
power outages common, and water pipes froze in some buildings. There were no reported property or crop
damage, and no deaths or injuries associated with the January 18th event.
On January 23, 2000, a storm system resulted in less than a half inch of snow in the Topeka area, yet
roads became slick and hazardous, resulting in two major traffic accidents near the I-70 and I-470
interchange in west Topeka. The first accident occurred shortly after 2:00 pm when a vehicle slid off the
roadway when the driver lost control of the car on a slick overpass. The car left the roadway and rolled
sideways down a hill, ejecting all three occupants, resulting in serious injuries to the female-driver and her
two sons in the vehicle. One of the boys died two days later from injuries suffered in the accident. The
second accident occurred at 3:00 pm, a short distance from the first accident, and turned fatal when a truck
Page 96
driven by a 76-year old man slid off the roadway, ejected the driver, and struck a concrete barrier. In
total, there were two injuries and two fatalities, but no property or crop damage was attributed to the
January 23rd event.
The entire county is equally susceptible to damage from severe winter storms.
The probability of a severe winter storm event depends on winter weather patterns that pass through the
state. The likelihood of future events is estimated to remain the same as currently calculated. Shawnee
County can expect 4.13 Winter Storm events every year, with $1,207,133 in estimated damages annually.
Although we can extract data and probability of occurrence from historical information, the risk of an
event occurring, and the location of damage appear to be a random event.
Page 97
4.4.2 Jurisdiction Hazard Profiles
Page 98
Flood - Shawnee (UnInc.)
Hazard Profile
Flooding is the most frequent and costly natural hazard in the United States. Floods are generally the
result of excessive precipitation, and can be classified under two categories: flash floods, the product of
heavy localized precipitation in a short time period over a given location; and general floods, caused by
precipitation over a longer time period and over a given river basin. The severity of a flooding event is
determined by a combination of stream and river basin topography and physiography, precipitation and
weather patterns, recent soil moisture conditions and the degree of vegetative clearing.
Flash flooding events usually occur within minutes or hours of heavy amounts of rainfall, from a dam or
levee failure, or from a sudden release of water held by an ice jam. Most flash flooding is caused by
slow-moving thunderstorms in a local area or by heavy rains associated with hurricanes and tropical
storms. Although flash flooding occurs often along mountain streams, it is also common in urbanized
areas where much of the ground is covered by impervious surfaces.
General floods are usually longer-term events and may last for several days. The primary types of general
flooding include riverine flooding, coastal flooding, and urban flooding. Riverine flooding is a function of
excessive precipitation levels and water runoff volumes within the watershed of a stream or river. Coastal
flooding is typically a result of storm surge, wind-driven waves, and heavy rainfall produced by
hurricanes, tropical storms, nor’easters and other large coastal storms. Urban flooding occurs where
man-made development has obstructed the natural flow of water and/or decreased the ability of natural
ground cover to absorb and retain surface water runoff.
Periodic flooding of lands adjacent to rivers, streams and shorelines is a natural and inevitable occurrence
that can be expected to take place based upon established recurrence intervals. The recurrence interval of
a flood is defined as the average time interval, in years, expected between a flood event of a particular
magnitude and an equal or larger flood. Flood magnitude increases with increasing recurrence interval.
A "floodplain" is the lowland area adjacent to a river, lake or ocean. Floodplains are designated by the
frequency of the flood that is large enough to cover them. For example, the 10-year floodplain will likely
be covered once every 10-years, and the 100-year floodplain covered once every 100-years.
Flood frequencies, such as the "100-year flood," are determined by plotting a graph of the size of all
known floods for an area and determining how often floods of a particular size occur. Another way of
expressing the flood frequency is the chance of occurrence in a given year, which is the percentage of the
probability of flooding each year. For example, the 100-year flood has a 1% chance of occurring in any
given year.
According to the National Climatic Data Center, there were a total of 51 reported flood events in Shawnee
County during the period of 1995 to 2008. In this span of time flood events accounted for approximately
$15.686 million in property damages, with no reported crop damage, injuries, or deaths.
On March 3, 2004, heavy rain of three to four inches over several days produced areas of flooding. Many
farm fields had standing water, rivers and streams temporarily flooded, excess runoff closed many roads
for a time, and some roads and bridges were washed out or damaged. There was $350,000 in property
damage reported across 15 counties, with no crop damage, deaths, or injuries reported for Shawnee
County.
On October 2, 2005, intense rainfall during the late evening of October 1st through the early morning of
Page 99
October 2nd brought six to twelve inches of rain to northern Shawnee County, resulting in the governor
declaring a state of emergency in Shawnee County. Shawnee county was later declared eligible for SBA
loans due to the uninsured damage, and also declared eligible for federal assistance for the repair and
replacement of damaged facilities and infrastructure. Boil-water orders were in effect for several rural
water districts as water transmission lines were damaged by the flood waters. Many homes were flooded
and some farm animals in rural areas were drowned. A few homes in northwest Shawnee County
reportedly floated off their foundations, and mobile homes were reported to have floated away. To the
northeast of Topeka, train crews were stranded due to the washout of bridges and the derailment of four
train cars, causing a 50-mile backup of trains. Perhaps the biggest impact on a community occurred at
Rossville, in northwest Shawnee County. Floodwaters in Rossville resulted in a voluntary evacuation
order. The grade school was flooded, but due to early warning, school personnel were able to move many
supplies and equipment to higher ground before the flood waters hit, greatly minimizing the damage. The
early warning also allowed an orderly evacuation of 50 nursing home residents. In total, there was
$2,500,000 in property damage reported for four counties, with no crop damage, deaths or injuries
reported as a result of the October 2nd event.
On May 7, 2007, most homes in the town of Wakarusa were inundated with flood waters from the
Wakarusa River. Water rescues of 22 residents stranded on their rooftops were conducted by the fire
department. The rescues were hampered by floating propane tanks. Numerous roads in the county were
closed by flood waters. Topeka city schools and some surrounding schools canceled classes. 500 water
rescues were made in Topeka, 300 along the Shunganunga Creek alone. The Rossville nursing home
evacuated it's residents as a precaution, due to flooding of Cross Creek. Lake Sherwood, southwest of
Topeka, reported water three feet above the emergency spillway. Numerous county roads were closed due
to the flooding. Lowland flooding continued in the vicinity of Topeka with moderate or greater flooding
along the Kansas River. The accumulation of rain from this event, along with earlier rains, brought
moderate or greater flooding to some of the major rivers in the area. This river flooding lasted for several
more days. The heavy rain events produced rainfall amounts of three to six inches, with some amounts
along the Kansas river basin of nearly nine inches. An unofficial report in the Topeka area had nearly a
foot of rain falling within this 48 hour period. Flooding from these events resulted in a local disaster
emergency declaration for Shawnee County, qualifying the county for state and federal (FEMA) aid.
Due to the nature of flood this hazard will be evaluated on a jurisdictional basis.
In Kansas, floods usually occur during the season of highest precipitations or during heavy rainfalls after
long dry spells. The area of Shawnee County that has the most risk of flooding is along the Kansas and
Wakarusa Rivers and their tributaries. The Kansas River flows through the county in a southeasterly
course, being bordered on its north bank by Rossville, Silver Lake and Soldier, and on its south bank by
Topeka and Tecumseh. The Wakarusa River, which, flowing east and northeast, empties into the Kansas
River in the northeastern part of Douglas County, has its sources in the town of Auburn, and waters the
southern sections of Auburn, Williamsport and Monmouth - the tributary creeks flowing into it on either
side forming the drainage and water system of the three towns above named. The towns lying on the
borders of the Kansas River, north and south, are watered by the tributary creeks running into that river.
Among these is Cross Creek, running through the town of Rossville; Soldier Creek, the largest stream on
the north side, which enters the county in the northwestern part of the town of Silver Lake, runs southeast
through that town, Menoken, and the southern sections of Soldier, emptying into the Kansas nearly
opposite the city of Topeka. Indian Creek is also a northern tributary, entering Kansas River one and
one-half miles below the mouth of Soldier Creek. South of the Kansas the principal tributary streams are
Mission Creek and Shunganunga Creek, the former watering the town of Dover, and the latter the towns
of Mission and Topeka.
Page 100
Numerous other creeks and tributaries criss-cross the county. Maps that display the location and extent of
flood hazard areas are provided in Section 4.5.2 - Vulnerability Maps.
The likelihood of future events is estimated to remain the same as currently calculated. Shawnee County
has a probability of flooding 3.92 times a year, with $1,053,531 in estimated property damage reported
per year.
Page 101
Wildfire - Shawnee (UnInc.)
Hazard Profile
A wildfire is an undesirable, uncontrolled burning of grasslands, brush or woodlands. According to the
National Weather Service, more than 100,000 wildfires occur in the United States each year. About 90%
of these wildfires are started by humans (i.e., campfires, debris burning, smoking, etc.); the other 10% are
started by lightning.
The potential for wildfire depends upon surface fuel characteristics, weather conditions, recent climate
conditions, topography, and fire behavior. Fuels are anything that can and will burn, and are the
combustible materials that sustain a wildfire. Typically, this is the most prevalent vegetation in a given
area. Weather is one of the most significant factors in determining the severity of wildfires. The intensity
of fires and the rate with which they spread is directly related to the wind speed, temperature and relative
humidity. Climatic conditions such as long-term drought also play a major role in the number and
intensity of wildfires, and topography is important because the slope and shape of the terrain can change
the rate of speed at which fire travels.
There are four major types of wildfires. Ground fires burn in natural litter, duff, roots or sometimes high
organic soils. Once started they are very difficult to control, and some ground fires may even rekindle
after being extinguished. Surface fires burn in grasses and low shrubs (up to 4’ tall) or in the lower
branches of trees. They have the potential to spread rapidly, and the ease of their control depends upon the
fuel involved. Crown fires burn in the tops of trees, and the ease of their control depends greatly upon
wind conditions. Spotting fires occur when burning embers are thrown ahead of the main fire, and can be
produced by crown fires as well as wind and topographic conditions. Once spotting begins, the fire will be
very difficult to control.
Wildfires in the State of Kansas are better defined as rangeland fires. These fires generally originate as a
surface fire and can spread quickly across large areas.
Wild/rangeland fires initiated by lightning are also an issue in the plains states. When wildfires do occur
in Shawnee County, it is also very rare that a home or business is lost, with most damage is limited to
field crops. Wildfires are most common in the spring when brush is still brown and dry, and when fields
have reached maturity in the fall months.
Wildfires can cause considerable damage and loss of life especially in areas where there is an interface
between wild or range land and urban development. The topography and wind velocity of Shawnee
County also influences the spread of wildfires, and the county has multiple fuel sources and is prone to
drought and thunderstorms; therefore, wildfires are a risk for Shawnee County.
The NCDC database collects wildfire data for federally-owned land, but does not track private property;
consequently, the Kansas Fire Marshal’s office tracks fire data for private property owners in Kansas.
Collection of data began in 1997. Current information is provided in summary form only and reflects
reported fires on an annual basis by county. At this time, specific incident loss data in the county is
estimated based on reported information.
Due to the nature of wildfire and the rural setting of a majority of the county, wildfire will be evaluated on
a jurisdictional basis.
The probability of grass/cropland fire in Shawnee County is relatively high. Shawnee County can expect
Page 102
an average of 31.46 significant wildfires per year that damage or destroy a total of 5,924 acres. The
average area burned is approximately 987 acres, with a average dollar loss of $7,283.43. Although we can
extract data and probability of occurrence from historical data, the risk of Wildfire occurring and the
location of damage appear to be random.
Page 103
Dam / Levee - Shawnee (UnInc.)
Hazard Profile
DAM
This discussion includes all dam and levee structures identified anywhere in the county and all the
participating jurisdictions. Vulnerability for each jurisdiction is discussed in the next section.
A dam failure is defined as an uncontrolled release of the reservoir. The causes of dam failures can be
divided into three groups: dam overtopping, excessive seepage, and structural failure of a component.
Despite efforts to provide sufficient structural integrity and to perform inspection and maintenance,
problems can develop that can lead to failure. While most dams have storage volumes small enough that
failures have little or no repercussions, dams with large storage amounts can cause significant flooding
downstream. Dam planning is a state-mandated hazard for inclusion in this plan.
Dam failures can result from any one or a combination of the following causes:
1. Prolonged periods of rainfall and flooding, which cause most failures;
2. Inadequate spillway capacity, resulting in excess overtopping flows;
3. Internal erosion caused by embankment or foundation leakage or piping;
4. Improper maintenance, including failure to remove trees, repair internal seepage problems, replace lost
material from the cross section of the dam and abutments, or maintain gates, valves, and other operational
components;
5. Improper design, including the use of improper construction materials and construction practices;
6. Negligent operation, including the failure to remove or open gates or valves during high flow periods;
7. Failure of upstream dams on the same waterway;
8. Landslides into reservoirs, which cause surges that result in overtopping;
9. High winds, which can cause significant wave action and result in substantial erosion; and
10. Earthquakes, which typically cause longitudinal cracks at the tops of the embankments, which can
weaken entire structures.
LEVEE
A levee is a man-made structure; usually earthen embankments designed and constructed in accordance
with sound engineering practices to contain, control, or divert the flow of water so as to provide protection
from temporary flooding.
A levee is generally built parallel to a body of water (most often a river) in order to protect lives and
property behind it from some level of flooding (100-year; 300-year; 500-year flood). Some reasons a
levee may fail include:
1. A flood that exceeds the specific flood level for which the levee was designed may “overtop” (water
can go over the top of the levee);
2. Failure to perform required maintenance, the need for which increases with age;
3. Lack of advance planning, resources and timely action to make the levee system ready for a flood
event;
4.Soil failure, erosion, and intrusion of animals.
DAM
The Dam Safety Program is part of the broader Water Structures Program of the Kansas Department of
Agriculture, Division of Water Resources. The Kansas Stream Obstructions Act (K.S.A. 82a-301 through
305a) gives the Chief Engineer, Kansas Department of Agriculture – Division of Water Resources the
Page 104
exclusive authority to regulate the construction, operation and maintenance of dams in Kansas. The
written consent or permit of the Chief Engineer is required to construct a dam or make changes in any
dam which meets the regulatory criteria.
NOTE: The State does not regulate Federal Reservoirs. In the State of Kansas, Federal Reservoirs are
inspected, maintained and managed by either the U.S. Corps of Engineers or the Bureau of Reclamation.
Emergency Action Plans (EAP) for these reservoirs, although classified, should be available for local
governments upon request. The EAP should include inundation maps in the event of a flooding event, or
an emergency at the facility.
The Chief Engineer has the power and duty to inspect any State-regulated dam. The Chief Engineer may
issue orders requiring correction of deficiencies or removal of the dam. An annual inspection of all dams
found to be unsafe is required until the deficiency is corrected or the dam is removed.
Where a dam condition is so dangerous as to pose an immediate safety threat, the Chief Engineer shall
immediately employ any remedial means considered necessary. The Chief Engineer shall continue in full
charge and control of any such dam until it is considered safe or the emergency prompting the remedial
action has ceased.
Three dam hazard classifications have been established as described in K.A.R. 5-40-9. These classes are:
1. Class A (low hazard) – dams located in rural or agricultural areas where failure may damage farm
buildings, limited agricultural land, or county, township and private roads.
2. Class B (significant hazard) – dams located in predominately rural or agricultural areas where failure
may endanger few lives, damage isolated homes, secondary highways or minor railroads or cause
interruption of use or service of relatively important public utilities.
3. Class C (high hazard) – dams located in areas where failure may cause extensive loss of life, serious
damage to homes, industrial and commercial facilities, important public utilities, main highways or
railroads.
The referenced hazard classes are solely impact-based. It is important to note that a high hazard dam is not
necessarily unsafe. An individual dam’s hazard classification is based upon the potential consequences of
dam failure and does not reflect the physical condition of the dam. Post-construction development in the
area is evaluated for potential to flood due to failure of the dam (breach inundation zone), and may result
in the dam’s reclassification to a higher hazard class than was originally assigned (Reference: Kansas
Water Plan, Small Dam Safety and Rehabilitation, Policy Section, approved by the Kansas Water
Authority November 18, 2005).
The classifications do not use a calculation of “likelihood” since the inspections do not include an
evaluation of “worthiness” or probability of failure. Also, there are no reported dam failures in Shawnee
County, which precludes the calculation of an overall county likelihood. Since likelihood data is not
available for potential dam failure, the county has elected to rely on the State classifications to prioritize,
and to plan for High Hazard Class C dams only for this study.
As a general rule, populations, property and environment residing downstream of dams are most
susceptible to damage from failure. There have been no reports of failure or damage from Dam failure in
the past for the county.
Page 105
LEVEE
The State of Kansas has four statutes that regulate the design and construction of levees. The Statutes
include: 12-635 Flood Protection; Eminent Domain; 14-434 Power to Regulate; 19-3301 Flood Control;
Counties, and 24-816 Within 1st Class Cities. These statutes guide an owner or community through the
process of developing levees within the county, and mandate requirements for reporting and maintenance
of the levee(s).
FEMA is responsible for identifying flood risks in areas behind levees through flood analysis and flood
hazard mapping projects, including updating the nation’s hazard maps through an effort called Flood Map
Modernization (Map Mod). In addition, FEMA also provides criteria to define which protect against the
1-percent-annual-chance flood. FEMA does not examine or analyze structures to determine their
performance in a given flood event. The levee owner must provide documentation to show that a levee
meets current design, operations, and maintenance criteria. FEMA will accredit levees based on a review
of these criteria. Levee owners or communities have a responsibility to provide documentation that a
levee meets the requirements of Title 44 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Section 65.10, as part of a
study/mapping project. Procedure Memorandum 34 (PM 34) allows for the issuance of a deadline to the
community for submitting the required documentation. (Source: FEMA)
FEMA – Region VII reported that their MAP Mod modernization program focuses on levees found on
existing FEMA Flood Maps (FIRMS) prior to update. FEMA is initiating a process to notify owners,
schedule meetings, and provide guidance to owners. The intent is to assist meeting Federal requirements
and accredit identified levees. The current draft of levees identified from Map Mod is included in the
Vulnerability discussion for levees.
Levees are designed to protect populations, property and environment located within certain areas of the
100-year floodplain that are adjacent to streams and rivers. There have been no reports of failure or
damage from Levee failure in the past for the county.
DAM
In Shawnee County there are 664 known dams included in the State of Kansas, Department of
Agriculture, Division of Water Resources database, of which 193 have been classified by the State. The
State data includes public and private-owned dams, as well as Federal Reservoirs, if within the county
boundary. The State of Kansas uses several criteria to classify dams, and is primarily based on the volume
of water impounded, and the density, type, and value of development downstream to determine the
potential impact of dam failure.
The Department of Water Resources identified seven (7) high-hazard dams in Shawnee County that could
impact the county in the event of breach or dam failure. Six of the seven could impact the City of Topeka,
while Dam #131 impacts rural areas, a highway and the City of Rossville. Maps are included in the
Vulnerability map section. These seven dams include:
Lake Shawnee Dam (State ID - DSN-0017) is owned and operated by Shawnee County, and was
constructed in 1937.
Burnett Dam (State ID - DSN-0045) is owned and operated by the Shunganunga Drainage District No. 1,
and was constructed in 1953.
Lake Sherwood Dam (State ID - DSN-0165), is subject to State regulations, and is owned and operated by
the Sherwood Lake Club, and was constructed in 1964.
Page 106
City of Topeka (unnamed dam) (State ID - DSN-0613) is owned and operated by the City of Topeka, and
was constructed in 1977.
Biddle Creek Detention Dam (State ID - DSN-0634) is owned and operated by the City of Topeka;
construction date is unknown.
Westridge Detention Dam (State ID - DSN-0681) is owned and operated by the City of Topeka;
construction date unknown.
Dam No. 131 (State ID - DSN-0693) is owned and operated by the Cross Creek WJD No. 42, and was
constructed in 2004.
Dam owners are required to develop and submit an Emergency Action Plan (EAP) for each of their dams
that include inundation maps for emergency response. There were no EAPs available for review through
the Department of Agriculture - Water Resources for six of the seven (7) High Hazard Dams identified.
A copy of the EAP Dam No. 131 (State ID - DSN-0693) was provided for review by Cross Creek WJD
No. 42, and is on file with the Shawnee County Emergency Management Department. The EAP identifies
two roads (Carson Road and Rossville Road), and one farm home along the east side of Carson Road that
would be impacted in the event of dam failure . Reference Section 4.5.2 for an inundation map for this
dam.
Actions have been created to obtain EAP data for referenced six dams for future updates to this Plan.
Two Federal reservoirs were identified "outside" of Shawnee County that could have a negative impact on
the county in the event of a breach, overtopping, or failure of the dam. The reservoirs include the Tuttle
Creek and Milford dams located in Riley and Geary Counties respectively. Tuttle Creek dam was
constructed to regulate water on the Big Blue River, and Milford dam regulates water flow on the
Republican River. The Republican and Smokey Hill rivers form a confluence at Junction City that creates
the Kansas River. The Big Blue River forms the natural boundary between Riley and Pottawatomie
Counties, and flows into the Kansas River at the south juncture of the counties.
Milford Lake was authorized by the Flood Control Act of 1954 as a "multi-purpose" project. The purposes
include flood control, water supply, water quality, navigation, and recreation/wildlife. Construction of the
dam began July 13, 1962 at river mile 8.3 on the Republican River, and was completed in August of
1964. The dam consists of a rolled earth fill embankment (15 million cubic yards) with an "uncontrolled"
spillway on the right bank. The term "uncontrolled" refers to the lack of spillway gates such as those at
Tuttle Creek Lake in Manhattan, KS. The outlet works are comprised of an intake tower, a gated single
21-foot horseshoe conduit, and a stilling basin (40 thousand cubic yards of concrete). Total storage
capacity for the reservoir (multipurpose and flood pool) is 1,173,154 acre-feet. In a worst-case scenario
(dam failure), flood water warning time would be approximately 14-hours before reaching Rossville;
15-hours in Silver Lake, and 17-hours in Topeka. Flood waters could potentially affect residential,
commercial, and agricultural areas downstream, with potential life, social, and economic consequences.
Low lying areas along creeks and streams in the county would also be impacted.
Tuttle Creek Lake was authorized by the Flood Control Act of 1954 as a "multi-purpose" project. The
purposes include flood control, water supply, water quality, navigation, and recreation/wildlife.
Construction of the dam began October, 1952 at river mile 10.0 on the Big Blue river, and was completed
in October of 1963. Total storage capacity (multipurpose and flood pool) is 2,367,017 acre-feet. In a
Page 107
worst-case scenario (dam failure), flood water warning time would be approximately 7-hours before
reaching Rossville, 9-hours in Silver Lake, and 11-hours in Topeka. Flood waters could potentially affect
residential, commercial, and agricultural areas downstream, with potential life, social, and economic
consequences. Low-lying areas along creeks and streams in the county would also be impacted.
The Emergency Action Plans and inundation maps for these Reservoirs were reported to be on file with
the Shawnee County Emergency Operations Department, but the inundation maps are classified under the
Patriot Act and are not available for review or inclusion in this Plan.
Dam classifications provided by the Department of Agriculture - Water Resources are not an indicator of
“worthiness”, but do present a legitimate risk to the county. Consequently, these dams are included in the
county mitigation planning process.
LEVEE
In Shawnee County there were 31 unique levee records identified by the Kansas Department of
Agriculture - Division of Water Structures database. A review of these data appears to show that 19 of
these referenced levees reside within the 6 identified drainage districts, with the remaining 12 levees
located in unincorporated areas of the county (reference the KDA map in Section 4.5.2 - Vulnerability).
Preliminary Map Mod data was also reviewed and is included in the Dam/Levee Vulnerability discussion.
The consultant examined three different mappings and databases of levees in Shawnee County. Each set
was different to such a degree that a consensus or consolidation of location, ownership, extent and other
information was not achievable. It was recommended to the MPC that an action be developed to
coordinate the updating and consolidation of all levee data. The following is a listing of the levees
recorded by the KDA (owners are listed as unknown):
CSN-0078,CSN-0113-L, CSN-0118-L, CSN-0129-L, LSN-0002, LSN-0003, LSN-0004, LSN-0005,
LSN-0006, LSN-0007, LSN-0008, LSN-0015 ,LSN-0016, LSN-0019, LSN-0022, LSN-0023, LSN-0025,
LSN-0028, LSN-0030, LSN-0034, LSN-0035, LSN-0036, LSN-0043, LSN-0047, LSN-0048, LSN-0050,
LSN-0058-C, LSN-0059-C, LSN-0060, LSN-0061-C, LSN-0063.
For reasons previously mentioned and uncontrollable by humans, it is possible a dam or levee can fail at
any time given the right circumstances. However, the probability of future occurrence is reduced due to
proactive preventative action on the part of KDA-DWR, (and the overall number of sources in Shawnee
County). As previously discussed in this section, KDA-DWR provides oversight to dam/levee repairs,
oversees and issues construction permits, enforces safety standards and mandates, conducts periodic
inspections, and provides public information to levee owners, engineers, and the general public. This
proactive approach to managing dam safety in Kansas reduces the number of losses to property and life as
a result of dam failure or near failure.
There have been no reported failures of dams or levees in Shawnee County or its jurisdictions. Although
we can estimate probability of occurrence from historical information, the risk of dam failure occurring
and the location of damage appear to be an unpredictable event with a very low probability.
Page 108
Flood - Auburn
Hazard Profile
groundcover to absorb and retain surface water runoff.
given year.
$15.686 million in property damages, with no reported crop damage, injuries, or deaths. Three local
events are described as follows:
County.
Page 109
supplies and equipment to higher ground before the floodwaters hit, greatly minimizing the damage. The
reported for Shawnee County as a result of the October 2nd event.
On May 6, 2007, the city of Auburn reported widespread early morning thunderstorms with attendant very
heavy rain caused widespread flash flooding. The flash flooding gave way to more generalized flooding
by late morning. Some of the flooding lasted for several days. Record flooding occurred in Osage county
at the gage sites on Salt Creek near Lyndon and the Marias des Cygnes near Quenemo. Water flowing
across Auburn Road from the town of Auburn to 61st Street. Debris is floating across the road. Many
county roads flooded south of 61st street between Urish and Hoch roads. Water flowing over Northeast
64th and Meriden streets. Cars stalled on Topeka Blvd between 42nd and 45th streets. Shunganunga
Creek out of its banks at Duncan Ct. and Gage near 25th Street. Six inches of water flowing over Kansas
Ave. between 29th and 21st streets. There were no fatalities or injuries reported for this event, but
property damage was estimated to be $500,000.
The City of Auburn is located north of the North Branch of the Wakarusa River, and has identified flood
hazard areas located on the south and southeast sides of town due to proximity to the river. A review of
the Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) map reveals that the majority of floodplain is in undeveloped
agricultural areas. Maps that display the location and extent of flood hazard areas are provided in Section
4.5.2 - Vulnerability Maps.
The likelihood of future events is estimated to remain the same as currently calculated. The City of
Auburn has a probability of flooding 3.92 times a year.
Page 110
Flood - Rossville
Hazard Profile
given year.
October 17, 1998, heavy rains of one to 5 inches caused a number of small creeks and streams to overflow
with water on some fields and back roads a few hours. There was no reported property damage or loss of
life for this event.
May 11, 2000, low land flooding occurred in the northwest part of the county including the town of
Rossville. There was no reported property damage or loss of life for this event.
Page 111
October 2, 2005, intense rainfall during the late evening of October 1st through the early morning of
The City of Rossville is located in close proximity to Cross Creek. The creek runs north-south through
the western edge of the city, and is also located to the north and east of Rossville. A significant portion of
the city is located in Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHA), including numerous residential and
commercial properties. The SFHA also extends outside the city limits in all directions. Maps that display
the location and extent of flood hazard areas are provided in Section 4.5.2 - Vulnerability Maps.
Rossville has a probability of flooding 3.92 times a year.
Page 112
Flood - Silver Lake
Hazard Profile
given year.
August 16, 1996, locally heavy rainfall amounts of three to six inches produced low land flooding and
flooding of several low lying roads and bridges. There was no property damage, crop damage, or deaths,
or injuries reported for this event.
Page 113
September 12, 2008, a line of thunderstorms developed along a nearly stationary frontal boundary. These
storms lingered over east central Kansas for several hours, and ended up dropping between two and five
inches of rain at several locations. Silver Lake reported water over Northwest 31st up to one-foot deep.
There was no property damage, crop damage, or deaths, or injuries reported for this event.
The City of Silver Lake is located adjacent to the east-northeast of Silver Lake, which is fed by Ensign
Creek, a tributary of the Kansas River. Review of the Silver Lake Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA)
map indicates that the majority of flooding appears to be to the west-southwest of Silver Lake, although a
portion of the south-central portion of the city also appears to flood. Maps that display the location and
extent of flood hazard areas are provided in Section 4.5.2 - Vulnerability Maps.
The likelihood of future events is estimated to remain the same as currently calculated. The City of Silver
Lake has a probability of flooding 3.92 times a year.
Page 114
Flood - Topeka
Hazard Profile
given year.
County.
Page 115
On May 7, 2007, most homes in the town of Wakarusa were inundated with flood waters from the
Wakarusa River. Water rescues of 22 residents stranded on their rooftops were conducted by the fire
department. The rescues were hampered by floating propane tanks. Numerous roads in the county were
closed by flood waters. Topeka city schools and some surrounding schools canceled classes. 500 water
rescues were made in Topeka, 300 along the Shunganunga Creek alone. The Rossville nursing home
evacuated it's residents as a precaution, due to flooding of Cross Creek. Lake Sherwood, southwest of
Topeka, reported water three feet above the emergency spillway. Numerous county roads were closed due
to the flooding. Lowland flooding continued in the vicinity of Topeka with moderate or greater flooding
along the Kansas River. The accumulation of rain from this event, along with earlier rains, brought
moderate or greater flooding to some of the major rivers in the area. This river flooding lasted for several
more days. The heavy rain events produced rainfall amounts of three to six inches, with some amounts
along the Kansas river basin of nearly nine inches. An unofficial report in the Topeka area had nearly a
foot of rain falling within this 48 hour period. Flooding from these events resulted in a local disaster
emergency declaration for Shawnee County, qualifying the county for state and federal (FEMA) aid.
The City of Topeka is located primarily to the south of the Kansas River, although a portion of the city is
located to the north of the river. Review of the Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) map indicates the
majority of the SFHA area extends northward from the Kansas River, due to the extensive levee system
located along the Kansas River. Areas of SFHA are also located in various areas within the city limits and
adjacent areas, primarily due to the number of creeks and tributaries in the area. Maps that display the
location and extent of flood hazard areas are provided in Section 4.5.2 - Vulnerability Maps.
Topeka has a probability of flooding 3.92 times a year.
Page 116
Dam / Levee - Topeka
Hazard Profile
DAM
See discussion at Shawnee County (UnInc).
LEVEE
DAM
LEVEE
DAM
The Department of Water Resources identified six (6) high-hazard dams that could impact the City of
Topeka in the event of breach or dam failure. These dams include:
Lake Shawnee Dam (State ID - DSN-0017) is subject to State regulations, and is owned and operated by
Shawnee County, and was constructed in 1937.
Burnett Dam (State ID - DSN-0045), is subject to State regulations, and is owned and operated by the
Shunganunga Drainage District No. 1, and was constructed in 1953.
Lake Sherwood Dam (State ID - DSN-0165), is subject to State regulations, and is owned and operated by
the Sherwood Lake Club, and was constructed in 1964.
City of Topeka (unnamed dam) (State ID - DSN-0613), is subject to State regulations, and is owned and
operated by the City of Topeka, and was constructed in 1977.
Biddle Creek Detention Dam (State ID - DSN-0634), is subject to State regulations, and is owned and
operated by the City of Topeka; construction date is unknown.
Westridge Detention Dam (State ID - DSN-0681), is subject to State regulations, and is owned and
operated by the City of Topeka; construction date unknown.
Dam owners are required to develop and submit an Emergency Action Plan (EAP) for each of their dams
that include inundation maps for emergency response. There were no EAPs available for review through
the Department of Agriculture - Water Resources for any of the six (6) High Hazard Dams identified.
Actions have been created to obtain these data for future updates to this Plan.
LEVEE
A review of the preliminary FEMA Map Mod data appears to show three (3) Water Drainage Districts
that operate or own levees that could impact the City of Topeka (reference the map in Section 4.5.3 Dam/Levee Vulnerability). Based on the limitations of the data collected and examined, it was not
Page 117
possible to provide a comprehensive listing of individual levees in the three systems. Additionally, there
was a levee study conducted by the City of Topeka and the Corps of Engineers of the levee systems
protecting the city. A copy of the study is provided in the Appendix.
An action has been proposed to accumulate and consolidate the levee information and develop a process
to ensure future maintenance and compliance is maintained. See Shawnee County (unincorporated) hazard
profile for a listing of identified levees in Shawnee County.
The have been no reported dam or levee failures reported for the City of Topeka. Although we can
estimate probability of occurrence from historical information, the risk of failure occurring and the
location of damage appear to be an unpredictable event with a low probability.
Page 118
Flood - Willard
Hazard Profile
groundcover to absorb and retain surface water runoff.
given year.
March 3, 2004, heavy rain of three to four inches over several days produced areas of flooding. Many
damage reported across 15 counties, with no crop damage, deaths, or injuries reported for this event.
June 5, 2005, moderate flooding was reported along Soldier creek in northwest Shawnee county. There
was $150,000 in property damage reported for this event.
Page 119
May 1, 2007, Willard reported that heavy rain during the morning brought some flash flooding to parts of
the county and town. Lowland and small stream flooding occurred over other parts of the county with a
few rainfall amounts over 6 inches. By afternoon, several brief tornadoes and numerous funnel clouds
were reported in a few other counties as unstable air gave rise to thunderstorms. The thunderstorms also
gave locally heavy rain and some flash flooding as well. Carlson road a half mile south of Willard
partially washed out due to flash flood. In total, there was $5,000 in property damage reported, with no
crop damage, deaths or injuries.
The City of Willard is located adjacent to the south of the Kansas River, and adjacent to the west of Post
Creek. Review of the Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) map indicates a significant portion of the City
of Willard is located in special flood hazard areas, especially the northern and eastern portions of the city.
The inundation areas include numerous residential properties and apparent agricultural land. Maps that
display the location and extent of flood hazard areas are provided in Section 4.5.2 - Vulnerability Maps.
Willard has a probability of flooding 3.92 times a year.
Page 120
Flood - Kaw Valley USD 321
Hazard Profile
given year.
October 17, 1998, heavy rains of one to 5 inches caused a number of small creeks and streams to overflow
with water on some fields and back roads a few hours. There was no reported property damage or loss of
life for this event.
May 11, 2000, low land flooding occurred in the northwest part of the county including the town of
Rossville. There was no reported property damage or loss of life for this event.
Page 121
October 2, 2005, intense rainfall during the late evening of October 1st through the early morning of
USD 321 has a school located in the City of Rossville that is located in close proximity to Cross Creek.
The creek runs north-south through the western edge of the city, and is also located to the north and east
of Rossville. A significant portion of the city is located in Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHA), including
numerous residential and commercial properties, as well as the Rossville Grade School. The SFHA also
extends outside the city limits in all directions. Maps that display the location and extent of flood hazard
areas are provided in Section 4.5.2 - Vulnerability Maps.
Rossville (and USD 321 schools) have a probability of flooding 3.92 times a year.
Page 122
4.5 Vulnerability Assessment
The vulnerability assessment was completed predominantly through the use of objective hazard and risk
analysis, along with the use of county-provided data and best available information at the time of the
study. It describes the county’s hazard prone locations and provides an inventory of repetitive loss
properties (if applicable) and critical facilities. This portion of the plan also describes current development
trends and implications for Shawnee County, and includes maps that were generated specifically to
illustrate jurisdiction vulnerability. Lastly, this section discusses what was learned through the process of
determining the county’s current and future vulnerability to natural hazards, and provides several
conclusions on community vulnerability.
Natural Hazards
Situated in the central portion of the country, Shawnee County is located in an area that is prone to the
effects of sudden collision of cold/warm fronts creating winter storms (blizzard, ice, heavy snow, etc.),
and thunderstorms (high wind, hail, tornadoes, heavy rain, lightning, etc.). Areas throughout the county
are vulnerable to the natural hazards identified in Section 4.0, and for the most part, face a uniform level
of risk for each hazard, with the exception of flood, wildfire, and dam/levee failure. This is due to the
nature of the natural weather events that occur in the county. Hail, thunderstorm high winds, winter
storms, lightning, and tornadoes are unpredictable and random in nature. Since the majority of the county
is rural, coupled with its sparse pattern of land development, it does not present areas that are significantly
more vulnerable to property loss than others. The majority of people who live and work in Shawnee
County reside in Topeka, but the probability that a jurisdiction would be affected more often than other
areas in the county is considered statistically very low.
Based on historical data, and for purposes of this hazard mitigation plan, Shawnee County will assess the
above-referenced natural hazards vulnerability on a countywide planning basis. Flood, dam/levee and
wildfire will be addressed as separate geographic planning areas.
4.5.1 Damage and Vulnerability Overview
The data to develop inventory estimates were obtained through various sources including the following:
• Shawnee County Appraiser
• HAZUS
• Kansas Department of Revenue, Division of Property Valuation
• Shawnee County Mitigation Planning Committee
• Kansas Department of Transportation
• RS Means estimator tools
• Emergency Management Department
• Kansas Water Office
Where data failure occurred, subjective data was used to obtain estimated facility/infrastructure costs. The
following tables attempt to assess the potential damage and vulnerability of Shawnee County based on
these estimates. Table 4.5.1 (1) was completed to assess the current and future vulnerability of Shawnee
County based upon the assessed value of assets within the jurisdiction. The inventory costs are based on
the number and assessed valuation and do not reflect replacement value for other assets such as land,
equipment, fixture, and furniture assets.
Page 123
TABLE 4.5.1 (1) ALL-HAZARDS COUNTY POTENTIAL DAMAGE INVENTORY
Current Conditions
Type of Development
Current Dollar Exposure
Projection Yr: 2040 (CAGR: 0.82%)
Number of Buildings
Future Replacement Value
Urban/Rural Real Property
Residential
$7,188,083,487
73768
$9,346,707,602
Agricultural
$35,600,653
1655
$46,291,740
Vacant Lots
$107,082,908
5578
$139,240,541
Not-For-Profit
$16,625,475
76
$21,618,204
Com/Industiral
$1,527,898,444
3145
$1,986,735,411
$15,186,300
4888
$19,746,836
$689,350
132
$896,366
Ag Improvement
All Other
Total Real Property
$8,891,166,617
$11,561,236,699
Urban/Rural Personal Property
Res. Mobile Homes
$31,707,113
2486
$41,228,947
$0
0
$0
$26,904,233
0
$34,983,734
C/I Mach/Equipment
$449,364,320
0
$584,311,091
Boat/Marine/Trailer
$16,540,867
0
$21,508,187
Other
$19,878,737
0
$25,848,440
Mineral Leasehold
Motor Vehicles
Total Personal Property
$544,395,270
$707,880,399
Public Utility
Urban - Public Utility
$276,570,124
40
$359,625,773
Rural - Public Utility
$148,246,809
27
$192,766,205
Total Public Utility
$424,816,933
$552,391,978
$9,860,378,820
$12,821,509,077
Totals
Totals
It is anticipated that when more data is obtained through development and cataloging of cadastral data,
more accurate replacement cost data will be included in future updates to this Plan.
In addition to being used for general mitigation planning purposes, this vulnerability assessment can be
used by Shawnee County as documentation to support the need for mitigation projects that can be funded
through the Federal Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP), the Pre-Disaster Mitigation Program
(PDM) and/or similar grant programs. The information gathered for public buildings and critical facilities
can also be used when applying for both Federal and State Public Assistance funds which provide
assistance for the repair and mitigation of public facilities and infrastructure following declared disaster
events.
4.5.2 Vulnerability Maps
The following maps provide brief descriptions for the data layers used to assess hazard vulnerability for
Shawnee County. Digital data used for the production of these maps was acquired from the Kansas
Geospatial Community Commons, U.S Census Tiger/Line, FEMA, and other resources.
Page 124
1. Shawnee County Base Maps
Page 125
Page 126
Page 127
Page 128
Page 129
Page 130
2. Regional Hydrography
The following maps display the major surface water features that form the drainage network for Shawnee
County. The County lies within the Kansas-Republican River Basin and two watersheds are designated
by the Environmental Protection Agency: the Lower Kansas and the Middle Kansas.
Page 131
Page 132
Page 133
Page 134
Page 135
Page 136
3. Flood Hazard Areas
The following maps display the Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHAs) in Shawnee County as delineated
by the Federal Emergency Management Agency through their Flood Insurance Rate Map (Q3) data.
SFHAs are defined by one of the following: (1) areas inundated by 100-year flooding, for which no base
flood elevations (BFEs) have been determined, (2) areas inundated by 100-year flooding for which BFEs
have been determined, or (3) areas inundated by 100-year flooding with velocity hazard (wave action);
BFEs have been determined.
SFHAs are depicted below as light blue areas.
Page 137
Page 138
Page 139
Page 140
Page 141
Page 142
Page 143
Page 144
Page 145
Page 146
Page 147
Page 148
4. Public Schools
The following displays the school districts and public schools located in Shawnee County.
Page 149
Page 150
Page 151
Page 152
Page 153
5. Pollution Sources
The following map displays the locations of individual National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) sites permitted for wastewater discharges to surface waters in Shawnee County, as recorded by
the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The map also displays the locations of Confined Animal
Feeding Operations (CAFOs) currently registered with KDHE.
Page 154
6. Dams
The following maps display the seven (7) high-hazard dams located in Shawnee County.
Page 155
Page 156
Page 157
Page 158
Page 159
Page 160
Page 161
Page 162
Page 163
7. Levees
In Shawnee County there were 31 unique levee records identified in the Kansas Department of
Agriculture (KDA) - Division of Water Structures database. A review of these data appears to show that
19 of these referenced levees reside within the six (6) identified drainage districts, with the remaining 12
levees located in areas of the county not within drainage districts.
Page 164
Page 165
4.5.3 Vulnerability Estimation by Hazard
E-Fm utilized geographic distribution of natural hazards to develop vulnerability estimates by hazard as
recommended by FEMA for hazards of planning significance. This generally involves assessment of
where the event occurs along with the extent and frequency of damage incurred over time. Natural
hazards identified as multijurisdictional are those hazards that impact the entire geographical area of the
county in a generally random and unpredictable manner. These hazards can include, but are not limited to,
two major classes of events: thunderstorms (tornado, lightning, hail, high/straightline wind, etc.), and
winter storms (blizzard, ice, sleet, heavy snow, extreme windchill, etc).
Natural hazards identified by FEMA that are considered local hazards for vulnerability assessment
include: flood, wildfire, and dam/levee failure. These hazards generally create localized damage exposure
so vulnerability is treated as a separate geographical planning area for these hazards.
With limited objective flood related data on structures and populations in flood hazard areas and limited
data on the appraised and assessed values of real property by land use in the overall multijurisdictional
areas of Shawnee County, estimates of damage inflicted by various types of natural hazards will be
offered in a tabular format.
The principal resource in developing loss estimates for the county or municipality was provided by the
National Climatic Data Center (NCDC), and best available information relating to populations and the
value of real, commercial, and personal property, by jurisdiction, as obtained from various state and
county sources. The purpose of this information is to show the overall population numbers and properties
values that would be subject to natural hazards in the jurisdictions of Shawnee County. Areawide natural
hazards such as tornados or drought would cause extensive damage because of the number of
buildings/parcels in the various jurisdictions of the region.
The qualitative approach used a two step process. The first step analyzed Severity Table 4.2 (2). NCDC
provides five categories for severity of damage for deaths, personal injury, property damage, and crop
damage. As an example, property damage reported in the database ranges from less than $10,000 to
greater than $100,000,000 per event. The consultant recommended the following for consideration:
• A value of 5 in the Severity table be considered as complete destruction (> $100,000,000);
• Values of 0.5, 1 and 2 be considered as 1% damage (1,000,000/100,000,000 = 1% in a worst case
scenario)
• Value of 3 be considered as greater than 1% and up to 10% damage (10,000,000/100,000,000 =
10% in a worst case scenario)
• Value of 4 be considered as greater than 10% and up to 50% damage (50,000,000/100,000,000 =
50% in a worst case scenario)
The MPC accepted this scale based on the fact that it is documented data provided by NCDC records.
Step 2 required each jurisdiction to agree on a final damage percentage considering local observations,
total values in Table 4.5.1 (1), and specific jurisdiction values provided by the Appraisers office and listed
in the vulnerability tables in Section 4. After this consideration, the damage percentage was assigned and
used for calculations. If, by consensus, the jurisdiction chose a percentage outside the proposed ranges,
then an explanation is provided, such as for flood and tornado.
Wildfire related data to structures, crops, and people were provided by the Kansas Fire Marshal's Office.
Data for dam/levee was provided by the Kansas Department of Agriculture (KDA) - Division of Water
Structures, and consists of dam/levee inventories and dam classifications developed by the KDA. The
hazards identified as high and moderate were assessed utilizing available quantatative analysis and/or loss
Page 166
estimation. Hazards that were researched but provided little data for evaluation were analyzed from a
qualitative perspective.
Page 167
Flood
Floods are generally a result of slow-moving thunderstorms that deposit large volumes of water over an
extended period of time. Heavy thunderstorm/rain may result in localized areas of flash flooding. This
hazard is addressed separately by geographical area where data is provided by the jurisdiction.
National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP)
The decision on whether to join the NFIP is very important for a jurisdiction (community). There is no
Federal law that requires a jurisdiction to join the program, and participation is voluntary. A benefit of
participation is that the citizens are provided the opportunity to purchase flood insurance to protect
themselves against flood losses. Another consideration is that a jurisdiction that has been identified by
FEMA as being flood-prone and has not joined the NFIP within one year of being notified of being
mapped as flood-prone will be sanctioned.
Insurance Program (NFIP). To participate in the NFIP the jurisdiction must adopt and enforce floodplain
management regulations that meet or exceed the minimum requirements of the program.
The jurisdiction must submit an application package that includes the following:
• The jurisdiction must make an Application for Participation in the NFIP (FEMA Form 81-64);
• The jurisdiction must adopt a Resolution of Intent, which indicates an explicit desire to participate
in the NFIP and a commitment to recognize flood hazards and carry out the objectives of the
program;
• The jurisdiction must adopt and submit Floodplain Management Regulations that exceed the
minimum flood plain management requirements of the NFIP (Title 44 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (44 CFR) section 60.3);
• The jurisdiction's floodplain management regulations must be legally enforceable.
Shawnee County (unincorporated) and the cities of Auburn, Rossville, Silver Lake, Topeka, and Willard
are committed to continued participation and compliance with the National Flood Insurance Program
(NFIP). Specific Actions that were identified in support of the NFIP are provided in Section 5.2 Mitigation Actions.
Permits may only be granted by the Shawnee County Zoning Administrator or its duly designated
representative.
Community Rating System Activities (CRS)
Insurance Program (NFIP). In return, the NFIP makes federally backed flood insurance policies available
for properties in the jurisdiction. The Community Rating System (CRS) was implemented in 1990 as a
program for recognizing and encouraging jurisdiction floodplain management activities that exceed the
minimum NFIP standards. There are ten CRS classes. Class 1 requires the most credit points and earns the
largest premium reduction, while Class 10 receives no premium reduction. It is a long process to become
a participating CRS community, taking almost one year from application to acceptance. New CRS
communities are admitted only on October 1 and May 1 of each year.
Shawnee County (unincorporated) and the incorporated cities in the county do not currently participate in
the CRS program.
Page 168
Repetitive Loss Inventory
The Kansas Department of Emergency Management (KDEM), Mitigation Planning Division, was
contacted regarding “repetitive loss properties” that may exist in Shawnee County. KDEM maintains
records obtained from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), Region VII, on repetitive
loss properties in the State of Kansas.
Although there are separate definitions for what constitutes a repetitive loss property among various
programs, FEMA generally considers it to be “any property, which the National Flood Insurance Program
has paid two or more flood claims of $1,000 or more in any, given 10-year period since 1978.”
FLOOD: REPETITIVE LOSS PROPERTIES
Address
City
Occupancy (type)
Building Value
# Loss Claims
Mitigated?
TWP 10 S
RNG 15 E
OF 6TH PM
SOLDIER
TWP
SINGLE FMLY
$20,000
2
NO
NW 86TH
STREET
TOPEKA
SINGLE FMLY
$103,400
4
NO
There was one reported repetitive loss property in an unincorporated area of Shawnee County, more
specifically located in Soldier Township. This property has reportedly had two (2) loss claims, and the
property has not been mitigated.
One repetitive loss property was identified in the City of Topeka. This property has reportedly had four
(4) loss claims, and the property has not been mitigated.
Flood inundation areas for Shawnee County (unincorporated) and participating mapped communities were
determined by use of FEMA boundary maps which were geo-coded using Manifold.Net, a GIS
application. The GIS application calculates the affected percentage of areas which is used to determine the
overall impact by the MPC. This data was then applied to determine the potential flash flood damage
based on a 100 year flood event, which would be less than one foot in depth, with an estimated damage of
10%. The overall value of buildings and contents for community assets identified in the tables are
estimated from appraised values supplied by the County Appraiser. The following table represents the
potential exposure loss for each community.
Page 169
FLOOD: SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL HAZARD-RELATED EXPOSURE/LOSS IN JURISDICTIONS
RESIDENTIAL
Jurisdiction
Exposed Population
# of Buildings
Damage as %
Potential Dollar Exposure / Loss
25,904
11,438
$1,082,968,590
10.00%
$108,296,859
45
12
$595,835
10.00%
$59,584
Rossville
588
234
$23,492,865
10.00%
$2,349,287
Silver
Lake
163
61
$6,883,691
10.00%
$688,369
Topeka
15,909
5,492
$502,168,349
10.00%
$50,216,835
Auburn
84
23
$2,523,793
10.00%
$252,379
Exposed Population
# of Buildings
Damage as %
3,574
2,311
$303,122,738
10.00%
$30,312,274
2
2
$40,457
10.00%
$4,046
297
28
$2,839,605
10.00%
$283,961
84
1
$97,454
10.00%
$9,745
Topeka
7,683
651
$110,307,081
10.00%
$11,030,708
Auburn
40
4
$857,153
10.00%
$85,715
Exposed Population
# of Buildings
Damage as %
1,036
27
$951,012,258
10.00%
$95,101,226
1
1
$37,450
10.00%
$3,745
335
6
$2,140,618
10.00%
$214,062
1
1
$97,454
10.00%
$9,745
Topeka
46
6
$26,396,870
10.00%
$2,639,687
Auburn
0
1
$81,900
10.00%
$8,190
Shawnee
(UnInc.)
Willard
Current Values
COMMERCIAL
Jurisdiction
Shawnee
(UnInc.)
Willard
Rossville
Silver
Lake
Current Values
CRITICAL FACILITIES
Jurisdiction
Shawnee
(UnInc.)
Willard
Rossville
Silver
Lake
Current Values
FLOOD: SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL HAZARD-RELATED EXPOSURE/LOSS IN SCHOOL JURISDICTIONS
SCHOOL(S)
Jurisdiction
Exposed Population
Kaw
Valley
USD 321
298
# of Buildings
1
Current Values
$5,847,625
Damage as %
10.00%
$584,763
SUPPORTING FACILITIES
Jurisdiction
Exposed Population
Kaw
Valley
USD 321
48
# of Buildings
1
Current Values
$125,000
Damage as %
10.00%
$12,500
Page 170
Shawnee County (unincorporated)
According to the FEMA Flood Insurance Map for Shawnee County dated May 17, 1993, the towns of
Auburn, Rossville, Silver Lake, Topeka, and Willard are subject to flooding with each town having
identified areas of potential inundation. Reference the Vulnerability Map Section for individual city
FIRMS provided in aerial photo format.
The vast majority of flooding in the unincorporated areas of Shawnee County is located along the Kansas
and Wakarusa Rivers and along the numerous streams and low-lying areas the criss-cross the county, but
present less impact due to the sparse population of the rural areas. These areas are also subject to
permitting prior to any building activities for these areas.
City of Auburn
The City of Auburn is located north of the North Branch of the Wakarusa River, and has identified flood
hazard areas located on the south and southeast sides of town due to proximity to the river. A review of
the Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) map reveals that the majority of floodplain is in undeveloped
agricultural areas. Specific Actions that were identified in support of the NFIP are provided in Section 5.2
Mitigation Actions.
City of Rossville
The City of Rossville is located in close proximity to Cross Creek. The creek runs north-south through the
western edge of the city, and is also located to the north and east of Rossville. A significant portion of the
city is located in Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHA), including numerous residential and commercial
properties. The SFHA also extends outside the city limits in all directions. Specific Actions that were
identified in support of the NFIP are provided in Section 5.2 Mitigation Actions.
City of Silver Lake
The City of Silver Lake is located adjacent to the east-northeast of Silver Lake, which is fed by Ensign
Creek, a tributary of the Kansas River. Review of the Silver Lake SFHA map indicates that the majority
of the SFHA area is located to the west-southwest of Silver Lake, although a portion of the SFHA extends
into the south-central portion of the city. Specific Actions that were identified in support of the NFIP are
provided in Section 5.2 Mitigation Actions.
City of Topeka
The City of Topeka is located primarily to the south of the Kansas River, although a portion of the city is
located to the north of the river. Review of the SFHA map indicates the majority of the SFHA area
extends northward from the Kansas River. An extensive levee system is located along the Kansas River.
Areas of SFHA are also located in various areas within the city limits and adjacent areas, primarily due to
the number of creeks and tributaries in the area. Specific Actions that were identified in support of the
NFIP are provided in Section 5.2 Mitigation Actions.
City of Willard
The City of Willard is located adjacent to the south of the Kansas River, and adjacent to the west of Post
Creek. Review of the SFHA map indicates a significant portion of the City of Willard is located in special
flood hazard areas, especially the northern and eastern portions of the city. The inundation areas include
numerous residential properties and apparent agricultural land. Specific Actions that were identified in
support of the NFIP are provided in Section 5.2 Mitigation Actions.
Kaw Valley USD 321
USD 321 reported that one of their schools located in Shawnee County, Rossville Grade School is located
in a floodplain and they have flood insurance for the school. USD 321 reported that their other school
located in Shawnee County (Rossville Jr./Sr. High School) was not located in a floodplain and the District
does not carry flood insurance for the school.
Washburn University / School Districts
USD's 450 and 437 reported that there were no school facilities within a floodplain, and did not identify a
Page 171
need for flood insurance for their facilities.
USD 501 reported that there were no school facilities within a floodplain, but they do carry flood
insurance for their facilities.
USD 345 reported that, district-wide, they do have flood insurance for their buildings, with the exception
of the Elmont Elementary School, which is located within a floodplain in the City of Topeka. USD 345
reported that, due to cost restraints, the district does not plan on purchasing flood insurance for the school,
but reported that they have other insurance that would cover any flood damage to the school.
Washburn University reported that there were no university facilities within a floodplain, but they do
carry flood insurance for their facilities.
Page 172
Tornado
The damage from a tornado is a result of high wind velocity and wind-blown debris. The potential damage
resulting from a tornado is directly correlated to the strength of the particular tornado and is qualified
utilizing the Enhanced Fujita (EF) Scale. The EF Scale assigns numerical values based on wind speeds
and categorizes tornadoes from EF0 through EF5.
The entire county is equally susceptible to damage from tornadoes. Although urbanized areas face the
greatest vulnerability because of their concentration of buildings, population, and lifeline utilities, the
economic impact from loss of crops, livestock, and storage facilities in the rural parts of the county can
have permanent or long-lasting impact on the communities in Shawnee County. Additionally, the range of
damage is largely dependent upon numerous storm factors. The jurisdictions utilized qualitative data to
estimate the probable percent damage based on the overall average severity magnitude rating for Tornado
identified in this plan. In many cases, due to the small nature of the towns in Shawnee County, a Tornado
could virtually wipe out the entire community (90% to 100%).
Page 173
TORNADO: SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL HAZARD-RELATED EXPOSURE/LOSS IN JURISDICTIONS
RESIDENTIAL
Jurisdiction
Exposed Population
# of Buildings
Damage as %
172,693
76,254
$7,219,790,600
20.00%
$1,443,958,120
84
22
$1,113,710
90.00%
$1,002,339
Rossville
1,014
403
$40,504,940
90.00%
$36,454,446
Silver
Lake
1,358
506
$57,364,090
90.00%
$51,627,681
Topeka
122,377
42,245
$3,862,833,460
20.00%
$772,566,692
Auburn
1,121
308
$33,650,570
90.00%
$30,285,513
Exposed Population
# of Buildings
Damage as %
23,829
15,409
$2,020,818,252
20.00%
$404,163,650
4
4
$75,620
90.00%
$68,058
Rossville
513
48
$4,895,870
90.00%
$4,406,283
Silver
Lake
702
5
$812,116
90.00%
$730,904
Topeka
59,101
5,006
$848,516,010
20.00%
$169,703,202
Auburn
531
45
$11,428,710
90.00%
$10,285,839
Exposed Population
# of Buildings
Damage as %
6,904
178
$6,340,081,721
20.00%
$1,268,016,344
1
1
$70,000
90.00%
$63,000
577
11
$3,690,720
90.00%
$3,321,648
11
8
$812,116
90.00%
$730,904
Topeka
352
45
$203,052,844
20.00%
$40,610,569
Auburn
0
9
$1,092,000
90.00%
$982,800
Shawnee
(UnInc.)
Willard
Current Values
COMMERCIAL
Jurisdiction
Shawnee
(UnInc.)
Willard
Current Values
CRITICAL FACILITIES
Jurisdiction
Shawnee
(UnInc.)
Willard
Rossville
Silver
Lake
Current Values
The schools have identified a need for shelters for protection from tornadoes, high winds, and other
consequences of these events. Based on a major tornado which would devastate the campus the estimated
damage would be 90%.
Page 174
TORNADO: SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL HAZARD-RELATED EXPOSURE/LOSS IN SCHOOL JURISDICTIONS
SCHOOL(S)
Jurisdiction
Exposed
Population
# of Buildings
Current Values
Damage as %
Auburn-Washburn
USD 437
6,042
10
$147,494,763
90.00%
$132,745,287
Topeka Public
Schools USD 501
16,000
35
$276,651,240
90.00%
$248,986,116
Washburn
University
7,234
28
$180,435,297
90.00%
$162,391,767
Shawnee Heights
USD 450
3,500
7
$83,896,735
90.00%
$75,507,062
Seaman USD 345
3,755
9
$95,463,353
90.00%
$85,917,018
Kaw Valley USD
321
688
2
$17,426,394
90.00%
$15,683,755
Damage as %
SUPPORTING FACILITIES
Jurisdiction
Exposed
Population
# of Buildings
Current Values
Auburn-Washburn
USD 437
55
2
$6,687,845
90.00%
$6,019,061
Topeka Public
Schools USD 501
100
23
$34,872,840
90.00%
$31,385,556
1,100
12
$123,757,000
90.00%
$111,381,300
Shawnee Heights
USD 450
25
4
$5,000,000
90.00%
$4,500,000
Seaman USD 345
103
3
$2,806,510
90.00%
$2,525,859
Kaw Valley USD
321
98
4
$427,548
90.00%
$384,793
Washburn
University
Page 175
Dam / Levee
DAM
There are 79,500 dams in the United States, according to the 2005 update to the National Inventory of
Dams. Approximately one third of these pose a "high" or "significant" hazard to life and property if
failure occurs.
A dam is a barrier across flowing water that obstructs, directs or slows down the flow, often creating a
reservoir, lake or impoundments. Most dams have a section called a spillway or weir over which, or
through which, water flows, either intermittently or continuously, and many have hydroelectric power
generation systems installed.
Dams are considered "installations containing dangerous forces" under International Humanitarian Law
due to the massive impact of a possible destruction on the civilian population and the environment. Dam
failures are comparatively rare, but can cause immense damage and loss of life when they arise.
National statistics show that overtopping due to inadequate spillway design, debris blockage of spillways,
or settlement of the dam crest account for 34% of all dam failures. Foundation defects, including
settlement and slope instability, account for 30% of all failures. Piping and seepage cause 20% of national
dam failures. This includes internal erosion caused by seepage, seepage and erosion along hydraulic
structures, leakage through animal burrows, and cracks in the dam. The remaining 16% of failures are
caused by other means. Dam failure can occur with little warning. Intense storms may produce a flood in a
few hours or even minutes for upstream locations. Flash floods occur within six hours of the beginning of
heavy rainfall, and dam failure may occur within hours of the first signs of breaching. Other failures can
take much longer to occur, from days to weeks, as a result of debris jams or the accumulation of melting
snow.
In Kansas, Federal Reservoirs are inspected, maintained and managed by either the U.S. Corps of
engineers or the Bureau of Reclamation. Emergency Action Plans (EAPs), including inundation maps, are
designated as For Official Use Only (FOUO), and are available only to local governments downstream
for use in an emergency. The Local Emergency Operations Plan (LEOP) should include inundation maps
in the event of a flooding event, or an emergency at the facility.
Dam inundation hazards are addressed separately by geographical area where data is available to the
county.
The Department of Water Resources identified seven (7) high-hazard dams in Shawnee County that could
impact the county in the event of breach or dam failure. A map review revealed that six of the seven could
impact the City of Topeka, while Dam No. 131 could impact rural areas, a highway, and the City of
Rossville.
The Department of Water Resources did not identify any Federal Reservoirs in Shawnee County.
Of the seven high hazard dams identified, three are owned by the City of Topeka, and are discussed under
the City of Topeka heading. The remaining four dams are located in unincorporated Shawnee County.
The Lake Shawnee Dam (State ID - DSN-0017, constructed in 1937) does not have an EAP, according to
the Kansas Department of Agriculture - Water Resources Division. As such, inundation maps and
potential downstream damage estimates were not available for evaluation for this Plan. It resides in the
unincorporated area of the county.
Page 176
The Lake Sherwood Dam (State ID - DSN-0165, constructed in 1964), is owned and operated by the
Sherwood Lake Club, but located in unincorporated Shawnee County and does not have an EAP,
according to the Kansas Department of Agriculture - Water Resources Division. As such, inundation maps
and potential downstream damage estimates were not available for evaluation for this Plan.
Dam No. 131 (State ID - DSN-0693, constructed in 2004) is located in the unincorporated area of the
county and is owned and operated by the Cross Creek Watershed JD No. 42. A copy of the EAP Dam No.
131 (State ID - DSN-0693) was provided for review by Cross Creek WJD No. 42, and is on file with the
Shawnee County Emergency Management Department. The EAP identifies two roads (Carson Road and
Rossville Road), and one farm home along the east side of Carson Road that would be impacted in the
event of dam failure . Reference Section 4.5.2 for an inundation map for this dam.
The Burnett Dam (State ID - DSN-0045, constructed in 1953) is located in the unincorporated area of the
county and is owned and operated by the Shunganunga Drainage District No. 1. The dam does not have an
EAP according to the Kansas Department of Agriculture - Water Resources Division. As such,
inundation maps and potential downstream damage estimates were not available for evaluation for this
Plan.
Actions are included to develop EAPs for the Lake Shawnee Dam, the Lake Sherwood Dam, Dam No.
131, and the Burnett Dam.
City of Topeka
Three High-Hazard dams were identified as being owned and operated by the City of Topeka:
The City of Topeka (unnamed dam) (State ID - DSN-0613, constructed in 1977) does not have an EAP
The Westridge Detention Dam (State ID - DSN-0681, construction date unknown) does not have an EAP
The Biddle Creek Detention Dam (State ID - DSN-0634, construction date unknown) does not have an
EAP, according to the Kansas Department of Agriculture - Water Resources Division. As such,
inundation maps and potential downstream damage estimates were not available for evaluation for this
Plan.
Actions are included to develop EAPs for the City of Topeka's Unnamed Dam, the Westridge Detention
Dam, and the Biddle Creek Detention Dam.
LEVEE
FEMA is responsible for identifying flood risks in areas behind levees through flood analysis and flood
hazard mapping projects, including updating the nation’s hazard maps through an effort called Flood Map
Modernization (Map Mod). In addition, FEMA also provides criteria to define which protect against the
1-percent-annual-chance flood. FEMA does not examine or analyze structures to determine their
performance in a given flood event. The levee owner must provide documentation to show that a levee
meets current design, operations, and maintenance criteria. FEMA will accredit levees based on a review
of these criteria. Levee owners or communities have a responsibility to provide documentation that a levee
meets the requirements of Title 44 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Section 65.10, as part of a
study/mapping project. Procedure Memorandum 34 (PM 34) allows for the issuance of a deadline to the
Page 177
community for submitting the required documentation. (Source: FEMA)
FEMA – Region VII reported that their MAP Mod modernization program focuses on levees found on
existing FEMA Flood Maps (FIRMS) prior to update. FEMA is initiating a process to notify owners,
schedule meetings, and provide guidance to owners. The intent is to assist meeting Federal requirements
and accredit identified levees.
The State of Kansas has four statutes that regulate the design and construction of levees. The Statutes
include: 12-635 Flood Protection; Eminent Domain; 14-434 Power to Regulate; 19-3301 Flood Control;
Counties, and 24-816 Within 1st Class Cities. These statutes guide an owner or community through the
process of developing levees within the county, and mandate requirements for reporting and maintenance
of the levee(s).
Levee failure could be attributed to many factors including engineering failure, inadequate height, erosion,
soil quality, ineffective levee board system, seepage, and other types of hydro-logic issues that could
disrupt the integrity of a levee. Developing a sound maintenance plan along with monitoring water flow
and construction conditions to certify levees are the best approach to preventing future failure. Ordinances
which monitor and control construction and construction excavations in the vicinity of a levee can also
prevent unforeseen damage to systems.
In Shawnee County there were 31 unique levee records identified in the Kansas Department of
Agriculture - Division of Water Structures (KDA) database. A review of these data appears to show that
19 of these referenced levees reside within the six (6) identified drainage districts, with the remaining 12
levees located in unincorporated areas of the county not within drainage districts (reference Section 4.5.2 Vulnerability Maps - KDA Levee Map).
The following preliminary FEMA Map Mod data was provided by Shawnee County GIS Department. A
review of the FEMA Map Mod Map appears to show three (3) Water Drainage Districts that operate or
own levees that could impact the City of Topeka. Based on the limitations of the data collected and
examined, it was not possible to provide a comprehensive listing of individual levees in the three systems.
Actions have been included in Section 5.2 for levee evaluation.
Page 178
The estimated vulnerability for dam and levee exposure is provided in the table below, and is based on
flood inundation areas for Shawnee County (unincorporated), and planning jurisdictions determined by
use of FEMA boundary maps which were geo-coded using Manifold.Net, a GIS application. The GIS
application calculates the affected percentage of areas which is used to determine the overall impact by
the MPC. This data was then applied to determine the potential flood damage based on a 100 year flood
event, which would be less than one foot in depth, with an estimated damage of 10%. The overall value of
buildings and contents for community assets identified in the tables are estimated from appraised values
supplied by the County Appraiser. The following table represents the potential exposure loss for each
community.
Page 179
DAM/LEVEE: SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL HAZARD-RELATED EXPOSURE/LOSS IN JURISDICTIONS
RESIDENTIAL
Jurisdiction
Exposed Population
# of Buildings
Shawnee
(UnInc.)
25,904
11,438
Topeka
15,909
5,492
Exposed Population
# of Buildings
Shawnee
(UnInc.)
3,574
2,311
Topeka
7,683
651
Exposed Population
# of Buildings
1,036
27
46
6
Current Values
Damage as %
$1,082,968,590
10.00%
$108,296,859
$502,168,349
10.00%
$50,216,835
Damage as %
$303,122,738
10.00%
$30,312,274
$110,307,081
10.00%
$11,030,708
Damage as %
$951,012,258
10.00%
$95,101,226
$26,396,870
10.00%
$2,639,687
COMMERCIAL
Jurisdiction
Current Values
CRITICAL FACILITIES
Jurisdiction
Shawnee
(UnInc.)
Topeka
Current Values
Page 180
Drought
Droughts can be grouped into four basic categories based on the severity and impact of the occurrence.
These are meteorological, hydrological, agricultural, and socioeconomic. Since they are largely
categorized by impact, it is possible, if not likely that these conditions could exist simultaneously.
Kansas's climate is characterized by cold winters and warm to hot summers. The eastern part of the state
generally receives moderate moisture in the winter and adequate moisture in the spring for the growing
season for crops.
The western portion of the state usually receives low to moderate moisture in the winter and marginal
moisture in the spring for the growing season for crops. The semi-arid conditions that prevail in the
western portion of the state also experiences average wind speeds of 12 to 17.5 mph which causes dry
conditions in a very short period of time.
This combination of hot summers and limited precipitation in a semi-arid geography places Kansas in a
potential position of suffering a drought in any given year. The climatic conditions are such that a small
departure in the normal precipitation during the hot peak growing period of July and August could
produce a partial or total crop failure. The fact Kanas's economy is closely tied to agriculture only
magnifies the potential loss which could be suffered during drought conditions.
There is no distinct geographic boundary to drought, and it can occur in every area of the county equally.
While Shawnee County buildings, critical facilities, infrastructure and lifelines may be exposed to
extreme weather related conditions brought on by a period of drought, it is expected that the greatest
exposure to this hazard is on the population, agriculture, and livestock of Shawnee County. Hazard
workshops are considered a viable option to educate the local residents and will be considered in the
future. See Section 5.2 Mitigation Actions.
DROUGHT: SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL HAZARD-RELATED EXPOSURE/LOSS IN JURISDICTIONS
RESIDENTIAL
Jurisdiction
Exposed Population
# of Buildings
172,693
76,254
Exposed Population
# of Buildings
23,829
15,409
Exposed Population
# of Buildings
6,904
178
Shawnee
(UnInc.)
Current Values
$7,219,790,600
Damage as %
1.00%
$72,197,906
Damage as %
1.00%
$20,208,183
Damage as %
1.00%
$63,400,817
COMMERCIAL
Jurisdiction
Shawnee
(UnInc.)
Current Values
$2,020,818,252
CRITICAL FACILITIES
Jurisdiction
Shawnee
(UnInc.)
Current Values
$6,340,081,721
Page 181
Excessive Heat
During the summer months, the State of Kansas is frequently affected by severe heat hazards. Persistent
domes of high pressure establish themselves, which set up hot and dry conditions. This high pressure
prevents other weather features such as cool fronts or rain events from moving into the area and providing
necessary relief. Daily high temperatures range into the upper 90’s and low 100’s. When combined with
moderate to high relative humidity levels, the heat index moves into dangerous levels, and a heat index of
105 degrees is considered the level where many people begin to experience extreme discomfort or
physical distress.
There is no distinct geographic boundary to Excessive Heat. Excessive Heat can occur in every area of the
county equally. All populations, buildings, critical facilities, infrastructure and lifelines, and hazardous
materials facilities are considered exposed to the excessive summer heat hazard and could potentially be
impacted.
For purposes of this hazard mitigation plan, Shawnee County will assess this hazard's vulnerability on a
multijurisdictional planning basis instead of establishing separate geographic planning areas for this type
of event. The MPC noted that the greatest exposure to this hazard is on the population of Shawnee County
rather than impacting physical County assets.
Page 182
Fog
Fog is a cloud at ground level, water droplets suspended in the air at the earth’s surface. Fog forms when
the air cannot hold all the moisture it contains. This happens when air is cooled to its dew point, which is
the temperature at which air is holding as much moisture as it can. When air reaches its dew point it
condenses into very small particles, forming the tiny water droplets that comprise fog.
The intensity and duration of fog varies with the location and type of fog - from early morning ground fog
that burns off easily to prolonged valley fog that can last for days. Generally, strong winds tend to
prevent fog formation.
Areas of Shawnee County along the river valleys and other low-lying areas can be at greater risk for fog
under certain meteorological conditions. However, no part of the county is free of the possibility of
experiencing fog. For purposes of this hazard mitigation plan, Shawnee County will assess this hazard's
vulnerability on a multijurisdictional planning basis instead of establishing separate geographic planning
areas for this type of event.
The MPC noted that the greatest exposure to this hazard is on the population of Shawnee County, rather
than property. However, fog does present some risk to motorized vehicle damage due to the limited
visibility created for motorists. Hazard workshops are considered a viable option to educate the local
residents and will be considered in the future. See Section 5.2 Mitigation Actions.
Page 183
Hail
Hailstorms can cause extensive property damage affecting both urban and rural landscapes across large
areas. Fortunately, most hailstorms produce marble-size or smaller hailstones. These can cause damage to
crops, but they normally do not damage buildings or automobiles. Larger hailstones can destroy crops,
livestock, and wildlife and can cause extensive damage to buildings, including roofs, windows, and
outside walls. Vehicles can be total losses. When hail breaks windows, water damage from accompanying
rains can also be significant. A major hailstorm can easily cause damage running into the millions of
dollars.
Hail vulnerability is unpredictable and is a multijurisdictional hazard capable of producing extensive
damage from the impact of falling objects. Most thunderstorms do not produce hail, and ones that do
normally produce only small hailstones not more than one-half inch in diameter. However, hailstones can
grow larger than the size of a golf ball before falling to the ground. On September 3, 1970, a thunderstorm
in Coffeyville, Kansas produced a hailstone that measured more than 5 inches in diameter and 17 inches
around, weighing 1.7 pounds.
Hail is associated with severe thunderstorms. Powerful updrafts produce cumulonimbus clouds that tower
tens of thousands of feet above the ground. Air temperature in the upper levels of these clouds may be
-50°F or below. Hailstones grow as ice pellets, are lifted by updrafts, and collect supercooled water
droplets. As they grow, hailstones become heavier and begin to fall. Sometimes, they are caught by
successively stronger updrafts and are circulated through the cloud again and again, growing larger each
time the cycle is repeated. Eventually, the updrafts can no longer support the weight of the hailstones. As
hailstones fall to the ground, they produce a hailstreak that may be more than a mile wide and a few miles
long. A single thunderstorm can produce several hailstreaks (Changnon and Ivens, 1987).
Hailstorms occur every year in Kansas. Fortunately, most of these cause minimal damage. However,
storms producing large hail and causing extensive damage are ingrained in the memories of many Kansas
residents. While it is not possible to prevent damage, efforts to mitigate the potential effects of hail can
help property owners to minimize their losses.
Severe weather watches and warnings often provide ample time to prepare for a hailstorm. When there is
a threat of severe weather, property owners should move vehicles and other valuable moveable objects to
locations that provide shelter from falling hail. Farmers should move livestock and machinery to sheltered
locations. If a hailstorm is approaching, take shelter inside. Close drapes, blinds, and window shades
inside your house to reduce the likelihood of shattered glass being blown inside. Then, move to an interior
room on the lowest level and stay there during the storm.
The entire Shawnee County area is equally susceptible to damage from hail in association with severe
thunderstorms.
The best protection against financial loss from hail is to purchase insurance. Homeowners and auto
insurance should include coverage for hail damage. Farmers should invest in crop insurance to protect
against catastrophic loss.
Page 184
HAIL: SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL HAZARD-RELATED EXPOSURE/LOSS IN JURISDICTIONS
RESIDENTIAL
Jurisdiction
Exposed Population
# of Buildings
Damage as %
172,693
76,254
$7,219,790,600
5.00%
$360,989,530
84
22
$1,113,710
10.00%
$111,371
Rossville
1,014
403
$40,504,940
10.00%
$4,050,494
Silver
Lake
1,358
506
$57,364,090
10.00%
$5,736,409
Topeka
122,377
42,245
$3,862,833,460
10.00%
$386,283,346
Auburn
1,121
308
$33,650,570
10.00%
$3,365,057
Exposed Population
# of Buildings
Damage as %
23,829
15,409
$2,020,818,252
5.00%
$101,040,913
4
4
$75,620
10.00%
$7,562
Rossville
513
48
$4,895,870
10.00%
$489,587
Silver
Lake
702
5
$812,116
10.00%
$81,212
Topeka
59,101
5,006
$848,516,010
10.00%
$84,851,601
Auburn
531
45
$11,428,710
10.00%
$1,142,871
Exposed Population
# of Buildings
Damage as %
6,904
178
$63,400,817,210
5.00%
$3,170,040,861
1
1
$70,000
10.00%
$7,000
577
11
$3,690,720
10.00%
$369,072
11
8
$812,116
10.00%
$81,212
Topeka
352
45
$203,052,844
10.00%
$20,305,284
Auburn
0
9
$1,092,000
10.00%
$109,200
Shawnee
(UnInc.)
Willard
Current Values
COMMERCIAL
Jurisdiction
Shawnee
(UnInc.)
Willard
Current Values
CRITICAL FACILITIES
Jurisdiction
Shawnee
(UnInc.)
Willard
Rossville
Silver
Lake
Current Values
Page 185
Terrorism / AT / CD
Planning for this category of hazard is similar to natural hazards in that these types of hazards can occur
randomly, or as a result of a natural plant or animal disease, which could impact the entire county (and
beyond) before the disease or bio-agent is discovered. For this reason, this hazard category will be
assessed on a countywide planning basis instead of establishing a separate geographic planning area for
this type of event.
Although initial detection of this type of event is considered uncontrollable, it is highly possible an act of
terrorism (domestic or other) could occur at any time given the right circumstances. However, the
probability of future occurrence is reduced due to proactive preventative action on the part of Federal,
State and local authorities. This proactive approach to preparation and prevention will help reduce the
potential for losses to property and life as a result of terrorist or FAD outbreaks.
A review of this type of hazard revealed few sources for estimating risk associated with terrorism,
agri-terrorism, and civil disorder, and appears to have a low risk probability for Shawnee County. The
State of Kansas required each County to develop a Foreign Animal Disease Plan (FAD) for agricultural
exotic diseases, and is included in the plan as a state-mandated planning hazard.
For planning purposes this hazard category is considered to be a multijurisdictional hazard and the entire
planning area is considered equally susceptible to Terrorism / Agri-terrorism / Civil Disorder.
Page 186
TSTM Wind
A severe thunderstorm is a thunderstorm which produces tornadoes, hail 0.75 inches or more in diameter,
or winds of 50 knots (58 mph) or more. Structural wind damage or damaged crops may imply the
occurrence of a severe thunderstorm. A thunderstorm is approaching severe levels when it contains winds
of 35 to 49 knots (40 to 57 mph) or hail ½-inch or larger but less than ¾-inch in diameter. Although not
considered “severe”, lightning and heavy rain can also accompany thunderstorms.
In the case of severe thunderstorms, hail, wind, and tornadoes, the location and frequency of previous
events are probably the best determiners of future events. NCDC recorded events provided the basis for
the natural hazards analysis for Shawnee County, and identified severity and likelihood to prioritize the
hazard.
The entire county is equally susceptible to damage from thunderstorm high wind (TSTM Wind), and for
this Plan, is addressed as part of the multi-hazard planning category.
Page 187
TSTM WIND: SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL HAZARD-RELATED EXPOSURE/LOSS IN JURISDICTIONS
RESIDENTIAL
Jurisdiction
Exposed Population
# of Buildings
Damage as %
172,693
76,254
$7,219,790,600
10.00%
$721,979,060
84
22
$1,113,710
10.00%
$111,371
Rossville
1,014
403
$40,504,940
10.00%
$4,050,494
Silver
Lake
1,358
506
$57,364,090
10.00%
$5,736,409
Topeka
122,377
42,245
$3,862,833,460
10.00%
$386,283,346
Auburn
1,121
308
$33,650,570
10.00%
$3,365,057
Exposed Population
# of Buildings
Damage as %
23,829
25,409
$2,020,818,252
10.00%
$202,081,825
4
4
$75,620
10.00%
$7,562
Rossville
513
48
$4,895,870
10.00%
$489,587
Silver
Lake
702
5
$812,116
10.00%
$81,212
Topeka
59,101
5,006
$848,516,010
10.00%
$84,851,601
Auburn
531
45
$11,428,710
10.00%
$1,142,871
Exposed Population
# of Buildings
Damage as %
6,904
178
$6,340,081,721
10.00%
$634,008,172
1
1
$70,000
10.00%
$7,000
577
11
$3,690,720
10.00%
$369,072
11
8
$812,116
10.00%
$81,212
Topeka
352
45
$203,052,844
10.00%
$20,305,284
Auburn
0
9
$1,092,000
10.00%
$109,200
Shawnee
(UnInc.)
Willard
Current Values
COMMERCIAL
Jurisdiction
Shawnee
(UnInc.)
Willard
Current Values
CRITICAL FACILITIES
Jurisdiction
Shawnee
(UnInc.)
Willard
Rossville
Silver
Lake
Current Values
Page 188
Utility Failure
Failure of electrical utilities or other components of the power infrastructure in Shawnee County can
seriously impact public safety and health, vital government services, and the economy of the county.
Disruption of any of these functions could result from the majority of the natural, technological, and
manmade hazards described in this plan. Reliable data at the local level was not available, so Shawnee
County relied on vulnerability data provided in the State Mitigation Plan for analysis of this potential
hazard.
The electric power infrastructure in Kansas has been significantly affected by disasters and weather events
in the past, and is expected to continue into the future. Potential losses to the electric line infrastructure
are difficult to quantify. This information could potentially be obtained or estimated with assistance from
rural electric cooperatives in future updates to this plan.
For purposes of this hazard mitigation plan, Shawnee County will assess this hazard's vulnerability on a
countywide planning basis instead of establishing separate geographic planning areas for this type of
event. The MPC noted that the greatest exposure to this hazard is on the population of Shawnee County
rather than impacting physical County assets.
UTILITY FAILURE: SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL HAZARD-RELATED EXPOSURE/LOSS IN JURISDICTIONS
RESIDENTIAL
Jurisdiction
Exposed Population
Shawnee
(UnInc.)
172,693
# of Buildings
0
Current Values
$0
Damage as %
0.00%
$0
COMMERCIAL
Jurisdiction
Exposed Population
Shawnee
(UnInc.)
0
# of Buildings
0
Current Values
$0
Damage as %
0.00%
$0
CRITICAL FACILITIES
Jurisdiction
Exposed Population
Shawnee
(UnInc.)
0
# of Buildings
0
Current Values
$0
Damage as %
0.00%
$0
Page 189
Wildfire
Wildfires in the State of Kansas are better defined as rangeland fires. These fires generally originate as a
surface fire and can spread quickly across large areas. Wild/rangeland fires initiated by lightning are also
an issue in the plains states. When wildfires do occur in Shawnee County, it is very rare that a home or
business is lost; most damage is limited to field crops. Wildfires are most common in the spring when
brush is still brown and dry, as well as in the fall when fields have reached maturity.
Wildfires can cause considerable damage and loss of life especially in areas where there is an interface
between wild or range land and urban development. Not only do the topography and wind velocity of
Shawnee County lend themselves to the spread of wildfires, but the county has multiple fuel sources and
is prone to drought and thunderstorms. Because of these factors, wildfires are a significant risk for
Shawnee County.
The NCDC database collects wildfire data for federally-owned land, but does not track private property.
Consequently, the Kansas Fire Marshal’s office tracks fire data for private property owners in Kansas.
Collection of data began in 1997. Current information is provided in summary form only and reflects
reported fires on an annual basis by county. Specific incident loss data in the county is based on limited
data.
Current statistical analysis for Shawnee County indicates as average of 31.4 wildfire events a year, and is
classified as a “high-risk” hazard, but due to the rural setting of the county, and isolated locations of
wildfire, this hazard is addressed on a jurisdictional planning basis. Since the vast majority of reported
rangeland fires occur in unpopulated areas of the county, vulnerability appears to be limited to the
unincorporated areas of the County involving row crops, and is reported by the planning committee to
have a low impact to infrastructure and people.
WILDFIRE: SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL HAZARD-RELATED EXPOSURE/LOSS IN JURISDICTIONS
RESIDENTIAL
Jurisdiction
Exposed Population
# of Buildings
172,693
76,254
Exposed Population
# of Buildings
23,829
15,409
Exposed Population
# of Buildings
6,904
178
Shawnee
(UnInc.)
Current Values
$7,219,790,600
Damage as %
1.00%
$72,197,906
Damage as %
1.00%
$20,208,183
Damage as %
1.00%
$63,400,817
COMMERCIAL
Jurisdiction
Shawnee
(UnInc.)
Current Values
$2,020,818,252
CRITICAL FACILITIES
Jurisdiction
Shawnee
(UnInc.)
Current Values
$6,340,081,721
Page 190
Winter Storm
Winter storms can include blizzards, ice/sleet storms, extreme windchill and other cold related hazards
that can impact a community, county or region. The entire county is equally susceptible to damage from
severe winter storms, and is included as a multijurisdictional planning hazard for this Plan.
The probability of a severe winter storm event depends on winter weather patterns that pass through the
state. The likelihood of future events is estimated to remain the same as currently calculated. Shawnee
County can expect 4.13 Winter Storm events a year. Although we can extract data and probability of
occurrence from historical information, the risk of a severe event occurring and the location of damage
appear to be a random event.
WINTER STORM: SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL HAZARD-RELATED EXPOSURE/LOSS IN JURISDICTIONS
RESIDENTIAL
Jurisdiction
Exposed Population
# of Buildings
Damage as %
172,693
76,254
$7,219,790,600
5.00%
$360,989,530
84
22
$1,113,710
10.00%
$111,371
Rossville
1,014
403
$40,504,940
10.00%
$4,050,494
Silver
Lake
1,358
506
$57,364,090
10.00%
$5,736,409
Topeka
122,377
42,245
$3,862,833,460
10.00%
$386,283,346
Auburn
1,121
308
$33,650,570
10.00%
$3,365,057
Exposed Population
# of Buildings
Damage as %
23,829
15,409
$2,020,818,252
5.00%
$101,040,913
4
4
$75,620
10.00%
$7,562
Rossville
513
48
$4,895,870
10.00%
$489,587
Silver
Lake
702
5
$812,116
10.00%
$81,212
Topeka
59,101
5,006
$848,516,010
10.00%
$84,851,601
Auburn
531
45
$11,428,710
10.00%
$1,142,871
Exposed Population
# of Buildings
Damage as %
6,904
178
$6,340,081,721
5.00%
$317,004,086
1
1
$70,000
10.00%
$7,000
577
11
$3,690,720
10.00%
$369,072
11
8
$812,116
10.00%
$81,212
Topeka
352
45
$203,052,844
10.00%
$20,305,284
Auburn
0
9
$1,092,000
10.00%
$109,200
Shawnee
(UnInc.)
Willard
Current Values
COMMERCIAL
Jurisdiction
Shawnee
(UnInc.)
Willard
Current Values
CRITICAL FACILITIES
Jurisdiction
Shawnee
(UnInc.)
Willard
Rossville
Silver
Lake
Current Values
Page 191
4.5.4 Critical Facilities
An essential component of this Mitigation Plan is the inventory and identification of Shawnee County’s
critical facilities. The objective of the critical facilities inventory is to maintain information on buildings
and support infrastructure that are vital to the response and recovery of a community from a disaster.
While it is important to reduce or eliminate risks to various sites throughout Shawnee County, there are
several types of structures that should be prioritized because damage to these critical facilities can delay
recovery, impact the delivery of vital services, cause greater damages to other sectors of the county, or can
put special populations at risk. For this reason, emphasis on planning and protection of critical facilities is
a priority for this mitigation plan.
There is no definitive list regarding what should be considered a “critical facility.” However, for purposes
of this Mitigation Plan, Shawnee County considers critical facilities to be those structures from which
essential services and functions for the continuation of public safety actions and disaster recovery are
performed or provided. These facilities include the supporting “life-line” infrastructure essential to the
mission of critical facilities.
A “best available” inventory of Shawnee County’s public and private assets, along with known critical
facilities, has been compiled using best available data. Sources used included the Division of Property
Valuation (Kansas Department of Revenue), HAZUS, and RS Means Estimated Construction data. RS
Means is the world's largest provider of construction cost and replacement cost data. Its data is accepted
and used by HAZUS and many other federal agencies. Since actual values associated with specific
structures could not be produced, aggregate costs (assessed value or RS Means data), by class-type, were
utilized along with the associated average unit cost. An objective was established to implement collection
of this type of data / information for the county as they begin to develop and refine mitigation capability.
It is anticipated that new information and data will continually be added to this plan as technical
capabilities are enhanced and implemented.
Page 192
Critical Facility Vulnerability
The following vulnerability assessment tables have been completed in order to best assess the current
vulnerability of Shawnee County based upon the current number and value of structures of critical
facilities.
Tables 4.5.4 (1) provides critical facilities ranked by required operational status during an emergency
event as follows (also reference the Table heading for description of levels 1 through 3):
Level 1 Facilities: Must not lose operational capability
Level 2 Facilities: Must be operational within 24-hours following an event
Level 3 Facilities: Must be operational within 72-hours following an event
Page 193
TABLE 4.5.4 (1) SHAWNEE COUNTY CRITICAL FACILITIES DEFINITION
LEVEL 1 Facilities
LEVEL 2 Facilities
LEVEL 3 Facilities
(must not lose operational
capability)
(must be operational within 24 hours following event)
(must be operational within 72 hours following event)
Emergency Shelters (Schools)
Fuel Storage areas
Major government buildings
Electric / Gas utilities
Major roads (Mi)
Pumping stations
Bridges (No.)
Response staging areas
Communications (radio,
TV, similar)
County Emergency
Operations Center
(EOC)
Fire / EMS Stations
Sewage treatment plants
Hospital(s)
*Transportation systems
Law Enforcement
(Police/Sheriff Bldgs)
Water treatment plants
Wells and storage tanks
Table 4.5.4 (2) provides potential damage estimates of current (2009) and future (2040) damage inventory
for identified critical facilities in Shawnee County. For planning purposes, the asset replacement value is
assumed to remain at current replacement value when the county is experiencing a negative growth in
population (KWO).
Page 194
TABLE 4.5.4 (2) SHAWNEE COUNTY CRITICAL FACILITIES INVENTORY
Current Conditions
Priority
Level
Type of Facility
Number
of
Existing
Buildings/
Facilities
Current
Replacement
Value
Projection Yr: 2040 (CAGR: 0.82%)
Current
Number
of
People
Number
of Future
Buildings/
Facilities
Future
Replacement
Value
Future Number
of People
1
Communications
(radio, TV,
similar)
13
$1,235,000
10
17
$1,605,878
13
1
County
Emergency
Operations
Center (EOC)
1
$950,000
12
1
$1,235,291
16
1
Fire / EMS
Stations
7
$3,990,000
665
9
$5,188,221
865
1
Hospital(s)
7
$69,825,000
450
9
$90,793,862
585
1
Law
Enforcement
(Police/Sheriff
Bldgs)
17
$384,370,000
525
22
$499,798,591
683
2
Emergency
Shelters
(Schools)
83
$39,425,000
175
108
$51,264,561
228
2
Major
government
buildings
22
$1,124,463,000
5,000
29
$1,462,145,910
6,502
2
Major roads
(Mi)
205
$942,547,000
0
267
$1,225,599,456
0
2
Bridges (No.)
417
$488,064,000
0
542
$634,632,515
0
3
Fuel Storage
areas
0
$0
0
0
$0
0
3
Electric / Gas
utilities
2
$105,536,000
30
3
$137,229,087
39
3
Pumping
stations
0
$0
0
0
$0
0
3
Response
staging areas
0
$0
0
0
$0
0
3
Sewage
treatment plants
9
$669,430,000
18
12
$870,463,800
23
3
*Transportation
systems
8
$265,203,000
12
10
$344,845,034
16
3
Water treatment
plants
1
$31,635,000
4
1
$41,135,178
5
3
Wells and
storage tanks
0
$0
0
0
$0
0
Page 195
TABLE NOTES:
*Transportation systems may include public and private airports, bus services, rail, etc.
**Flammable and hazardous materials storage areas.
Page 196
TABLE 4.5.4 (3) SHAWNEE COUNTY DESIGNATED SCHOOL TORNADO
SHELTERS
Name
Building Name
Seaman USD
345
Elmont Elementary
Seaman USD
345
Lyman Learning
Center
Seaman USD
345
Pleasant Hill
Elementary
Seaman USD
345
Seaman Education
Center
Seaman USD
345
Seaman High School
Seaman USD
345
Seaman Middle
School
Address
Population
6432 NW Elmont
Road, Topeka, KS
298
2032 N. Kansas
Avenue, Topeka,
KS
20
5830 NW Topeka
Boulevard, Topeka,
KS
307
901 NW Lyman
Road, Topeka, KS
30
4850 NW
Rochester Road,
Topeka, KS
1134
5620 NW Topeka
Boulevard, Topeka,
KS
576
Topeka Public
Schools USD
501
Avondale East
Elementary School
455 Golf Park,
Topeka, KS
197
Topeka Public
Schools USD
501
Avondale West
Elementary School
3229 Westview,
Topeka, KS
195
Topeka Public
Schools USD
501
Bishop Elementary
School
3601 SW 31st
Street, Topeka, KS
303
Topeka Public
Schools USD
501
Capital City High
School
1700 SW 6th Street,
Topeka, KS
119
Topeka Public
Schools USD
501
Chase Middle
School
2250 State Street,
Topeka, KS
418
Topeka Public
Schools USD
501
Eisenhower Middle
School
3305 Minnesota,
Topeka, KS
403
Topeka Public
Schools USD
501
French Middle
School
5257 SW 33rd
Street, Topeka, KS
560
Topeka Public
Schools USD
501
Highland Park
Central Elementary
School
2717 Illinois,
Topeka, KS
364
Topeka Public
Schools USD
501
Highland Park High
School
2424 California,
Topeka, KS
928
Topeka Public
Schools USD
Jardine Middle
School
2600 SW 33rd
Street, Topeka, KS
474
Page 197
501
Topeka Public
Schools USD
501
Landon Middle
School
731 SW Fairlawn,
Topeka, KS
412
Topeka Public
Schools USD
501
Linn Elementary
School
200 SE 40th Street,
Topeka, KS
175
Topeka Public
Schools USD
501
Lowman Hill
Elementary School
1101 Garfield,
Topeka, KS
346
Topeka Public
Schools USD
501
Lundgren
Elementary School
1020 Forest,
Topeka, KS
227
Topeka Public
Schools USD
501
McCarter
Elementary School
5512 SW 16th
Street, Topeka, KS
429
Topeka Public
Schools USD
501
McClure Elementary
School
2529 Chelsea,
Topeka, KS
308
Topeka Public
Schools USD
501
McEachron
Elementary School
4433 SW 29th
Terr., Topeka, KS
357
Topeka Public
Schools USD
501
Meadows
Elementary School
201 SW Clay,
Topeka, KS
533
Topeka Public
Schools USD
501
Quincy Elementary
School
1500 NE Quincy,
Topeka, KS
247
Topeka Public
Schools USD
501
Randolph
Elementary School
1400 Randolph,
Topeka, KS
376
Topeka Public
Schools USD
501
Robinson Middle
School
1125 SW 14th
Street, Topeka, KS
416
Topeka Public
Schools USD
501
Ross Elementary
School
1400 SE 34th
Street, Topeka, KS
368
Topeka Public
Schools USD
501
Scott Magnet School
401 SE Market,
Topeka, KS
463
Topeka Public
Schools USD
501
Shaner Elementary
School
1600 SW 34th
Street, Topeka, KS
214
Topeka Public
Schools USD
501
State Street
Elementary School
500 Sumner,
Topeka, KS
299
Topeka Public
Schools USD
501
Stout Elementary
School
2303 College,
Topeka, KS
195
Page 198
Topeka Public
Schools USD
501
Topeka High School
Topeka Public
Schools USD
501
Topeka West High
School
Topeka Public
Schools USD
501
Whitson Elementary
School
Topeka Public
Schools USD
501
Williams Magnet
School
800 SW 10th,
Topeka, KS
1810
2001 Fairlawn,
Topeka, KS
1047
1725 Arnold,
Topeka, KS
431
1301 SE Monroe,
Topeka, KS
613
4.5.5 Development Trends and Implications
The 2005 Kansas Land Cover Patterns map produced by the Kansas Applied Remote Sensing (KARS)
program provides a fairly accurate assessment of 11 land use/land cover classes. The bulk of the land
cover in the county (~85.5%) is comprised of cropland, grassland, and woodland. Urban residential and
urban commercial/industrial development comprises 6.33% of the land cover primarily in and around the
City of Topeka. Generally, built-up areas continue to be located in or around the major community in the
county, with smaller concentrations located in rural areas. Commercial land use is primarily limited to
these same communities. Overall, commercial, industrial, and residential development in Shawnee County
has been regulated.
The State of Kansas has developed a unique method for utilizing water use data to determine not only
future water use, but also to project population in the state. Additionally, this method will be used to
verify the accuracy of the U.S. Census Bureau's sub-county population estimates for Kansas. This method
was developed by the Kansas Water Office and approved by the Kansas Water Authority.
In November 1998, the Kansas Water Office completed population and water demand projections for
every county, city, and rural water district in Kansas for the years 2000, 2010, 2020, 2030, and 2040.
These data will be utilized for growth projections for the county. Information regarding methodology and
projections can be found at: www.kwo.org/index.htm.
Shawnee County has experienced an overall increase in population since 1900. Population growth and/or
private development have increased from 53,727 in 1900 to 169,976 in 2000. The county is located within
a region that makes economic development somewhat easier than in other areas in the state, as the county
contains the City of Topeka, the state capitol and a major metropolitan area for direct access to major
services. (Kansas Department of Commerce, 2000)
Shawnee (UnInc.): Residential, Commercial, and Population Growth - Present and Future
Shawnee County’s residential and commercial development is primarily concentrated around the largest
incorporated city, Topeka, and the smaller rural communities of Auburn, Rossville, Silver Lake, and
Willard. Based on limited data, the projected growth is centered around the City of Topeka for the next
few decades. Based on limited data, Shawnee County is projected to increase in residential and
commercial development by 0.82% annually through 2040 (Kansas Water Office, 1999 - Compound
Annual Growth Rate)
While difficult to forecast, Shawnee County's future development trend through 2040 is assumed to
increase proportionate to the increase in population and will need to monitor and update mitigation
Page 199
initiatives as the process unfolds. The property valuation rate, for the forseeable future, is also expected to
parallel the county population growth pattern, and will remain at 0.82% annual growth for purposes of
mitigation planning until future data is available.
Auburn: Residential, Commercial, and Population Growth - Present and Future
Auburn's residential and commercial development is projected to experience a gradual increase in
population growth over the next 32 years at 0.43% annually. (Kansas Water Office) Land use includes
commercial, industrial, and residential development in Auburn, and has been largely regulated by zoning
and construction codes.
While difficult to forecast, Auburn's future development trend through 2040 is assumed to increase
proportionate to the increase in population and will need to monitor and update mitigation initiatives as
the process unfolds. The property valuation rate, for the foreseeable future, is also expected to parallel the
city population growth pattern, and will remain at 0.43% annual growth for purposes of mitigation
planning until future data is available.
Rossville: Residential, Commercial, and Population Growth - Present and Future
Rossville's residential and commercial development is projected to experience a gradual increase in
commercial, industrial, and residential development in Rossville, and has been largely regulated by zoning
codes.
While difficult to forecast, Rossville's future development trend through 2040 is assumed to increase
Silver Lake: Residential, Commercial, and Population Growth - Present and Future
Silver Lake's residential and commercial development is projected to experience a gradual increase in
commercial, industrial, and residential development in Silver Lake, and has been largely regulated by
zoning codes.
While difficult to forecast, Silver Lake's future development trend through 2040 is assumed to increase
Topeka: Residential, Commercial, and Population Growth - Present and Future
Topeka's residential and commercial development is projected to experience a gradual increase in
commercial, industrial, and residential development in Topeka, and has been largely regulated by zoning
and construction codes.
While difficult to forecast,Topeka's future development trend through 2040 is assumed to increase
Page 200
Willard: Residential, Commercial, and Population Growth - Present and Future
Willard's residential and commercial development is projected to decline in the future. Based on Kansas
Water Office data, Willard's population is expected to decrease at an annual rate of 1.05% over the next
32 years. Land use includes commercial and residential development in Willard, and has been largely
unregulated by zoning and construction codes.
While difficult to forecast, Willard's future development trend through 2040 is assumed to decrease
proportionate to the decrease in population and will need to monitor and update mitigation initiatives as
city population growth pattern, and will remain neutral (0% annual growth) for purposes of mitigation
Auburn-Washburn USD 437: Residential, Commercial, and Population Growth - Present and
Future
The schools of Auburn-Washburn USD 437 are located near the cities of Auburn and Topeka in Shawnee
County, Kansas.
While difficult to forecast future school district development, Auburn-Washburn USD 437 has chosen to
base school population estimates on local community growth projections. Student populations are the
primary driver for future facility development. Estimates of future community growth help predict school
funding decisions and facility expansion needs for the immediate future. School districts tend to develop
new facilities in a stepped fashion as opposed to a curve that matches yearly growth rate.
The school district will rely on projected trends for the City of Topeka to determine estimated school
enrollment. Kansas Water Office projections through 2040 are assumed to increase proportionate to the
increase in local population projections, and will need to monitor and update mitigation initiatives as the
process unfolds. The property valuation rate, for the foreseeable future, is also expected to parallel the
county and city population growth patterns.
It is likely that the City of Topeka will continue to see a gradual increase in commercial and industrial
development over the next 31 years of 0.55 percent per year. This figure is based on a compound annual
growth rate developed from the Kansas Water Office population projections through 2040.
Kaw Valley USD 321: Residential, Commercial, and Population Growth - Present and Future
USD 321 currently has two schools located in the City of Rossville. School enrollment is largely
determined by overall growth patterns of the city in which the schools reside. For planning purposes, the
Kansas Water Office data was used to project population trends for each town through 2040.
While difficult to forecast future commercial and residential development, estimates of future community
growth help predict school funding decisions and facility expansion needs for the immediate future.
Commercial and residential growth projections are assumed to parallel the increase or decrease in local
population projections, and will need to monitor and update mitigation initiatives as the process unfolds.
The property valuation rate, for the foreseeable future, is also expected to parallel the city population
growth patterns.
The school district will rely on projected trends for the City of Rossville to determine estimated school
Page 201
It is likely that the City of Rossville will continue to see a slow and gradual population increase over the
next 32 years of 0.49%. This figure is based on a compound annual growth rate developed from the
Kansas Water Office population projections through 2040.
Seaman USD 345: Residential, Commercial, and Population Growth - Present and Future
The schools of Seaman USD 345 are located in the City of Topeka in Shawnee County, Kansas.
While difficult to forecast future school district development, Seaman USD 345 has chosen to base school
population estimates on local community growth projections. Student populations are the primary driver
for future facility development. Estimates of future community growth help predict school funding
decisions and facility expansion needs for the immediate future. School districts tend to develop new
facilities in a stepped fashion as opposed to a curve that matches yearly growth rate.
development over the next 31 years of 0.55 percent per year . This figure is based on a compound annual
Shawnee Heights USD 450: Residential, Commercial, and Population Growth - Present and
Future
The schools of Shawnee Heights USD 450 are located in the City of Topeka and in the nearby Townships
of Tecumseh and Berryton in Shawnee County, Kansas.
While difficult to forecast future school district development, Shawnee Heights USD 450 has chosen to
base school population estimates on local community growth projections. Student populations are the
Topeka Public Schools USD 501: Residential, Commercial, and Population Growth - Present and
Future
The schools of Topeka Public Schools USD 501 are located in the City of Topeka in Shawnee County,
Kansas.
While difficult to forecast future school district development, Topeka Public Schools USD 501 has chosen
to base school population estimates on local community growth projections. Student populations are the
Page 202
Washburn University: Residential, Commercial, and Population Growth - Present and Future
Washburn University (WU) is a co-educational, public, institution of higher learning located in Topeka,
Kansas. The university offers a number of undergraduate and graduate programs, as well as professional
programs in law and business. Washburn has 550 faculty members, who teach 6,300 undergraduate
students and 1,000 graduate students, and the university's assets include a $112 million endowment. The
president of Washburn University is Dr. Jerry Farley, who has served as president since 1997 and taken an
active approach in improving academics and student life at the University.
Due to the state-wide attendence base for the University, the projected growth rate for the college will be
based on state averages.
While difficult to forecast, the college's future development trend through 2040 is assumed to increase
proportionately to the increase in population of the State of Kansas and will need to monitor and update
mitigation initiatives as the process unfolds. The property valuation rate for the foreseeable future is also
expected to parallel the increase in population growth of 0.69% annually through 2040 (KWO).
Page 203
5.0 Mitigation Strategy
This section of the Plan outlines Shawnee County’s overall strategy and capabilities to reduce their
jurisdiction’s vulnerability to the effects of natural hazards, and include a discussion of Mitigation Actions
and Techniques. The Mitigation Actions are short-term, specific measures to be undertaken by Shawnee
County in order to achieve the identified objectives. Most of these actions are also hazard-specific. Each
action identifies the objective(s) it is intended to achieve, includes some general background information
to justify the proposed action, and provides measures to assure successful and timely implementation.
It should be noted that individual risk assessment maps were completed for the unincorporated county,
and each of the planning jurisdictions. Profile maps were provided to each jurisdiction to identify land use
information, critical facility information, infrastructure, and hazard areas. The local teams utilized these
maps to help identify their jurisdictional goals, objectives, and mitigation actions.
Mitigation Activities
In formulating this Mitigation Strategy, a wide range of activities were considered and discussed in order
to help achieve county goals and lessen the vulnerability of Shawnee County to the effects of natural
hazards. For each hazard ranked in the risk and vulnerability assessment as "High" or "Moderate" (see
Table 5.0 (1)), the Mitigation Planning Committee considered the six categories of mitigation techniques
when developing Actions for this plan. Those six categories are enumerated in Tables 5.0 (2) through 5.0
(7). A list of all actions considered for this plan is provided in the Appendix.
Table 5.0 (1) Prioritized Hazards (High and Moderate)
Hazard
Wildfire
Hail
Winter Storm
TSTM Wind
Flood
Tornado
Excessive Heat
Drought
Fog
Utility Failure
Dam/Levee
Table 5.0 (2) Prevention
Prevention activities are intended to keep hazard problems from getting worse. They are particularly
effective in reducing a jurisdiction's future vulnerability, especially in areas where development has not
occurred or capital improvements have not been substantial. The following techniques were discussed
and those checked were selected for use in the plan.
Page 204
Mitigation Activities and Techniques
Technique
Selected for Objective/Action
Planning and Zoning
X
Floodplain regulations
X
Stormwater management
X
Drainage system maintenance
X
Open space preservation
Capital improvements programming
Shoreline/riverine/fault zone setbacks
Table 5.0 (3) Property Protection
Property protection measures protect existing structures by modifying buildings to withstand hazardous
events, or removing structures from hazardous locations. The following techniques were discussed and
those checked were selected for use in the plan.
Technique
Critical facilities protection
X
Insurance
X
Building elevation
Relocation
Retrofitting (i.e., windproofing,
floodproofing, seismic design standards,
etc.)
Acquisition
Table 5.0 (4) Natural Resource Protection
Natural resource protection activities reduce the impact of natural hazards by preserving or restoring
natural areas and their mitigative functions. Such areas include floodplains, wetlands and dunes. Parks,
recreation or conservation agencies and organizations often implement these measures. The following
techniques were discussed and those checked were selected for use in the plan.
Page 205
Technique
Floodplain protection
X
Riparian buffers
X
Agriculture and Livestock protection
X
Fuel Breaks
Erosion and sediment control
Wetland preservation and restoration
Habitat preservation
Slope stabilization
Fire resistant landscaping
Table 5.0 (5) Structural Projects
Structural mitigation projects are intended to lessen the impact of a hazard by modifying the
environmental natural progression of the hazard event. They are usually designed by engineers and
managed or maintained by public works staff. The following techniques were discussed and those
checked were selected for use in the plan.
Technique
Levees/dikes/floodwalls/seawalls
X
Diversions/Detention/Retention
X
Storm sewers
X
Safe Rooms / Storm Shelters
X
Channel modification
Table 5.0 (6) Emergency Services
Although not typically considered a “mitigation technique,” emergency service measures do minimize the
impact of a hazard event on people and property. These commonly are actions taken immediately prior to,
during, or in response to a hazard event. The following techniques were discussed and those checked
were selected for use in the plan.
Technique
Public protection
X
Warning systems
X
Emergency facilities and equipment
X
Evacuation planning and management
X
Sandbagging for flood protection
Installing shutters for wind protection
Page 206
Table 5.0 (7) Public Information and Awareness
Public Information and Awareness activities are used to advise residents, business owners, potential
property buyers, and visitors about hazards, hazardous areas, and mitigation techniques they can use to
protect themselves and their property. The following techniques were discussed and those checked were
selected for use in the plan.
Technique
Outreach projects
X
Speaker series/demonstration events
X
Hazard map information
X
Hazard expositions
X
Library materials
X
School children education
X
Real estate disclosure
Mitigation Techniques for Shawnee County
When considering the most appropriate mitigation techniques for Shawnee County to undertake, the
Mitigation Planning Committee reviewed the State Mitigation Plan and hazards list. More importantly,
Shawnee County contracted to have a specific all-hazard analysis performed in 2007 to identify specific
risk and vulnerability in the county. Hazard categories from the hazard analysis included natural,
chemical, vector, and civil / societal risks.
Following the review and discussion, a matrix was developed to target the plan’s priorities for proposed
mitigation actions. Consideration was given to potential county funding, technical capability, and overall
best approach to begin reducing exposure to hazards within the jurisdiction. Primary planning categories
used are presented in Table 5.0 (8).
Page 207
Table 5.0 (8) MITIGATION TECHNIQUES
HIGH RISK
HAZARDS
Prevention
Property
Protection
Natural
Resource
Protection
Structural
Projects
Emergency
Services
Public
Information
and
Awareness
Wildfire
X
X
X
Hail
X
X
X
Winter Storm
X
X
X
TSTM Wind
X
X
X
Flood
X
X
X
X
Tornado
X
X
X
X
X
MODERATE RISK
HAZARDS
Prevention
Property
Protection
Structural
Projects
Emergency
Services
Public
Information
and
Awareness
Excessive Heat
X
X
X
X
X
Natural
Resource
Protection
Drought
Fog
X
Utility Failure
X
Dam/Levee
X
Terrorism / AT
/ CD**
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
5.1 MultiJurisdictional Goals and Objectives
This section of the Plan outlines Shawnee County’s overall strategy to reduce their jurisdiction’s
vulnerability to the effects of natural hazards. The goals and objectives are provided below.
Mitigation Goals - identifies the goal statements established by Shawnee County for this mitigation plan.
Each goal is meant to be general and broad in nature, and can only be achieved through the long-term
implementation of more specific objectives. It is intended that each goal listed below will be more
specifically addressed and realized through the implementation of short-term mitigation objectives and
actions.
Mitigation Objectives - The mitigation objectives are designed to support and correspond directly with the
jurisdiction goals to provide Shawnee County with some measurable, mid-range targets (2-5 years). Each
objective is numbered (i.e., “1.1”), with the first digit representing the corresponding jurisdictional goal.
TABLE 5.1 (1) SHAWNEE COUNTY GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
Goal #1:
Increase the jurisdiction’s internal capabilities to mitigate the effects of natural and
manmade hazards.
Objective 1.1:
Maintain and increase current county surveillance to assist in future
reduction to any overall flood issues of the county.
Page 208
Objective 1.2:
Enhance the jurisdiction’s capability to conduct hazard risk assessments,
demonstrate funding needs, and track mitigation activities throughout the
county.
Objective 1.3:
Continue enhancement of current emergency services to protect public
health and safety.
Objective 1.4:
Protect life, property, and the economy by eliminating or minimizing the
present and future vulnerability to wildfire hazards.
Goal #2:
Enhance existing or design and adopt new policies that will reduce the potential
damaging effects of hazards without hindering other jurisdictional goals
Objective 2.1:
Increase the jurisdiction's control over development in the floodplain to
promote protection of life and property, and reduce risk exposure to future
flood conditions.
Objective 2.2:
Preserve the natural and beneficial functions of the county’s floodplain along
the Kansas and Wakarusa Rivers through continued support of natural
resource protection policies and by discouraging growth in environmentally
sensitive areas.
Objective 2.3:
Develop and recommend building codes for new construction using
wind-resistant design techniques that will limit damage caused by high
winds and reduce the amount of wind-borne debris.
Objective 2.4:
Research and develop means to provide high-risk populations with access to
tornado-safe structures.
Goal #3:
Protect the jurisdiction’s most vulnerable populations, buildings and critical facilities
through the implementation of cost-effective and technically feasible mitigation
projects.
Objective 3.1:
Maximize the use of available hazard mitigation grant programs to protect
the jurisdiction’s most vulnerable populations and structures.
Objective 3.2:
Protect vital / critical facilities and infrastructure from the effects of natural
and manmade hazards to the maximum extent possible.
Goal #4:
Protect public health, safety and welfare by increasing the public awareness of existing
hazards and by fostering both individual and public responsibility in mitigating risks
due to those hazards
Objective 4.1:
Increase the level of knowledge and awareness for the jurisdiction’s
residents on the potential hazards that routinely threaten the area.
Objective 4.2:
Educate property owners on the affordable, individual mitigation and
preparedness measures that can be taken before the next hazard event.
Objective 4.3:
Educate residents to the dangers of wildfire and the protection measures that
may be taken such as buffer zones, etc., including regulations regarding open
burning and burn bans.
Objective 4.4:
Promote and educate the jurisdiction’s public and private sectors on potential
Page 209
agricultural terrorism and bio-terrorism.
Page 210
5.2 Mitigation Actions
The mitigation actions proposed for Shawnee County are listed on the pages that follow. Each has been
designed to achieve the goals and objectives identified through this multi-jurisdictional hazard mitigation
plan. Each proposed action includes the following:
(1) the appropriate category for the mitigation technique;
(2) the hazard it is designed to mitigate;
(3) the objective(s) it is intended to help achieve;
(4) some general background information;
(5) the priority level for its implementation (high, moderate or low);
(6) potential funding sources, if applicable;
(7) the agency/person assigned responsibility for implementing each strategy;
(8) a target completion date.
Again, it is important to note that these mitigation actions are short-term, specific measures to be
undertaken by Shawnee County. It is expected this component of the plan will be the most dynamic; it
will be used as the primary indicator to measure the plan’s progress over time and will be routinely
updated and/or revised through future planning efforts.
Action Item Prioritization
The MPC qualitatively prioritized the four county goals based on protection of life and property, public
awareness, emergency services, implementation, and state-required planning directives (i.e., Foreign
Animal Disease, and Bio-terrorism plans).
The risk assessment served as the basis for prioritizing hazards in terms of county risk (Likelihood x
Severity = Risk). The prioritization represents current and future risk based on objective criteria.
The final step was to prioritize the action items as high, moderate or low based on a qualitative analysis
for actions deemed to be “readily achievable”. Emphasis was placed on education and public awareness
as a high priority, as knowledge helps reduces risk at the individual level. During annual review of the
plan, new and completed action items will be identified and appropriate changes made to the action plan.
Benefit - Cost Review
At the beginning of the planning process, each jurisdiction was asked to complete a questionnaire/survey
which covered six factors including, but not limited to:
• Staff & Organizational Capability
• Administrative and Technical Capability
• Policy & Program Capability
• Fiscal Capability
• Legal Authority
• Political Willpower
These topics are in essence the “STAPLEE” categories recommended by the FEMA Guidance on
Mitigation Planning. As a result of review, discussion, and the responses to the six factors listed above,
the MPC choose to use Method 2A, Simple Listing, (FEMA 386-5) as a qualitative method to generate a
benefit to cost review. The consultant reviewed the responses and, where needed, asked for clarification.
These responses were used to develop an overall strategy for the multi-jurisdictional plan. (The detail of
the responses can be reviewed at Section 3.10 and Section 4.5.5.)
A summary of the responses and the draft strategy was introduced at the first planning meeting. The
factors which universally impacted the rank of all actions were limited staff capability, limited fiscal
capability, and cautious political willpower. Subsequent to the first planning meeting, the jurisdictions
were asked to consider its responses to the questionnaire/survey and choose actions associated with the
Page 211
prioritized hazards. These choices were made in consideration of each jurisdictions responses to the
STAPLEE based answers. Once this initial prioritization was made, the jurisdictions were asked to rank
the actions by adding consideration of cost. In other words, in their opinion, which actions provided the
best benefit for the selected hazards and the associated cost.
Where budgetary or estimated costs for an action were available, that value is included. In many cases,
specific detail of potential actions or projects was not available. The use of estimated cost categories,
based on how funding is accomplished, was recommended as a starting point for evaluation. Those
categories are generally defined as follows:
No-cost/low-cost (less than $5,000);
Requires appropriation of funds (greater than $5,000 and less than $20,000); or
Requires significant funding (Greater than $20,000).
In general, no cost/low cost can be funded as part of operating expenditures; appropriation of funding
requires an action by the governing commission or council or prior budget requests; and significant
funding would require action by the governing body and potential commitment of outside funding
sources.
From a cost perspective, the jurisdictions chose to prioritize low-cost actions with specific benefit as high
ranking actions. A moderate ranking was given to actions which required appropriation of funding and
provided a specific benefit to an entire community, distinct population. All other actions were assigned a
lower priority. Actions were then given a final ranking by each jurisdiction to match the cost with overall
conditions, capability, and political climate. These rankings will be reviewed as part of the overall yearly
plan review process.
Page 212
5.2.1 MultiJurisdictional Actions
1. Shawnee County and the cities of Topeka, Auburn, Rossville, Silver Lake, and Willard
are committed to continued participation and compliance with the National Flood
Insurance Program (NFIP).
Category:
Prevention
Jurisdiction:
MultiJurisdictional
Hazard:
Flood
Goal.Objective:
1.1, 2.1,
Background /
Benefit:
The decision on whether to join the NFIP is very important for a
jurisdiction (community).There is no Federal law that requires a
jurisdiction to join the program, and participation is voluntary. A benefit
of participation is that the citizens are provided the opportunity to
purchase flood insurance to protect themselves against flood losses.
Another consideration is that a jurisdiction that has been identified by
FEMA as being flood-prone and has not joined the NFIP within one year
of being notified of being mapped as flood-prone will be sanctioned.
Jurisdictions that regulate development in floodplains are able to
participate in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). To
participate in the NFIP the jurisdiction must adopt and enforce floodplain
management regulations that meet or exceed the minimum requirements
of the program.
Priority:
High
Funding Sources:
State/FEMA/Program Grants
Responsibility
Assigned to:
City / County Officials
Target Completion
Date:
Continuous
Cost of Action:
No Cost / Low Cost
Page 213
2. On an annual basis, contact owners identified in high-risk flood areas and inform them
of potential availability of assistance through the Federal Flood Mitigation Assistance
(FEMA) program, in addition to other flood protection measures.
Category:
Public Information & Awareness
Jurisdiction:
MultiJurisdictional
Hazard:
Flood
Goal.Objective:
3.1, 4.3,
Background /
Benefit:
Property owners should be contacted every year to promote the
availability of the FEMA funding and to determine their level of interest
in applying for the program.
Priority:
High
Funding Sources:
Local
Responsibility
Assigned to:
Planner / Local Officials
Target Completion
Date:
Continuous
Cost of Action:
No Cost / Low Cost
Page 214
3. Advertise and promote the availability of flood insurance to property owners by direct
mail once a year.
Category:
Property Protection
Jurisdiction:
MultiJurisdictional
Hazard:
Flood
Goal.Objective:
4.2,
Background /
Benefit:
Shawnee County, including the cities of Auburn, Rossville, Silver Lake,
Topeka, and Willard participate in the National Flood Insurance Program
(NFIP). There are currently 949 policies in effect, with a total coverage
amount of $144,838,400. Since the jurisdictions joined the program,
there have been 250 claims paid for a total loss paid amount of
$2,977,231. (Source: FEMA, 2008). NFIP flood insurance policies
protect property owners by offering affordable rates for protecting both
structures and contents.
Priority:
High
Funding Sources:
Local
Responsibility
Assigned to:
City-County Planners
Target Completion
Date:
Continuous
Cost of Action:
No Cost / Low Cost
Page 215
4. Collect educational materials on individual and family preparedness/mitigation
measures for property owners, and display at both the library and routinely visited
government offices.
Category:
Jurisdiction:
MultiJurisdictional
Hazard:
All
Goal.Objective:
4.3,
Background /
Benefit:
FEMA, the Kansas Division of Emergency Management, the National
Weather Service and other agencies provide information brochures and
pamphlets on property protection measures at no cost to local
governments.
Priority:
High
Funding Sources:
Local
Responsibility
Assigned to:
Chamber of Commerce/Emergency Management
Target Completion
Date:
Continuous
Cost of Action:
No Cost / Low Cost
Page 216
5. Coordinate county and local government mitigation efforts with Rural Electric
Cooperatives (REC’s), encourage identification of hazards potentially affecting their
infrastructure, assessment of the vulnerabilities of the infrastructure to these hazards, and
identification of mitigation strategies.
Category:
Property Protection
Jurisdiction:
MultiJurisdictional
Hazard:
Utility / Infrastructure Failure
Goal.Objective:
3.2,
Background /
Benefit:
Long-term planning goals that will reduce exposure to loss of electrical
power are beneficial to all organizations and citizens within the
jurisdiction. Power loss during extreme periods of cold or heat increase
damage potential to people and property.
Priority:
High
Funding Sources:
Local
Responsibility
Assigned to:
Public Works / City Officials
Target Completion
Date:
December 31, 2015
Cost of Action:
No Cost / Low Cost
Page 217
6. Annually host a public “hazards workshop” for the residents of the jurisdiction, in
combination with local festivals, fairs, or other appropriate events.
Category:
Public Information and Awareness
Jurisdiction:
MultiJurisdictional
Hazard:
All
Goal.Objective:
4.3,
Background /
Benefit:
A hazard workshop for residents should be added to an established event
drawing large crowds. The workshop should be geared toward educating
them on the hazards that threaten Shawnee County, and the mitigation
and preparedness measures available to protect them. Guest speakers
from the National Weather Service, the Kansas Division of Emergency
Management, and other relevant agencies should be invited to attend, and
educational displays/handouts should be provided such as Flood
Insurance Rate Maps, FEMA publications, safety tips, etc.
Priority:
Moderate
Funding Sources:
Local
Responsibility
Assigned to:
Target Completion
Date:
Continuous
Cost of Action:
Requires Funding
Page 218
7. Encourage the construction of safe rooms and storm shelters in public and private
schools, day care centers and senior care facilities.
Category:
Property Protection
Jurisdiction:
MultiJurisdictional
Hazard:
Multi-hazard
Goal.Objective:
2.3, 2.4, 3.1, 3.2,
Background /
Benefit:
When severe weather threatens, individuals and families need advance
warning and protection from the dangerous forces of extreme winds.
Individuals and communities in high-risk tornado and hurricane areas
need structurally sound shelters and early alert systems.
Priority:
High
Funding Sources:
FEMA/State/Local
Responsibility
Assigned to:
City / County Planners / Emergency Services
Target Completion
Date:
Continuous
Cost of Action:
No Cost / Low Cost
8. Educate residents about driving in winter storms and handling winter-related health
effects.
Category:
Jurisdiction:
MultiJurisdictional
Hazard:
Multi-hazard
Goal.Objective:
4.3,
Background /
Benefit:
US Department of Transportation (USDOT), the Kansas Department of
Transportation (KDOT) and other agencies provide information
brochures and pamphlets on safe driving measures at no cost to local
governments.
Priority:
Moderate
Funding Sources:
Local
Responsibility
Assigned to:
Emergency Management / Local Officials
Target Completion
Date:
Continuous
Cost of Action:
No Cost / Low Cost
Page 219
9. Promote and educate the jurisdiction’s public and private sectors on potential
agricultural terrorism and bio-terrorism issues that can severely impact the county and
regional economies, and develop and implement plans to address these issues.
Category:
Natural Resources Protection
Jurisdiction:
MultiJurisdictional
Hazard:
Terrorism / Agri-Terrorism / Civil Disorder
Goal.Objective:
3.1, 4.4,
Background /
Benefit:
Shawnee is an urban county, but maintains an agricultural base in the
unincorporated areas of the county. A natural or intentional introduction
of a foreign animal disease would be devastating to the local, regional
state, economies. This annex will be added to the Local Emergency
Operations Plan, with additional annexes developed in the future to
address other types of terrorism.
Priority:
Moderate
Funding Sources:
Local / State / Federal
Responsibility
Assigned to:
County Health Department/ County Emergency Management/
County Extension/ Local Producers
Target Completion
Date:
December 31, 2015
Cost of Action:
Requires Funding
Page 220
5.2.2 Jurisdictional Actions
Shawnee (UnInc.)
1. Develop an annex to the Local Emergency Operations Plan for dam failure response and
evacuation planing for high hazard dams in Shawnee County.
Category:
Emergency Services
Jurisdiction:
Shawnee (UnInc.)
Hazard:
Dams / Levees
Goal.Objective:
1.1, 3.1, 3.2,
Background /
Benefit:
Shawnee County has 664 dams in the county that are regulated by the
Kansas Department of Agriculture, Water Resources Department. Seven
(7) of these structures are classified as “High Hazard Class C” structures,
identified as follows: Lake Shawnee; Burnett Dam; Lake Sherwood;
Unnamed Dam (City of Topeka); Biddle Creek Detention Dam;
Westridge Detention Dam; Dam #131. The State evaluation of the dams
is based on several factors including: location in areas where failure may
cause extensive loss of life, serious damage to homes, industrial and
commercial facilities, important public utilities, main highways or
railroads. It is important to note that a high hazard dam is not necessarily
unsafe, as defined by the State of Kansas. An individual dam’s hazard
classification is based upon the potential consequences of dam failure
and does not reflect the physical condition of the dam. Preparing for a
potential emergency is an essential planning step to secure the people
and property downstream from a potential breach or dam failure.
Priority:
Moderate
Funding Sources:
Local
Responsibility
Assigned to:
Emergency Management Department / Emergency Services
Target Completion
Date:
December 31, 2015
Cost of Action:
Requires Funding
Page 221
2. Shawnee County will work with the Auberndale, North Topeka, South Topeka,
Oakland, Soldier Creek, and Waterworks levee owners to ensure certification requirements
are maintained.
Category:
Prevention
Jurisdiction:
Shawnee (UnInc.)
Hazard:
Dams / Levee
Goal.Objective:
1.1, 1.2, 2.1, 3.1, 3.2,
Background /
Benefit:
Levee owners or communities have the responsibility to provide
documentation that a levee meets the requirements of Title 44 of the
Code of Federal Regulations, Section 65.10 of the national Flood
Insurance Program regulations (44CFR Section 65.10), as part of a
study/mapping project. Without the required documentation necessary to
comply with 44 CFR Section 65.10, the area behind the levee will be
re-delineated and mapped as Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) on the
Digital Flood Insurance Rate Map (DFIRM). Procedure Memorandum
No. 34 allows for the issuance of a deadline to the community for
submitting the required documents.
Priority:
High
Funding Sources:
Responsibility
Assigned to:
County Planning Committee
Target Completion
Date:
December 31, 2015
Cost of Action:
No Cost / Low Cost
Page 222
3. Develop a program to acquire and preserve parcels of land subject to repetitive flooding
from willing and voluntary property owners.
Category:
Property Protection
Jurisdiction:
Shawnee (UnInc.)
Hazard:
Flood
Goal.Objective:
1.1, 2.1, 3.1,
Background /
Benefit:
Land acquisition is an effective mitigation technique to permanently
eliminate the potential for damages from future flood events. Shawnee
County can apply for grant funding to acquire flood-prone parcels of
land from voluntary and willing property owners.
Priority:
Low
Funding Sources:
FEMA, KDEM, Local
Responsibility
Assigned to:
Shawnee County Planning Committee/Planner
Target Completion
Date:
December 31, 2015
Cost of Action:
Requires Appropriation of Significant Funding
Page 223
4. Regularly calculate and document the amount of flood prone property that is preserved
as open space to reduce flood insurance burden to the county.
Category:
Prevention
Jurisdiction:
Shawnee (UnInc.)
Hazard:
Flood
Goal.Objective:
1.2, 2.2,
Background /
Benefit:
CRS credit is given for areas that are permanently preserved as open
space. Although credit is not given for federal lands, The jurisdiction
maintains and continues to expand floodplain areas preserved as open
space through wetlands restoration and other projects. The jurisdiction
also has floodplain land within state parks or otherwise preserved as
wildlife and natural preserves, which does qualify for additional CRS
credit.
Priority:
High
Funding Sources:
Local
Responsibility
Assigned to:
Planner
Target Completion
Date:
Continuous
Cost of Action:
No Cost / Low Cost
Page 224
5. Identify flash-flood prone areas to recommend flood reduction measures to county
planners.
Category:
Prevention
Jurisdiction:
Shawnee (UnInc.)
Hazard:
Flood
Goal.Objective:
1.1, 2.2,
Background /
Benefit:
Flood zone mapping will provide initial identification of potential hazard
areas that can be reviewed with other data sources, such as the watershed
districts goals and objectives, in developing long range planning
activities for flash-flood prevention, or other planning steps to reduce
exposure to this hazard.
Priority:
Moderate
Funding Sources:
Local
Responsibility
Assigned to:
Shawnee County Planning Committee
Target Completion
Date:
December 31, 2015
Cost of Action:
Requires Funding
Page 225
7. Research and design an appropriate stream buffer ordinance to further protect the
jurisdiction’s water resources and to limit future flood damages adjacent to major
waterways.
Category:
Natural Resource Protection
Jurisdiction:
Shawnee (UnInc.)
Hazard:
Flood
Goal.Objective:
1.1, 2.1, 2.2,
Background /
Benefit:
Riparian buffers serve as natural boundaries between local waterways
and existing development and help protect resources by filtering
pollutants, providing flood control, alleviating streambank erosion,
mitigating stream warming, and providing room for lateral movement of
the stream channel. Buffer widths can vary greatly depending upon
stream channel size and the intended purpose of the buffer, but 50-100
feet is generally considered to be sufficient for purposes of bank
stabilization and sediment control. Many communities require 200 feet
for flood control purposes. Special consideration should be given to
exempting Shawnee County’s agricultural operations from buffer
regulations.
Priority:
Moderate
Funding Sources:
FEMA/State/Local
Responsibility
Assigned to:
Target Completion
Date:
December 31, 2015
Cost of Action:
No Cost / Low Cost
Page 226
8. Conduct an inventory/survey for emergency response services to identify any existing
needs or shortfalls in terms of personnel, equipment or required resources.
Category:
Emergency Services
Jurisdiction:
Shawnee (UnInc.)
Hazard:
All
Goal.Objective:
1.2, 1.3,
Background /
Benefit:
A survey should be completed in order to verify the county’s current
emergency services are adequate to protect public health and safety from
most probable hazard events. Any identified needs or shortfalls should
become documented and result in specific recommendations to the
County Commission for emergency service enhancements.
Priority:
Moderate
Funding Sources:
Local/State
Responsibility
Assigned to:
Emergency Management Department
Target Completion
Date:
December 31, 2015
Cost of Action:
Requires Funding
Page 227
9. Amend existing or adopt new zoning and subdivision ordinances to require installation
of onsite tornado shelters for any new Manufactured Housing and Travel Trailer Parks
with more than 10 mobile home spaces.
Category:
Property Protection
Jurisdiction:
Shawnee (UnInc.)
Hazard:
Multi-hazard
Goal.Objective:
2.3, 2.4,
Background /
Benefit:
Mobile homes are particularly vulnerable to damage from high winds.
Residents, even those who live in mobile homes with tie-downs, should
seek safe shelter when a tornado threatens. Tornado shelters should be
constructed in major mobile home parks to ensure a safe place for
residents to go during a tornado event. The shelter structure, which
should be designed to withstand a minimum of 120mph winds, could
easily serve an alternate purpose such as a community center, laundry
facility, etc. Tornado shelters should be for last minute protection for
high wind events.
Priority:
Moderate
Funding Sources:
N/A
Responsibility
Assigned to:
Target Completion
Date:
December 31, 2015
Cost of Action:
No Cost / Low Cost
Page 228
10. Develop cross-departmental information collection capabilities, and incorporate
cadastral (building/parcel) data utilizing a GIS for purposes of conducting more detailed
hazard risk assessments and for tracking permitting / land use patterns, buildings and
infrastructure replacement costs, and overall structural accounting for the county and local
jurisdictions.
Category:
Prevention
Jurisdiction:
Shawnee (UnInc.)
Hazard:
All
Goal.Objective:
1.2,
Background /
Benefit:
A comprehensive catalog of data can greatly enhance technical capability
to manage, analyze and display spatially referenced data. Shawnee
County has basic GIS capabilities available through the Shawnee County
GIS Department. Further development of this capability for functional
use across all departments and jurisdictions will enhance the overall
capabilities to document building/structure cost data, and further hazard
mitigation goals in developing cadastral data for the county.
Priority:
Moderate
Funding Sources:
Kansas Division of Emergency Management, Local resources, and
grants
Responsibility
Assigned to:
Emergency Management and County GIS / City Officials
Target Completion
Date:
December 31, 2015
Cost of Action:
Requires Funding
Page 229
11. Develop and implement a wildfire prevention/education program. In addition to
providing education to the general public, the program should also target children, fire and
equipment users, builders and developers, and homeowners.
Category:
Jurisdiction:
Shawnee (UnInc.)
Hazard:
Wildfire
Goal.Objective:
1.3, 1.4, 4.4,
Background /
Benefit:
Shawnee County has burn-ban resolutions which require special
permission to conduct open burning operations. In periods of drought or
extreme weather conditions a burn ban may be declared. When a ban is
declared all radio stations, TV stations, and regional newspapers in the
area are notified as well as mayors, fire chiefs, etc. To better educate the
public at large, Shawnee County should expand their existing fire
protection program to include wildfire workshops to all age groups and
commercial operations.
Priority:
Moderate
Funding Sources:
Local
Responsibility
Assigned to:
Fire Officials / Emergency Management
Target Completion
Date:
December 31, 2015
Cost of Action:
Requires Funding
Page 230
12. Examine the current agreements within the county and assess the need to expand or
update cooperative agreements for firefighting resources. Include agreements with local,
state and federal agencies.
Category:
Emergency Services
Jurisdiction:
Shawnee (UnInc.)
Hazard:
Wildfire
Goal.Objective:
1.3, 1.4, 3.2,
Background /
Benefit:
Cooperative agreements provide the support needed in times of
emergency, and are an important element of planning, with the
long-range goal of reducing damage to structures and systems within the
jurisdiction.
Priority:
High
Funding Sources:
Local
Responsibility
Assigned to:
Fire Officials/Emergency Management
Target Completion
Date:
December 31, 2015
Cost of Action:
No Cost / Low Cost
13. Create a working group to evaluate the firefighting water supply resources within the
County. This should include both fixed and mobile supply issues.
Category:
Emergency Services
Jurisdiction:
Shawnee (UnInc.)
Hazard:
Wildfire
Goal.Objective:
1.3, 1.4, 3.2,
Background /
Benefit:
Lack of sufficient water supply makes it difficult for firefighters to
suppress fires. Whenever possible, increasing access to water along
water service delivery lines (wet and dry hydrants) would provide
additional resources for emergency responders.
Priority:
Moderate
Funding Sources:
Local
Responsibility
Assigned to:
Fire Officials / Emergency Management
Target Completion
Date:
December 31, 2015
Cost of Action:
Requires Funding
Page 231
14. Distribute assessment report examples provided by the Kansas Forest Service to
applicable parties to develop an understanding of the Community Wildfire Protection Plan
(CWPP). Recommend joining the program and completing an assessment report for
approval.
Category:
Prevention
Jurisdiction:
Shawnee (UnInc.)
Hazard:
Wildfire
Goal.Objective:
1.3, 1.4, 3.2,
Background /
Benefit:
The probability of grass/cropland fire in Shawnee County is relatively
high. With the known history of wildfire occurrence, the likelihood of
future events is estimated to remain the same as currently calculated.
Shawnee County can expect an average of 31.46 significant wildfires per
year that damage or destroy a total of 5,924 acres. The average area
burned is approximately 987 acres, with a average dollar loss of
$7,283.43. The Kansas Forest Service staff would provide assistance to
interested communities in the form of a Community Wildfire Hazard
Assessment Report and some mitigation action items.
Priority:
High
Funding Sources:
Local/State/Federal grant programs
Responsibility
Assigned to:
Rural Fire/Emergency Management/Kansas Forest Service
Target Completion
Date:
December 31, 2015
Cost of Action:
No Cost / Low Cost
Page 232
15. Appoint a rural fire committee to schedule meetings with the Kansas Forest Service to
map suspected hazardous wildfire areas in the county for potential participation in the
Community Wildfire Protection Program (CWPP).
Category:
Prevention
Jurisdiction:
Shawnee (UnInc.)
Hazard:
Wildfire
Goal.Objective:
1.3, 1.4, 3.2,
Background /
Benefit:
In order for a community to take advantage of the Community based
Healthy forests Restoration Act (HFRA), 2003, a community must
develop a Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP). To develop
qualifications the community must identify and map potential hazard
areas as an initial step towards participation in the program.
Priority:
High
Funding Sources:
Local/State/Federal
Responsibility
Assigned to:
Rural Fire / Emergency Management
Target Completion
Date:
December 31, 2015
Cost of Action:
No Cost / Low Cost
Page 233
16. Incorporate wildfire maps, develop actions and projects for wildfire prevention, and
complete an assessment report to meet CWPP requirements for submittal to the Kansas
Forest Service.
Category:
Prevention
Jurisdiction:
Shawnee (UnInc.)
Hazard:
Wildfire
Goal.Objective:
1.3, 1.4, 3.2,
Background /
Benefit:
The minimum requirements participation in the CWPP as described in
the HFRA are: (1) Collaboration: A CWPP must be collaboratively
developed by local and state government representatives, in consultation
with federal agencies and other interested parties. (2) Prioritized Fuel
Reduction: A CWPP must identify and prioritize areas for hazardous fuel
reduction treatments and recommend the types and methods of treatment
that will protect one or more at-risk communities and essential
infrastructure. (3) Treatment of Structural Ignitability: A CWPP must
recommend measures that homeowners and communities can take to
reduce the ignitability of structures throughout the area addressed by the
plan.
Priority:
High
Funding Sources:
Local/State/Federal
Responsibility
Assigned to:
Rural Fire / Emergency Management / Kansas Forest Service
Target Completion
Date:
December 31, 2015
Cost of Action:
No Cost / Low Cost
Page 234
17. Seek funding to replace the undersized culverts located across SW 40th Street to
eliminate excessive erosion in the lower end of the Lake Sherwood watershed due to
current and future development runoff.
Category:
Jurisdiction:
Shawnee (UnInc.)
Hazard:
Flood
Goal.Objective:
1.1, 2.1, 2.2,
Background /
Benefit:
Due to inadequate culvert size, this watershed creek has overtopped the
road numerous times and has caused extensive erosion of silk and rock
being washed away and deposited in the cove of Lake Sherwood. The
recommended work would include removing the two existing small
culverts and replace with a larger one, with additional road work to
accommodate the changes. The subject culvert is located at the south
edge of the Sherwood Improvement District and outside the taxing
authority of the SID, approximately 1.4 miles west of Wanamaker Road
on 40th Street at the 7100 block. The estimated project cost is
approximately $225,000.
Priority:
Low
Funding Sources:
FEMA/State/Local
Responsibility
Assigned to:
Mission township / Sherwood Improvement District
Target Completion
Date:
December 31, 2015
Cost of Action:
Page 235
18. Develop and submit an Emergency Action Plan (EAP) for the Lake Sherwood High
Hazard Dam to the State of Kansas and the Shawnee County Emergency Management
Department. Approval is granted through the Department of Agricultures Water Resources
Division - State Engineering Office. The EAP should be integrated into the Shawnee
County Local Emergency Operations Plan.
Category:
Emergency Services
Jurisdiction:
Shawnee (UnInc.)
Hazard:
Dams / Levees
Goal.Objective:
1.1, 1.3, 2.1,
Background /
Benefit:
The dam is identified as the Lake Sherwood Dam (State ID #DSN-0165),
which is owned and operated by the Sherwood Lake Club and was
constructed in 1964. The dam is required to have an EAP filed with the
State of Kansas. The State evaluation of high-hazard dams is based on its
location in areas where failure may cause extensive loss of life, serious
damage to homes, industrial and commercial facilities, important public
utilities, or main highways or railroads. It is important to note that a high
hazard dam is not necessairily unsafe, as defined by the State of Kansas.
An individual dam's hazard classification is based upon the potential
consequences of dam failure and does not reflect the physical condition
of the dam. Preparing for a potential emergency is an essential planning
step to secure the poeple and property downstream from a potential
breach or dam failure.
Priority:
High
Funding Sources:
Local
Responsibility
Assigned to:
Sherwood Lake Club / Mission Township
Target Completion
Date:
December 31, 2015
Cost of Action:
No Cost / Low Cost
Page 236
19. Identify the most at-risk critical facilities and evaluate potential mitigation techniques
for protecting each facility to the maximum extent possible.
Category:
Prevention
Jurisdiction:
Shawnee (UnInc.)
Hazard:
All
Goal.Objective:
1.2, 1.3, 3.1, 3.2,
Background /
Benefit:
A thorough evaluation of potential mitigation opportunities for the
jurisdiction's critical facilities must still be completed. Currently, there is
limited data available on these facilities. An inventory/database on
critical facilities should be created and maintained by the county and
shared with the Kansas Division of Emergency Management. This
inventory should include information on the location and risk to each
facility, and should also document any cost-effective mitigation
techniques to consider when funding becomes available.
Priority:
Moderate
Funding Sources:
Local
Responsibility
Assigned to:
Emergency Management
Target Completion
Date:
December 31, 2015
Cost of Action:
Requires Funding
Page 237
20. The Cross Creek Watershed will continue to construct, operate, and maintain water
detention dams for flood reduction in the watershed district.
Category:
Property Protection
Jurisdiction:
Shawnee (UnInc.)
Hazard:
Dams / Levees
Goal.Objective:
1.1, 1.2,
Background /
Benefit:
The Cross Creek Watershed Joint District No. 42 contains 17,900 acres
within Shawnee County, and is also located within the taxing districts of
Pottawatomie County and Jackson County. The operating budget was
$96,570 for 2009. The organization will evaluate the need for further
construction, operation, and maintenance projects, and additional effort
will be made to seek alternative funding as they become available.
Priority:
Moderate
Funding Sources:
Responsibility
Assigned to:
Cross Creek Watershed Joint District No. 42
Target Completion
Date:
Continuous
Cost of Action:
Requires Funding
21. The Kaw River Drainage District will continue to perform flood control and river bank
stabilization within the Drainage District.
Category:
Property Protection
Jurisdiction:
Shawnee (UnInc.)
Hazard:
Dams / Levees
Goal.Objective:
1.1, 1.2,
Background /
Benefit:
The Kaw River Drainage District contains 5,500 acres within Shawnee
County. The drainage district Board was formed in 1905, and meets
monthly. The general mission of the drainage district is flood control and
river bank stabilization.
Priority:
Moderate
Funding Sources:
Responsibility
Assigned to:
Kaw River Drainage District
Target Completion
Date:
December 31, 2015
Cost of Action:
Requires Funding
Page 238
22. The North Topeka Drainage District will continue to maintain and operate flood
control levees, flood gate structures, and channels, allowing storm water runoff to pass
through the district without causing flooding of property.
Category:
Property Protection
Jurisdiction:
Shawnee (UnInc.)
Hazard:
Dams / Levees
Goal.Objective:
1.1, 1.2,
Background /
Benefit:
The North Topeka Drainage District contains 920 acres within Shawnee
monthly. The general mission of the drainage district is to pass
stormwater run-off through the District without causing flooding of
property through maintenance and operation of flood control levees,
flood-gate structures, and channels. The organization will evaluate the
need for further maintenance projects, and additional effort will be made
to seek alternative funding as they become available.
Priority:
Moderate
Funding Sources:
Responsibility
Assigned to:
North Topeka Drainage District
Target Completion
Date:
Continuous
Cost of Action:
Requires Funding
Page 239
23. The North Topeka Drainage District will seek funding to repair Soldier Creek levees
and channel damaged by 2005 flood waters.
Category:
Property Protection
Jurisdiction:
Shawnee (UnInc.)
Hazard:
Dams / Levees
Goal.Objective:
1.1, 1.2,
Background /
Benefit:
flood-gate structures, and channels. Future planning, if funding is
available, includes repair of Soldier Creek levees and channel damaged
by 2005 flood waters.
Priority:
Low
Funding Sources:
Responsibility
Assigned to:
Target Completion
Date:
December 31, 2015
Cost of Action:
Page 240
24. The North Topeka Drainage District will consider an upgrade of the levee located
along the north side of the Kansas River within the drainage district.
Category:
Property Protection
Jurisdiction:
Shawnee (UnInc.)
Hazard:
Dams / Levees
Goal.Objective:
1.1, 1.2,
Background /
Benefit:
flood-gate structures, and channels. Future planning, if funding is
available, includes the upgrade of the levee located along the north side
of the Kansas River in the District.
Priority:
Low
Funding Sources:
Responsibility
Assigned to:
Target Completion
Date:
December 31, 2015
Cost of Action:
Page 241
25. The Shawnee County Consolidated RWD No. 1 will continue to assess the impact of
natural hazards on water distribution lines, systems, and equipment. Seek funding sources
to mitigate damage to critical infrastructure.
Category:
Property Protection
Jurisdiction:
Shawnee (UnInc.)
Hazard:
Multi-Hazard
Goal.Objective:
1.2, 3.2,
Background /
Benefit:
The Shawnee County Consolidated RWD No. 1 provides potable water
to their customers throughout Shawnee County. Maintaining distribution
capabilities of potable water is the water district's top priority.
Priority:
Moderate
Funding Sources:
Responsibility
Assigned to:
Shawnee County Consolidated RWD No. 1
Target Completion
Date:
December 31, 2015
Cost of Action:
No Cost / Low Cost
Page 242
26. The Shunganunga Drainage District will continue the care and maintenance of the
Shunganunga Drainage District Dams, including the South Branch Dam and the Burnett
Dam.
Category:
Property Protection
Jurisdiction:
Shawnee (UnInc.)
Hazard:
Dams / Levees
Goal.Objective:
1.1, 1.2,
Background /
Benefit:
The Kaw River Drainage District encompasses the area along
Shunganunga Creek in Shawnee County, but is responsible only for the
maintenance of the dams located on the Creek. The drainage district
Board was formed in 1906, and meets monthly. The general mission of
the drainage district is care and maintenance of the Shunganunga
Drainage District Dams. Future planning includes cement-work on the
spillways of each dam and possible raising the level of the South Branch
Dam to meet state regulations.
Priority:
High
Funding Sources:
Responsibility
Assigned to:
Shunganunga Drainage District
Target Completion
Date:
December 31, 2015
Cost of Action:
No Cost / Low Cost
Page 243
27. Develop and submit an Emergency Action Plan (EAP) for the Burnett Dam owned and
maintained by the Shunganunga Drainage District. Approval is granted through the
Department of Agriculture's Water Resources Division - State Engineering Office. The
EAP should be integrated into the Shawnee County Local Emergency Operations Plan.
Category:
Emergency Services
Jurisdiction:
Shawnee (UnInc.)
Hazard:
Dams / Levees
Goal.Objective:
1.1, 1.3, 2.1,
Background /
Benefit:
The high hazard dam is identified as the Burnett Dam which is owned
and operated by the Shunganunga Drainage District. The dam is required
to have an EAP filed with the State of Kansas. The State evaluation of
high-hazard dams is based on its location in areas where failure may
cause extensive loss of life, serious damage to homes, industrial and
commercial facilities, important public utilities, or main highways or
railroads. It is important to note that a high hazard dam is not necessarily
unsafe, as defined by the State of Kansas. An individual dam's hazard
classification is based upon the potential consequences of dam failure
and does not reflect the physical condition of the dam. Preparing for an
emergency is an essential planning step to secure the people and property
downstream from a potential breach or dam failure.
Priority:
High
Funding Sources:
Local
Responsibility
Assigned to:
Shunganunga Drainage District
Target Completion
Date:
December 31, 2015
Cost of Action:
No Cost / Low Cost
Page 244
28. The Tri-County Drainage District No. 1 will continue to construct, operate, and
maintain levee systems along the Kansas River and a portion of Cross Creek and
Bourbanois Creek for flood protection.
Category:
Property Protection
Jurisdiction:
Shawnee (UnInc.)
Hazard:
Dams / Levees
Goal.Objective:
1.1, 1.2,
Background /
Benefit:
The Tri-County Drainage District No. 1 contains 8,920 acres within
Shawnee County, and is also located within the taxing districts of
Pottawatomie County and Wabaunsee County. The general mission of
the drainage district is to construct, operate, and maintain levee systems
along the Kansas River and a portion of Cross Creek and Bourbanois
Creek for flood protection. The organization will evaluate the need for
further maintenance projects, and additional effort will be made to seek
alternative funding as they become available.
Priority:
Moderate
Funding Sources:
Responsibility
Assigned to:
Tri County Drainage District No. 1
Target Completion
Date:
December 31, 2015
Cost of Action:
Requires Funding
Page 245
29. Develop and submit an Emergency Action Plan (EAP) for the Lake Shawnee High
Hazard Dam. Approval is granted through the Department of Agriculture's Water
Resources Division - State Engineering Office. The EAP should be integrated into the
Shawnee County Local Emergency Operations Plan.
Category:
Emergency Services
Jurisdiction:
Shawnee (UnInc.)
Hazard:
Dams / Levees
Goal.Objective:
1.1, 1.3, 2.1,
Background /
Benefit:
The dam is identified as the Lake Shawnee Dam (State ID #DSN-0017),
which is owned and operated by Shawnee County and was constructed in
1937. The dam is required to have an EAP filed with the State of Kansas.
The State evaluation of high-hazard dams is based on its location in areas
where failure may cause extensive loss of life, serious damage to homes,
industrial and commercial facilities, important public utilities, or main
highways or railroads. It is important to note that a high hazard dam is
not necessairily unsafe, as defined by the State of Kansas. An individual
dam's hazard classification is based upon the potential consequences of
dam failure and does not reflect the physical condition of the dam.
Preparing for a potential emergency is an essential planning step to
secure the poeple and property downstream from a potential breach or
dam failure.
Priority:
High
Funding Sources:
Local
Responsibility
Assigned to:
Target Completion
Date:
April 31, 2015
Cost of Action:
No Cost / Low Cost
Page 246
Auburn
1. Identify flash-flood prone areas to consider flood reduction measures to the city's
Floodplain Manager / Mitigation Officer.
Category:
Prevention
Jurisdiction:
Auburn
Hazard:
Flood
Goal.Objective:
1.1, 2.1,
Background /
Benefit:
Identification of high-risk areas will provide essential information for
additional mitigation studies for development of actions and projects to
prevent future damage from flash flooding events.
Priority:
Moderate
Funding Sources:
Local
Responsibility
Assigned to:
Floodplain Manager / Mitigation Officer
Target Completion
Date:
December 31, 2015
Cost of Action:
Requires Funding
Page 247
Rossville
1. Identify flash-flood prone areas to consider flood reduction measures within the City of
Rossville.
Category:
Prevention
Jurisdiction:
Rossville
Hazard:
Flood
Goal.Objective:
1.1, 2.1,
Background /
Benefit:
prevent future damage from flash flooding events. Rossville has
experienced numerous flooding events due to the presence of Cross
Creek, located along the east, north, and west sides of the city. The City
of Rossville is currently working with the Army Corps of Engineers to
perform a study to determine methods to alleviate flooding.
Priority:
Moderate
Funding Sources:
Local
Responsibility
Assigned to:
Floodplain Manager / Zoning Officer
Target Completion
Date:
December 31, 2015
Cost of Action:
Requires Funding
Page 248
2. Seek funding to complete a stormwater drainage study/plan for the City of Rossville that
will lead to a stormwater management ordinance.
Category:
Prevention
Jurisdiction:
Rossville
Hazard:
Flood
Goal.Objective:
1.1, 3.2,
Background /
Benefit:
Historically, the City of Rossville has experienced areas of flooding
within the city limits due to inadequate drainage of stormwater runoff.
Priority:
Moderate
Funding Sources:
Local, State, Federal
Responsibility
Assigned to:
Floodplain Manager / Utility Superintendent
Target Completion
Date:
December 31, 2015
Cost of Action:
Requires Funding
3. Seek funding to retain an engineer to design a community tornado shelter and apply for
grant funding for construction.
Category:
Structural Projects
Jurisdiction:
Rossville
Hazard:
Tornado
Goal.Objective:
2.4, 3.1,
Background /
Benefit:
A lack of tornado shelters poses a serious risk to the safety of the
community. The City of Rossville has identified a need for Community
Storm Shelters.
Priority:
Low
Funding Sources:
FEMA
Responsibility
Assigned to:
Zoning Administrator
Target Completion
Date:
December 31, 2015
Cost of Action:
Page 249
Silver Lake
floodplain manager / mitigation officer.
Category:
Prevention
Jurisdiction:
Silver Lake
Hazard:
Flood
Goal.Objective:
1.1, 2.1,
Background /
Benefit:
Priority:
Moderate
Funding Sources:
Local
Responsibility
Assigned to:
Floodplain Manager / Mitigation Officer
Target Completion
Date:
December 31, 2015
Cost of Action:
Requires Funding
Page 250
2. Appoint a Planning Committee to work with Shawnee County to develop a plan to
reduce flooding in areas of the City of Silver Lake currently located within a floodplain.
Category:
Property Protection
Jurisdiction:
Silver Lake
Hazard:
Flood
Goal.Objective:
1.1, 1.2, 2.1,
Background /
Benefit:
The northern portion of the City of Silver Lake is located within a
floodplain, and reportedly floods frequently. The City of Silver Lake
intends to work with Shawnee County to identify methods of
flood-reduction in this area, which may require structural projects.
Priority:
Moderate
Funding Sources:
Responsibility
Assigned to:
Silver Lake Mitigation Officer / Floodplain Manager
Target Completion
Date:
December 31, 2015
Cost of Action:
Requires Funding
3. Seek funding to retain an engineer to design a community tornado shelter and apply for
grant funding for construction.
Category:
Structural Projects
Jurisdiction:
Silver Lake
Hazard:
Tornado
Goal.Objective:
2.4, 3.1,
Background /
Benefit:
A lack of tornado shelters poses a serious risk to the safety of the
community. The City of Silver Lake has identified a need for
Community Storm Shelters within the existing Community Center and/or
City Hall, as neither structure has a basement.
Priority:
Low
Funding Sources:
FEMA
Responsibility
Assigned to:
Silver Lake Mitigation Officer / Zoning Administrator
Target Completion
Date:
December 31, 2015
Cost of Action:
Page 251
Topeka
floodplain manager / planning officer.
Category:
Prevention
Jurisdiction:
Topeka
Hazard:
Flood
Goal.Objective:
1.1, 2.1,
Background /
Benefit:
Priority:
Moderate
Funding Sources:
Local
Responsibility
Assigned to:
Floodplain Manager / Planning Officer
Target Completion
Date:
December 31, 2015
Cost of Action:
Requires Funding
Page 252
2. Develop and submit Emergency Action Plans (EAPs) for the three High Hazard Dams
owned by the City of Topeka. Approval is granted through the Department of Agriculture's
Water Resources Division - State Engineering Office. The EAPs should be forwarded to
the Shawnee County Emergency Management Department for inclusion in the Shawnee
Category:
Emergency Services
Jurisdiction:
Topeka
Hazard:
Dams / Levees
Goal.Objective:
1.1, 1.3, 2.1,
Background /
Benefit:
The dams are identified as the City of Topeka Unnamed Dam (State ID
#DSN-0613) constructed in 1977, the Biddle Creek Detention Dam
(State ID #DSN-0634)construction date unknown, and the Westridge
Detention Dam (State ID #DSN-0681)construction date unknown. The
dams are required to have an EAP filed with the State of Kansas. The
State evaluation of high-hazard dams is based on its location in areas
where failure may cause extensive loss of life, serious damage to homes,
industrial and commercial facilities, important puiblic utilities, or main
highways or railroads. It is important to note that a high hazard dam is
not necessairily unsafe, as defined by the State of Kansas. An individual
dam's hazard classification is based upon the potential consequences of
dam failure and does not reflect the physical condition of the dam.
Preparing for a potential emergency is an essential planning step to
secure the people and property downstream from a potential breach or
dam failure.
Priority:
Moderate
Funding Sources:
Local
Responsibility
Assigned to:
City of Topeka
Target Completion
Date:
December 31, 2015
Cost of Action:
Requires Funding
Page 253
3. The City of Topeka will continue to operate and maintain their levee systems in
accordance with the provisional PM 43 certification granted by FEMA, and will continue
to work with other jurisdictions and levee owners for future compliance issues.
Category:
Property Protection
Jurisdiction:
Topeka
Hazard:
Dams / Levees
Goal.Objective:
1.1, 1.2,
Background /
Benefit:
The US Army Corps of Engineers prepared a Flood Risk Management
Project - Feasibility Study Report and Environmental Assessment
performed in connection with the City of Topeka levee system in
December 2008, on behalf of the City of Topeka Public Works
Department. The Study Area includes those portions of the Kansas River,
Soldier Creek, and Shunganunga Creek drainage basins that are located
within the City of Topeka. Upon considering the economic,
environmental, social, and engineering aspects of making improvements
to the existing Topeka, Kansas, Local Flood Protection Project, it was
determined that a project to reduce the risk of flooding was in the public
interest. The Corps of Engineers recommended that the Project be
submitted to Congress for implementation with existing cost sharing and
financing requirements. Information obtained through the City of Topeka
Public Works Department indicated that the Project had been submitted
to Congress, and the levee system has been provisionally certified for
two-years by FEMA.
Priority:
Low
Funding Sources:
Responsibility
Assigned to:
City of Topeka
Target Completion
Date:
December 31, 2015
Cost of Action:
Page 254
4. Seek funding to retain an engineer to design Storm Shelters within several city-owned
buildings and apply for grant funding for construction.
Category:
Structural Projects
Jurisdiction:
Topeka
Hazard:
Tornado
Goal.Objective:
2.4, 3.1,
Background /
Benefit:
A lack of tornado shelters poses a serious risk to the community,
including City of Topeka employees. The City of Topeka has identified a
need for Storm Shelters within the existing Street and Fleet Operations
Building and the Administration Building/Parks and Recreation Field
Office within the city limits.
Priority:
Low
Funding Sources:
FEMA
Responsibility
Assigned to:
City of Topeka
Target Completion
Date:
December 31, 2015
Cost of Action:
Page 255
Willard
1. Identify flash-flood prone areas to consider flood reduction measures to the city
officials.
Category:
Prevention
Jurisdiction:
Willard
Hazard:
Flood
Goal.Objective:
1.1, 2.1,
Background /
Benefit:
Priority:
Moderate
Funding Sources:
Local
Responsibility
Assigned to:
City Officials
Target Completion
Date:
December 31, 2015
Cost of Action:
Requires Funding
2. Research, develop, and adopt a Floodplain Management Plan for the City of Willard.
Category:
Property Protection
Jurisdiction:
Willard
Hazard:
Flood
Goal.Objective:
1.1, 2.1, 3.1,
Background /
Benefit:
Portions of the City of Willard have had historic flooding issues. The
City currently does not have a Floodplain Management Plan to help in
alleviating flooding issues.
Priority:
Moderate
Funding Sources:
Responsibility
Assigned to:
City of Willard
Target Completion
Date:
December 31, 2015
Cost of Action:
Requires Funding
Page 256
1. Develop and fund mitigation projects for the construction of tornado safe rooms for
Unified School District 437 schools.
Category:
Structural Projects
Jurisdiction:
Hazard:
Tornado
Goal.Objective:
2.4, 3.1,
Background /
Benefit:
Schools are particularly vulnerable to potential damage from tornadoes
and high winds. Students, faculty, and staff should seek safe shelter when
a tornado threatens. Tornado safe rooms should be constructed in schools
to ensure a safe place for students to go during a tornado event. Safe
rooms may be funded by FEMA during new school construction, as part
of school additions, or as retrofits.
Priority:
Low
Funding Sources:
Responsibility
Assigned to:
School District
Target Completion
Date:
December 31, 2015
Cost of Action:
Page 257
Kaw Valley USD 321
Category:
Structural Projects
Jurisdiction:
Kaw Valley USD 321
Hazard:
Tornado
Goal.Objective:
2.4, 3.1,
Background /
Benefit:
Priority:
Low
Funding Sources:
Responsibility
Assigned to:
School District
Target Completion
Date:
December 31, 2015
Cost of Action:
Page 258
2. Assess elevations and water flow in the Kaw Valley Unified School District 321 to
qualify the benefit of flood control projects at the Rossville Grade School.
Category:
Structural Project
Jurisdiction:
Kaw Valley USD 321
Hazard:
Flood
Goal.Objective:
1.1, 3.1, 3.2,
Background /
Benefit:
The Kaw Valley Unified School District 321 would like to analyze the
potential benefits of flood control projects in the area of the Rossville
Grade School within the District to mitigate the effects from flooding.
Priority:
Moderate
Funding Sources:
Responsibility
Assigned to:
Kaw Valley USD 321
Target Completion
Date:
December 31, 2015
Cost of Action:
Requires Funding
Page 259
Seaman USD 345
Category:
Structural Projects
Jurisdiction:
Seaman USD 345
Hazard:
Tornado
Goal.Objective:
2.4, 3.1,
Background /
Benefit:
Priority:
Low
Funding Sources:
Responsibility
Assigned to:
School District
Target Completion
Date:
December 31, 2015
Cost of Action:
Page 260
2. Seek funding to retain a professional school safety and security firm to review and
update the school’s Security Plan for domestic acts of terrorism, building security, and
contagious disease response.
Category:
Prevention
Jurisdiction:
Seaman USD 345
Hazard:
Goal.Objective:
1.3, 3.1,
Background /
Benefit:
As domestic acts of terrorism are becoming more of reality, many
officials believe that the next wave of terrorists acts may be aimed at
public school systems. Although these events are impossible to predict
with great accuracy, updating building security, school security plans,
and USD emergency plans can prepare school districts such as USD 345
for these events. Companies such as the National School Safety and
Security Services provide the expertise in this field to help review and
upgrade plans for the district.
Priority:
Moderate
Funding Sources:
Responsibility
Assigned to:
Board of Education / School Superintendent
Target Completion
Date:
December 31, 2015
Cost of Action:
Requires Funding
Page 261
Category:
Structural Projects
Jurisdiction:
Hazard:
Tornado
Goal.Objective:
2.4, 3.1,
Background /
Benefit:
Priority:
Low
Funding Sources:
Responsibility
Assigned to:
School District
Target Completion
Date:
December 31, 2015
Cost of Action:
Page 262
Category:
Structural Projects
Jurisdiction:
Hazard:
Tornado
Goal.Objective:
2.4, 3.1,
Background /
Benefit:
Priority:
Low
Funding Sources:
Responsibility
Assigned to:
School District
Target Completion
Date:
December 31, 2015
Cost of Action:
Page 263
Washburn University
select buildings located on Washburn University property.
Category:
Structural Projects
Jurisdiction:
Washburn University
Hazard:
Tornado
Goal.Objective:
2.4, 3.1,
Background /
Benefit:
Priority:
Low
Funding Sources:
Responsibility
Assigned to:
Washburn University
Target Completion
Date:
December 31, 2015
Cost of Action:
Page 264
2. Develop a radio communications plan between campus security units and outside
agencies of Shawnee County and the City of Topeka to ensure interoperability between all
communities. The Plan should address equipment compatibility and upgrade requirements
to implement the Plan.
Category:
Emergency Services
Jurisdiction:
Washburn University
Hazard:
Multi-Hazard
Goal.Objective:
1.3, 4.1,
Background /
Benefit:
Washburn University has identified a need to implement interoperable
radio communications between its security staff and county and city
services in case of campus emergency.
Priority:
Moderate
Funding Sources:
Responsibility
Assigned to:
Washburn University / City of Topeka / Shawnee County
Target Completion
Date:
December 31, 2015
Cost of Action:
Requires Funding
3. Appoint a committee to research and implement enhancements to the University's early
warnings systems for students and staff for weather alerts and campus emergencies.
Category:
Emergency Services
Jurisdiction:
Washburn University
Hazard:
Multi-Hazards
Goal.Objective:
1.3, 4.1,
Background /
Benefit:
Washburn University has identified a need to enhance the University's
ability to issue early warnings for students and staff for weather events or
campus emergencies in an effective, dependable, and rapid manner.
Priority:
Moderate
Funding Sources:
Responsibility
Assigned to:
Washburn University
Target Completion
Date:
December 31, 2014
Cost of Action:
Page 265
5.3 Implementation
The Shawnee County Multi-Jurisdictional Mitigation Plan will be implemented through the delegation of
assignments by the County Emergency Coordinator, and as specified within this Plan. Mitigation Actions
for each jurisdiction are listed and assigned specific implementation measures which include the
assignment of responsibilities to governmental departments and/or specific staff, along with the
establishment of a target completion date for each proposed mitigation action. When applicable, potential
funding sources were also listed.
It will be the responsibility of the Shawnee County Commission, and the designee(s) for each jurisdiction,
to confirm the target completion dates, assess progress, provide policy revisions, and give final approval
of the Plan and its objectives.
Planning and Incorporation of Mitigation Plan
The Shawnee County Emergency Management Department will support mitigation activities through
continued participation in the NFIP and flood plain development, in conjunction with the County
Commission oversight of land planning, and other departments within the county, to guide and control
development.
It is intended to utilize the Mitigation Plan as a reference guide for future growth and expansion efforts in
the county, and incorporate the goals, objectives and actions into other planning documents as revisions
and updates are made. Where feasible, mitigation actions will be incorporated into development and
planning ordinances to reduce potential risk to the county and residents.
It will be the responsibility of the Shawnee County Commission or designee, to confirm that these actions
are ultimately carried out no later than the target completion dates unless reasonable circumstances
prevent their implementation (i.e., lack of funding availability). Otherwise, the completion of each
proposed mitigation action has been determined to be feasible within the timeframe allowed.
Specific procedures for regular monitoring and reporting of progress on the proposed mitigation actions
are provided in Section 6.0 - Plan Maintenance.
Funding Sources
Although mitigation techniques will likely save money in the long run by avoiding losses, many projects
are costly to implement. Shawnee County will continue to seek outside funding assistance for mitigation
projects in both the pre- and post-disaster environment. This portion of the plan identifies the primary
federal and state grant programs for Shawnee County to consider, and also briefly discusses local and
non-governmental funding sources.
Federal
The following federal grant programs have been identified as funding sources which specifically target
hazard mitigation projects:
Pre-Disaster Mitigation Program
Agency: Federal Emergency Management Agency
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 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 to and destruction of property.
The funding is based upon a 75 percent federal share, 25 percent non-federal share. The non-federal match
can be fully in-kind or cash, or a combination. Special accommodations will be made for “small and
Page 266
impoverished communities”, who will be eligible for 90% federal share, 10% non-federal.
The Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PDM) Program was authorized by §203 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster
Assistance and Emergency Relief Act (Stafford Act), 42 USC, as amended by §102 of the Disaster
Mitigation Act of 2000. Funding for the program is provided through the National Pre-Disaster Mitigation
Fund to assist States and local governments (to include Indian Tribal governments) in implementing
cost-effective hazard mitigation activities that complement a comprehensive mitigation program. All
applicants must be participating in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) if they have been
identified through the NFIP as having a Special Flood Hazard Area (a Flood Hazard Boundary Map
(FHBM) or Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) has been issued). In addition, the community must not be
suspended or on probation from the NFIP.
44 CFR Part 201, Hazard Mitigation Planning, establishes criteria for State and local hazard mitigation
planning authorized by §322 of the Stafford Act, as amended by §104 of the DMA. After November 1,
2003, local governments and Indian Tribal governments applying for PDM funds through the States will
have to have an approved local mitigation plan prior to the approval of local mitigation project grants.
States will also be required to have an approved Standard State mitigation plan in order to receive PDM
funds for State or local mitigation projects after November 1, 2004. Therefore, the development of State
and local multi-hazard mitigation plans is key to maintaining eligibility for future PDM funding.
FEMA provides PDM grants to states that, in turn, can provide sub-grants to local governments for
accomplishing the following eligible mitigation activities:
• State and local hazard mitigation planning,
• Technical assistance [e.g. risk assessments, project development],
• Mitigation Projects,
• Acquisition or relocation of vulnerable properties,
• Hazard retrofits,
• Minor structural hazard control or protection projects, community outreach and education up to
10% of State allocation
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.
There are three types of grants available under FMA: Planning, Project, and Technical Assistance Grants.
FMA Planning Grants are available to States and jurisdictions to prepare Flood Mitigation Plans.
NFIP-participating jurisdictions with approved Flood Mitigation Plans can apply for FMA Project Grants.
FMA Project Grants are available to States and NFIP participating jurisdictions to implement measures to
reduce flood losses. Ten percent of the Project Grant is made available to States as a Technical Assistance
Grant. These funds may be used by the State to help administer the program. Jurisdictions receiving
FMA Planning and Project Grants must be participating in the NFIP. Three examples of eligible FMA
projects include: the elevation, acquisition, and relocation of NFIP-insured structures.
FMA is a pre-disaster grant program, and is made available to states on an annual basis. This funding is
available for mitigation planning and implementation of mitigation measures only, and is based upon a 75
percent federal share, 25 percent non-federal share. States administer the FMA program and are
Page 267
responsible for selecting projects for funding from the applications submitted by all jurisdictions within
the state. 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.
Hazard Mitigation Grant Program
The Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) was created in November 1988 through Section 404 of
the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act. The HMGP assists states and local
jurisdictions in implementing long-term mitigation measures following a Presidential disaster declaration.
To meet these objectives, FEMA can fund up to 75 percent of the eligible costs of each project. The state
or local cost-share match does not need to be cash, in-kind services or materials may also be used. With
the passage of the Hazard Mitigation and Relocation Assistance Act of 1993, federal funding under the
HMGP is now based on 15 percent of the federal funds being spent on the Public and Individual
Assistance programs (minus administrative expenses) for each disaster.
The HMGP can be used to fund projects to protect either public or private property, as long as the projects
in question fit within the state and local government's overall mitigation strategy for the disaster area, and
comply with program guidelines. Examples of projects that may be funded include: the acquisition or
relocation of structures from hazard-prone areas; the retrofitting of existing structures to protect them
from future damages; the development of state or local standards designed to protect buildings from future
damages.
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.
These organizations must apply for HMGP project funding on behalf of their citizens. In turn, applicants
must work through their state, since the state is responsible for setting priorities for funding and
administering the program.
Public Assistance (Infrastructure) Program, Section 406
FEMA’s Public Assistance Program, through Section 406 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Emergency Assistance Act, provides funding to local governments following a Presidential disaster
declaration for mitigation measures in conjunction with the repair of damaged public facilities and
infrastructure. The mitigation measures must be related to eligible disaster-related damages and must
directly reduce the potential of future, similar disaster damages to the eligible facility. These opportunities
usually present themselves during repair/replacement efforts.
Proposed projects must be approved by FEMA prior to funding. They will be evaluated for cost
effectiveness, technical feasibility, and compliance with statutory, regulatory and executive order
requirements. In addition, the evaluation must ensure that the mitigation measures do not negatively
impact a facility's operation or increase risk from another hazard.
The Public Assistance Program provides supplemental Federal disaster grant assistance for the repair,
replacement, or restoration of disaster-damaged, publicly owned facilities and the facilities of certain
Private Non-Profit (PNP) organizations. The Federal share of assistance is not less than 75% of the
eligible cost for emergency measures and permanent restoration. The State determines how the
non-Federal share (up to 25%) is split with the applicants.
Public facilities are operated by state and local governments, Indian tribes or authorized tribal
Page 268
organizations and include:
• Roads, bridges and culverts
• Draining and irrigation channels
• Schools, city halls and other buildings
• Water, power and sanitary systems
• Airports and parks
Private nonprofit organizations are groups that own or operate facilities that provide services otherwise
performed by a government agency and include, but are not limited to the following:
• Universities and other schools
• Hospitals and clinics
• Volunteer fire and ambulance
• Power cooperatives and other utilities
• Custodial care and retirement facilities
• Museums and community centers
SBA Disaster Assistance Program
Agency: U.S. Small Business Administration
The SBA Disaster Assistance Program provides low-interest loans to businesses following a Presidential
Disaster Declaration (PDA). The loans target businesses that need to repair or replace uninsured disaster
damages to property they own, including real estate, machinery and equipment, inventory and supplies.
Businesses of any size are eligible, as well as non-profit organizations.
SBA loans can be utilized by their recipients to incorporate mitigation techniques into the repair and
restoration of their business.
Community Development Block Grants
Agency: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
The 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
PDA. Funds can be used for activities such as acquisition, rehabilitation or reconstruction of damaged
properties and facilities and for the redevelopment of disaster areas.
Individual and Households Program/Other Needs Assistance
Agencies: FEMA and KDEM
The Individual & Households, Other Needs Assistance Program (ONA) provides financial assistance to
individuals or households who sustain damage or develop serious needs because of a natural or man-made
disaster. The funding share is 75% federal funds and 25% state funds. The ONA program provides grants
for necessary expenses and serious needs that cannot be provided for by insurance, another federal
program, or other source of assistance.
The current maximum allowable amount for any one disaster to individuals or families is $25,000. The
program gives funds for disaster-related necessary expenses and serious needs, including the following
categories:
• Personal property
• Transportation
• Medical and dental
• Funeral
• Essential tools
• Flood insurance
• Moving and storage
In accordance with the Stafford Act, the program is initiated by inclusion in the Governor's request for a
presidential declaration.
Page 269
The ONA Program is not intended to indemnify a victim against disaster losses or to purchase or replace
items or provide services that could be characterized as non-essential, luxury, recreational, or decorative.
The program provides individuals or households with assistance to recover from a disaster and establish a
habitable and sanitary living environment.
Kansas Emergency Management administers the ONA Program in cooperation with the federal
government.
Hazardous Materials Public Sector Training and Planning Grants
Agency: U.S. Department of Transportation-Title 49, Volume 2, Parts 100 to 185
This part sets forth procedures for reimbursable grants for public sector planning and training in support
of the emergency planning and training efforts of States, Indian tribes, and local jurisdictions to deal with
hazardous materials emergencies, particularly those involving transportation. These grants will enhance
the implementation of the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986 (42 U.S.C.
11001).
The Hazardous Materials Emergency Preparedness (HMEP) grant program is intended to provide
financial and technical assistance as well as national direction and guidance to enhance State, Territorial,
Tribal, and local hazardous materials emergency planning and training. The HMEP Grant Program
distributes fees collected from shippers and carriers of hazardous materials to emergency responders for
hazmat training and to Local Emergency Planning Committees (LEPC’s) for hazmat planning.
State
A wide array of assistance programs are available to local jurisdictions through the state governmental
agencies to assist in the event of a disaster, including small business loans, recovery programs, and
mitigation programs, depending on needs and type of declared disaster in the jurisdiction. It is the intent
of Shawnee County to research and identify specific program funding that may be available for specific
goals and objectives identified in this plan.
Local
Local governments depend upon local property taxes as their primary source of revenue. These taxes are
typically used to finance services that must be available and delivered on a routine and regular basis to the
general public. If local budgets allow, these funds may be used for other purposes in the general public
interest. Many times these funds are used to match federal or state grant programs when required for
large-scale projects.
Non-Governmental
Another potential source of revenue for implementing local mitigation projects is monetary contributions
from non-governmental organizations, such as private sector companies, churches, charities, community
relief funds, the Red Cross, hospitals, land trusts and other non-profit organizations.
Page 270
6.0 Plan Maintenance
6.1 Monitoring Schedule
During each year, periodic monitoring and reporting on the progress of the plan is required to evaluate the
goals and objectives for each jurisdiction in this multijurisdictional plan. This will allow the overall plan
to stay current and will measure the effectiveness of the plan. The plan has therefore been designed to be
user-friendly in terms of monitoring implementation and preparing regular progress reports.
The plan is a public document, and will remain available at the Emergency Coordinator Operations
Office, and at appropriate locations within each jurisdiction, for review and comment during normal
business operations. Public comment will be documented and included in annual reporting to the county
commission.
6.2 Evaluating Method
Each jurisdiction is responsible for a formal review of the mitigation plan on an annual basis with
emphasis on its unique hazards, goals, and actions. Each jurisdiction is responsible to maintain a
designated contact for its part of the plan and inform the EM. This review will include the following as a
minimum scope:
• The EM, as Plan Administrator is responsible for scheduling an annual meeting of the Mitigation
Planning Committee, or other group that may be designated such as the Local Emergency Planning
Committee (LEPC), for the purpose of the overall formal review of the plan components.
• The EM will provide an annual report and/or presentation to the Board of County Commissioners
(BOCC) on the implementation status of the plan during a public forum meeting. This forum can
either be a scheduled county commissioners meeting or special meeting called to review mitigation
planning. This report will include, at a minimum, a completed, printed version of the Mitigation
Action Plan (MAP - provided as a link in the Appendix section).
• The report will include an evaluation of the progress, effectiveness, and appropriateness of the
mitigation actions proposed in the plan. The report will recommend, as appropriate, any required
changes or amendments to the plan.
If the BOCC, on behalf of any or all of the jurisdictions, determines that the recommendations warrant
modification to the plan, the BOCC may initiate a plan amendment as described in the Revisions and
Updates Section.
The MAP lists the mitigation actions recommended in this plan. It has been designed to provide Shawnee
County with a user-friendly tool for monitoring the implementation of the mitigation actions
recommended in the plan, and for reporting progress to the BOCC or their appointed representative.
Mitigation actions may be sorted using the MAP according to the following:
1. By action number;
2. By category;
3. By hazard;
4. By priority;
5. By responsibility assigned to;
6. By target completion date.
The spreadsheet file is provided as a link and will be maintained and updated along with the Shawnee
County Hazard Mitigation Plan.
6.3 Revisions and Updates - Schedule
Periodic revisions and updates of the plan are required to ensure that the goals and objectives for Shawnee
Page 271
County are kept current. More importantly, revisions may be necessary to ensure the plan is in full
compliance with federal regulations and state statutes. This portion of the plan outlines the procedures for
completing such revisions and updates.
Five-Year Plan Review
The hazard identification and assessment, jurisdiction vulnerability assessment, and mitigation capabilities
assessment should be reviewed, at a minimum, every 5-years to determine if there have been any
significant changes in Shawnee County that should be addressed and considered in the mitigation plan.
Increased development, increased exposure to certain hazards, the development of new mitigation
capabilities or techniques, and changes to federal or state legislation are examples of changes that may
affect the condition of the plan.
Further, following a disaster declaration, the plan will need to be reviewed and/or revised to incorporate
lessons learned and to address specific circumstances arising out of the disaster.
The results of any review, periodic or following a disaster, should be summarized in the plan update
report prepared for the mitigation plan under the direction of the EM. The annual report will include an
evaluation of the effectiveness and appropriateness of the plan, and will recommend, as appropriate, any
required changes or amendments to the plan.
If the BOCC determines that the recommendations warrant modification to the plan, the BOCC may either
initiate a plan amendment as described below or, if conditions justify, may direct the EM to undertake a
complete update of the plan.
Plan Amendments
An amendment to the plan should be initiated only by the BOCC, either at its own initiative or upon the
recommendation of the EM, or some other person or agency.
Upon initiation of an amendment to the plan, Shawnee County will forward information on the proposed
amendment to interested parties including, but not limited to, affected county departments, residents and
businesses. Information will also be forwarded to the Kansas Division of Emergency Management. This
information will be sent out in order to seek input on the proposed plan amendment for not less than a
forty-five (45) day review and comment period.
At the end of the comment period, the proposed amendment and review comments will be forwarded to
the EM (or designee) for consideration. If no comments are received from the reviewing parties within
the specified review period, such will be noted accordingly. The EM or designee will review the
proposed amendment along with the comments received from other parties, and submit a recommendation
to the county commissioners within sixty (60) days.
In determining whether to recommend approval or denial of a plan amendment request, the following
factors will be considered:
• There are errors or omissions made in the identification of issues or needs during the preparation
of the plan;
• New issues or needs have been identified which were not adequately addressed in the plan;
• There has been a change in information, data, or assumptions from those on which the plan was
based.
Upon receiving the recommendation of the EM or designee, the BOCC will then proceed with its
established procedures for changing a document of this type. The BOCC will review the recommendation
(including the factors listed above) and any oral or written comments received at the public hearing.
Following that review, the BOCC will take one of the following actions:
Page 272
1. Adopt the proposed amendment as presented.
2. Adopt the proposed amendment with modifications.
3. Refer the amendments request back to the EM for further consideration.
4. Defer the amendment request for further consideration and/or hearing.
6.4 Incorporation into Existing Planning
The Shawnee County Emergency Management Department will continue to incorporate mitigation
planning activities into county planning functions by actively communicating the plan and its content to
other departments within the county. In conjunction with BOCC oversight and continued participation in
the NFIP, requirements of the mitigation plan can be incorporated into future comprehensive land
planning and zoning which will guide and control development. The intent will be to utilize the
mitigation plan as a reference guide for future growth and expansion efforts in the county, and to
incorporate the goals, objectives and actions of the plan into other planning documents as revisions and
updates are made. Where feasible, mitigation actions will be incorporated into development and planning
ordinances to reduce potential risk to the county and residents.
The jurisdictions participating in this multi-jurisdictional plan believe it has the capacity to stand alone
and will, for most situations, execute it as such. In the cases where the jurisdiction indicates a
comprehensive plan, or related planning function, this plan will be used or incorporated in to that process
as a reference or guiding document. As part of plan maintenance, the yearly review will examine and
document the integration of the mitigation plan with other plans and planning functions. This process will
also review new opportunities to incorporate and integrate the plan.
It will be the responsibility of the BOCC, or designee, to confirm that these actions are ultimately carried
out no later than the target completion dates unless reasonable circumstances prevent their implementation
(e.g., lack of funding availability). Otherwise, the completion of each proposed mitigation action has been
determined to be feasible within the timeframe allowed.
6.5 Continued Public Involvement
The plan is a public document, and will remain available at the Emergency Management Operations
Office for review and comment during normal business operations. Public comment will be documented
and included in annual reporting to the BOCC.
Appendices
References and Resources
Meeting Sign-in Forms
Embedded PDF: MIT4_SN_Contacts_List3.pdf
Gross Pages Printed: 445
Organization
AT&T
Auburn Fire District #2
City of Auburn
City of Auburn
City of Rossville
City of Rossville
City of Silver Lake
City of Silver Lake
City of Topeka
City of Topeka
City of Topeka
City of Topeka
City of Topeka
City of Topeka
City of Topeka
City of Topeka
City of Topeka
City of Topeka
City of Topeka
City of Willard
City of Willard
Consolidated RWD # 1
Consolidated RWD #4
County Commission
County Commission
County Commission
Crosscreek Watershed
Douglas County Em Mgt
Dover Fire District #4
Hayden High School
Jackson County Em Mgt
Jefferson County Em Mgt
Kansas Dept of Ag
Kansas Dept of Ag
Kansas Gas Service
Kaw Valley Drainage Dist.
Kaw Valley Drainage Dist.
Kaw Valley Electric COOP
KDEM
Fname
Lisa
Joe
Mark
Alice
Ann
Lisa
Mack
Darlene
Norton
Shawn
Bill
Bill
Howard
Ronald
Don
Bob
Garry
Mike
David
Henry
Dylan
Mike
Riley
Donna
Mike
Michelle
Ted
Vic
Dennis
Terri
Bill
Rick
Pat
Douglas
Chief
Tom
Gina
Andrew
Anthony
Mark
Jacob
Lname
Broxterman
Sellens
Brown
Riley
McCullough
Strum
Smith
Stadler
Bonaparte
Bruns
Bunton
Fiander
Giles
Miller
Rankin
Sample
Scott
Tepley
Thurbon
Betty
Keim
Dawson
Rees
Wools
Weishaar
Buhler
Ensley
Miller
Hall
Smith
Ossmann
Strecker
Corte
Schmidt
Engineer
Morey
Perry-Pufahl
Lewis
Meier
Fritts
Gray
Title
Utility Contact
Fire Chief
Mayor of Auburn
Auburn City Clerk
Mayor of Rossville
Rossvile City Clerk
Mayor of Silver Lake
Silver Lake City Clerk
City Manager
City Engineer
Mayor of Topeka
City Zoning
Chief, Topeka Fire Department
Chief, Topeka Police Dept.
City Water Superintendent
City Water Pollution Control
City PW Emergency Manager
City Public Works Director
City Planning
Willard City Clerk
Mayor of Willard
Contact Person
Contact Person
Contact Person
Contact Person
Commission Chair
Commission Member
Commission Member
Attorney
Director
Fire Chief
School President
Emergency Coordinator
Water Resources
State NFIP Coordinator
Utility Contact
Contact Person
Contact Person
Utility Contact
State Mitigation Officer
address1
220 SE 6th
215 Kellogg Lane
161 West 9th
161 West 9th
PO Box 337
PO Box 337
218 West Railroad
218 West Railroad
215 SE 7th
620 SE Madison
215 SE 7th
620 SE Madison
324 Jefferson
320 South Kansas
3245 Waterworks Dr.
1115 NE Poplar
620 SE Madison
620 SE Madison
620 SE Madison
P.O Box 222
P.O Box 222
PO Box 159
2222 SW Huxman Road
4926 SW Wanamaker Rd.
PO Box 75077
200 SE 7th
200 SE 7th
200 SE 7th
3360 SW Harrison
111 East 11th Street
PO Box 234
401 SW Gage
210 US Highway 75
507 Delaware
109 SW 9th St
109 SW 9th St
P.O Box 3538
1247 NW Humphrey Rd
5939 NW 17th
1100 SW Auburn Rd
State Defense Building
City
Topeka
Auburn
Auburn
Auburn
Rossville
Rossville
Silver Lake
Silver Lake
Suite 352
Topeka
2nd Floor
Topeka
Office 352
Topeka
3rd floor
Topeka
Topeka
Suite 100
Topeka
Topeka
Topeka
Topeka
Topeka
3rd floor
Topeka
Willard
Willard
Auburn
Topeka
Topeka
Topeka
Topeka
Topeka
Topeka
Topeka
Lawrence
Dover
Topeka
PO Box 347
Holton
PO Box 218
Oskaloosa
2nd Floor
Topeka
2nd Floor
Topeka
Topeka
Topeka
Topeka
Topeka
2801 SW Topeka Blvd Topeka
address2
Room 360
State
KS
KS
KS
KS
KS
KS
KS
KS
KS
KS
KS
KS
KS
KS
KS
KS
KS
KS
KS
KS
KS
KS
KS
KS
KS
KS
KS
KS
KS
KS
KS
KS
KS
KS
KS
KS
KS
KS
KS
KS
KS
Organization
KDEM
KDEM
Mission Fire Department
North Topeka Drainage Dist.
North Topeka Drainage Dist.
Osage County Em Mgt
Pottawatomie County Em Mgt
Rossville Drainage Dist.
Rossville Drainage Dist.
Rossville Fire District #3
Shawnee Co. RWD #9
Shawnee Co.RWD #8
Shawnee County
Shawnee County
Shawnee County
Shawnee County
Shawnee County
Shawnee County
Shawnee County
Shawnee Heights Fire Dep
Sherwood Improvement Dist.
Shunganunga Drainage Dist.
Shunganunga Drainage Dist.
Silver Lake Drainage District
Silver Lake Drainage District
Silver Lake Fire District #1
SNCO Conservation District.
Soldier Fire Department
St.Francis Hospital
St.Francis Hospital
State Fire Marshall's Office
Stormont Vail Hospital
US DHS - FEMA Region VII
USD 321 Kaw Valley
USD 330 Dover
USD 345 Seaman
USD 372 Silver Lake
USD 437 Auburn-Washburn
USD 450 Shawnee Heights
USD 501 Topeka
Wabaunsee County Em Mgt
Wakarusa Watershed
Fname
Charlie
Brad
Forrest
David
Ronald
Sheila
Chris
Wayne
Dennis
Alan
Brad
Dennis
Richard
Barry
Cyndi
Richard
Marti
Anna
Tom
Tom
William
Deidre
Charles
Michael
Alan
Joe
Steve
Richard
Steve
Stuart
Karl
Tom
Joe
James
James
Mike
Dr Randy
Dr. Brenda
Martin
Dr. Kevin
Amy
Shirley
Lname
McGonigle
Moeller
Walter
Jackson
Meier
Dale
Trudo
Dick
Keller
McKensie
Brunton
Schwartz
Barta
Beagle
Beck
Eckert
Leisinger
Ortega
Vlach
Garcia
White
Baarnett
Tomlinson
Deiter
Thomas
Hawkins
Hennessey
Maginot
Granzow
Moore
McNorton
Caby
Chandler
McDaniel
Markos
Mathes
Freeman
Dietrich
Stessman
Singer
Terrapin
Wray
Title
Mitigation Projects Manager
Hazard Mitigation Planner
Fire Chief
Contact Person
Director
Contact Person
Contact Person
Fire Chief
Contact Person
Contact Person
Shawnee County Sheriff
County Planning
Shawnee County Clerk
Shawnee County Attorney
County Audit Finance
Zoning and Floodplain Manager
County Public Works Director
Fire Chief
Contact Person
Contact Person
Contact Person
Director
Chairman
Fire Chief
Contact Person
Fire Chief
NEKS Regional Hospital Coordinator
Risk and Safety Manager
LEPC Chair
Hz Mtls Program Coordinator
Superintendent
Superintendent
Superintendent
Superintendent
Superintendent
Superintendent
Superintendent
Secretary
address1
3101 SW Urish Road
2815 NE Rockaway Trail
2123 NW 17th St.
717 Topeka Avenue
207 N 1st
6520 NW Hall Road
11821 NW Hyw 24
PO Box 756
10234 SW 49th
PO Box 95
320 South Kansas
1515 NE Saline
200 SE 7th
200 SE 7th
200 SE 7th
1515 NE Saline
1515 NE Saline
2626 SE Shawnee Heights Road
6712 SW Aylesbury Rd
2748 SW MacVicar
1508 SW 24th
PO Box 54
PO Box 54
PO Box 87
3231 Van Buren
600 NW 46
1700 SW 7th
1700 SW 7th
700 SW Jackson 6th Floor
1500 SW 10th
9221 Ward Parkway
411 West Lasley
PO Box 158
901 NW Lyman Road
200 Rice Road
5928 SW 53rd
4401 SE Shawnee Heights Rd
624 24th Street
226 Missouri
P.O Box 139
address2
City
Topeka
Topeka
Topeka
PO Box 281
Lyndon
Westmoreland
Rossville
Rossville
Rossville
Topeka
Tecumseh
Suite 200
Topeka
Topeka
Topeka
Room 100
Topeka
Room 201
Topeka
Topeka
Suite 200
Topeka
Tecumseh
Topeka
Topeka
Topeka
Silver Lake
Silver Lake
Silver Lake
Topeka
Topeka
Topeka
Topeka
Topeka
Topeka
Suite 200
Kansas City
St. Mary's
Eskridge
Topeka
Topeka
Topeka
Tecumseh
Topeka
Alma
Topeka
State
KS
KS
KS
KS
KS
KS
KS
KS
KS
KS
KS
KS
KS
KS
KS
KS
KS
KS
KS
KS
KS
KS
KS
KS
KS
KS
KS
KS
KS
KS
KS
KS
MO
KS
KS
KS
KS
KS
KS
KS
KS
KS
Organization
Washburn University
Westar Energy
Fname
Darrell
Pam
Lname
Dibbern
Solis
Title
Utility Contact
address1
1700 College
P.O. Box 3538
address2
Morgan 235
City
Topeka
Topeka
State
KS
KS
Embedded PDF: MIT4_Signin_1stPlnMtg.pdf
Embedded PDF: MIT4_Signin_1stPubMtg.pdf
Embedded PDF: MIT4_Signin_1stPubMtg2.pdf
Embedded PDF: MIT4_Signin_2ndPlnMtg.pdf
Embedded PDF: MIT4_SN_2ndPubMtg.pdf
Letters of Authorization
Embedded PDF: MIT4_Auburn_Res.pdf
Embedded PDF: MIT4_Rossville_Res.pdf
Embedded PDF: MIT4_Silver Lake_Res.pdf
Embedded PDF: MIT4_Topeka_Res.pdf
Embedded PDF: MIT4_Willard_Res.pdf
Embedded PDF: MIT4_USD 437_Auburn-Washburn_Res.pdf
Embedded PDF: MIT4_USD 345_Seaman_Res.pdf
Embedded PDF: MIT4_USD 450 Shawnee Heights.pdf
Embedded PDF: MIT4_USD501.pdf
Embedded PDF: MIT4_Washburn University_Res.pdf
Embedded PDF: MIT4_USD 321002.pdf
Meetings
Shawnee County, Kansas
Planning Meeting
November 19, 2008
Dear Potential Plan Participants:
This letter is being sent to inform you of a very important initiative that is about to take
place in Shawnee County. The County has started the process of developing a MultiJurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (HMP). This mitigation plan will be the blueprint
for reducing property damage and saving lives from the effects of future natural
disasters in Shawnee County. This plan is funded by a “Pre-Disaster Mitigation Grant”
approved by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for 75% of the cost
and the Kansas Division of Emergency Management (KDEM) is supplying the
remaining 25% match.
The planning process will include future public meetings among community leaders,
businesses, and other stakeholders (to be announced at a later date). These meetings
will help identify the hazards that exist, evaluate the vulnerability, assess the potential
impact, and identify deficiencies that could impact local infrastructure and critical
facilities as the result of a hazardous event. The HMP will also develop and prioritize
mitigation measures throughout the county and propose strategies to implement them.
In order to start the process, there will be a planning meeting held on:
Date:
Time:
Place:
December 4
6:30 PM
Shawnee County Health Agency Auditorium
1615 West 8th
Topeka, Kansas
You are encouraged to attend this meeting, or send a representative, and participate
in this initial planning process in order to gain insight into the overall strategy and plan
development. If you have questions before the meeting or to RSVP, please contact
Kathy Allen at (785) 233-8200 x4153, email: [email protected]
Sincerely,
Dave Sterbenz, Director
Shawnee County Emergency Management
Embedded PDF: MIT4_1st_Invitation_Letter.pdf
The Staff
E-Fm Consulting, LLC
PUBLIC NOTICE
TO ALL RESIDENTS OF
SHAWNEE COUNTY
The Office of Shawnee County Emergency Management along with E-Fm Consulting, LLC will
be conducting the first public meeting for discussion and input on the Shawnee County Hazard
Mitigation Plan. The County and incorporated areas are developing Local Hazard Mitigation
Plans per the requirements of the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 and guidance of the Kansas
Division of Emergency Management.
The Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan will guide local activity to reduce risk and prevent loss from
natural hazards such as tornadoes, wildfires, floods, hail and other types of severe weather. The
intent of the plan is to:
•
•
•
•
Identify natural hazards impacting the community;
Describe risk and vulnerability to the community;
Describe mitigation actions and goals associated with the prioritized vulnerabilities;
Describe how the community will maintain its plan in the future
YOU ARE INVITED to learn more, participate, and comment at this public meeting concerning
the development of a Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan. Members of the Planning Committee and
our consultant will be present to answer questions, receive public input and information, and
address public commentary.
When complete, the new plan will meet the requirements of the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000.
Under this Act and related legislation, states, communities, and tribal governments must
complete FEMA-approved plans to be eligible for certain federal assistance programs. These
assistance programs provide communities with pre- and post-disaster funds to implement
mitigation projects.
The current draft plan can be viewed at the Shawnee County Emergency Management Office in
Topeka.
TIME:
WHEN:
WHERE:
2:00 PM
April 16, 2009
Shawnee County Health Agency Auditorium
1615 West 8th Street
Topeka, Kansas
For more information, or if you have questions before the meeting or to RSVP, please contact
Kathy Allen at (785) 233-8200 x4153, email: [email protected].
Or E-Fm Consulting at 785-312-9150
Respectfully,
Dave Sterbenz, Emergency Management Director
Shawnee County Emergency Management
Embedded PDF: MIT4_1st_PubMtg_Notice.pdf
Embedded PDF: MIT4_1st_PubMtg_Newspaper2.pdf
Embedded PDF: MIT4_postcard1stpubmtgCombine.pdf
Embedded PDF: MIT4_2ndPubMtgpostcard-B.pdf
Embedded PDF: MIT4_2nd_PubMtg_Newspaper.pdf
Alternative Mitigation Actions
1. Shawnee County and the cities of Topeka, Auburn, Rossville, Silver
Lake, and Willard are committed to continued participation and
compliance with the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).
Category:
Prevention
Jurisdiction:
Multijurisdictional
Hazard:
Flood
Goal.Objective: 1.1, 2.1
Background /
Benefits:
The decision on whether to join the NFIP is very important for a
jurisdiction (community).There is no Federal law that requires a
jurisdiction to join the program, and participation is voluntary. A
benefit of participation is that the citizens are provided the
opportunity to purchase flood insurance to protect themselves
against flood losses. Another consideration is that a jurisdiction
that has been identified by FEMA as being flood-prone and has
not joined the NFIP within one year of being notified of being
mapped as flood-prone will be sanctioned. Jurisdictions that
regulate development in floodplains are able to participate in the
National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). To participate in the
NFIP the jurisdiction must adopt and enforce floodplain
management regulations that meet or exceed the minimum
requirements of the program.
Priority:
High
Funding
Sources:
State/FEMA/Program Grants
Responsibility
Assigned to:
Target
Completion
Date:
Continuous
1
Embedded PDF: MIT4_Alternative Mitigation Action for Appendix.pdf
2. The County will work with the Kansas Department of Agriculture Division of Water Resources to educate and promote local jurisdictional
participation in the National Flood Insurance Program’s Community Rating
System (CRS).
Category:
Prevention
Hazard:
Flood
Jurisdiction:
Unincorporated
Goal.Objective(s)
Addressed:
Background:
The Kansas Division of Water Resources provides local
training and education on the benefits of participation in
the NFIP. The program provides availability of flood
insurance to individuals whose local governments
participate in the program.
Flood insurance claims are paid even if a disaster is not
declared by the President, and there is no payback
requirement. Flood insurance policies are continuous, and
are not non-renewed or cancelled for repeat losses.
Priority:
Moderate
Funding Sources:
Local/State
Responsibility
Assigned to:
Target Completion
Date:
Continuous
2
3. On an annual basis, contact owners identified in high-risk flood areas
and inform them of potential availability of assistance through the Federal
Flood Mitigation Assistance (FEMA) program, in addition to other flood
protection measures.
Category:
Hazard:
Flood
Jurisdiction:
Multijurisdictional
Goal.Objective(s)
Addressed:
3.1, 4.2
Background:
Property owners should be contacted every year to
promote the availability of the FEMA funding and to
determine their level of interest in applying for the
program.
Priority:
High
Funding Sources:
Local
Responsibility
Assigned to:
Target Completion
Date:
Continuous
3
4. Advertise and promote the availability of flood insurance to county
property owners by direct mail once a year.
Category:
Property Protection
Hazard:
Flood
Jurisdiction:
Multijurisdictional
Objective(s)
Addressed:
4.2
Background:
Shawnee County, including the cities of Auburn, Rossville,
Silver Lake, Topeka, and Willard, participate in the National
Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). There are currently 949
policies in effect, with a total coverage amount of
$144,838,400. Since the jurisdiction joined the program, there
have been 250 claims paid for a total loss paid amount of
$2,977,231. (Source: FEMA, 2008). NFIP flood insurance
policies protect property owners by offering affordable rates for
protecting both structures and contents.
Priority:
High
Funding
Sources:
Local
Responsibility
Assigned to:
Planner
Target
Completion
Date:
Continuous
4
5. Correspond with all jurisdictions within the county to identify levee
owners.
Category:
Prevention
Hazard:
Flood
Jurisdiction:
Multijurisdictional
Objective(s)
Addressed:
1.1, 1.2, 3.2
Background:
Early in the implementation of Flood Map Modernization (Map
Mod), the Department of Homeland Security's Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) recognized that the
role of levees in flood risk reduction would be an important part
of the efforts of Map Mod. Further, it was acknowledged that
the condition of levees had not been assessed since they were
originally mapped as providing base (1-percent-annual-chance)
flood protection. Because of this, FEMA initiated a revised
process to gain a better understanding of the actual flood risks
for those citizens living and working behind levees nationwide.
Often, documentation regarding levee design, accreditation,
and the impacts on flood hazard mapping is outdated or
missing altogether. Identifying levee owners and developing
initiatives for certifying levees may help reduce overall risk to
life and property in the community.
Priority:
Moderate
Funding Sources:
Local
Responsibility
Assigned to:
Target Completion
Date:
December 2012
5
6. Design and implement a study to determine the residual flood risk in
levee-protected areas.
Category:
Property Protection
Hazard:
Flood
Jurisdiction:
Multijurisdictional
Goal.Objective(s)
Addressed:
1.1, 1.2, 3.2
Background:
Levee owners or communities have the responsibility to provide
documentation that a levee meets the requirements of Title 44
of the Code of Federal Regulations, Section 65.10 of the
national Flood Insurance Program regulations (44CFR Section
65.10), as part of a study/mapping project. Without the required
documentation necessary to comply with 44 CFR Section
65.10, the area behind the levee will be re-delineated and
mapped as Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) on the Digital
Flood Insurance Rate Map (DFIRM). Procedure Memorandum
No. 34 allows for the issuance of a deadline to the community
for submitting the required documents.
Priority:
Moderate
Funding Sources:
Local
Responsibility
Assigned to:
Planner
Target Completion
Date:
Continuous
6
7.
Collect
educational
materials
on
individual
and
family
preparedness/mitigation measures for property owners, and display at both
the library and routinely visited county offices.
Category:
Hazard:
All
Jurisdiction:
Multijurisdictional
Goal.Objective(s)
4.1, 4.2
Addressed:
Background:
FEMA, the Kansas Division of Emergency
Management, the National Weather Service and
other agencies provide information brochures and
pamphlets on property protection measures at no
cost to local governments.
Priority:
High
Funding Sources: Local
Responsibility
Assigned to:
Target Completion
Continuous
Date:
7
8. Identify the most at-risk critical facilities, and evaluate potential mitigation
techniques for protecting each facility to the maximum extent possible.
Category:
Prevention
Hazard:
All
Jurisdiction:
Multijurisdictional
Goal.Objective(s)
Addressed:
1.2, 1.3, 3.1, 3.2
Background:
A thorough evaluation of potential mitigation
opportunities for the jurisdiction’s critical facilities
must still be completed. Currently, there is very little
available data on these facilities. An
inventory/database on critical facilities should be
created and maintained by the county and shared with
the Kansas Division of Emergency Management.
This inventory should include information on the
location and risk to each facility, and should also
document any cost-effective mitigation techniques to
consider when funding becomes available.
Priority:
Moderate
Funding Sources:
Local
Responsibility
Assigned to:
Target
Date:
Continuous
Completion
8
9. Coordinate county mitigation efforts with Rural Electric Cooperatives
(REC’s), encourage identification of hazards potentially affecting their
infrastructure, assessment of the vulnerabilities of the infrastructure to
these hazards, and identification of mitigation strategies.
Category:
Property Protection
Hazard:
Utility / Infrastructure Failure
Jurisdiction:
Multijurisdictional
Goal.Objective(s)
Addressed:
3.2
Background:
Long-term planning goals that will reduce exposure to loss
of electrical power are beneficial to all organizations and
citizens within the jurisdiction. Power loss during extreme
periods of cold or heat increase damage potential to people
and property.
Priority:
High
Funding Sources:
Local
Responsibility
Assigned to:
Public Works / City Officials
Target Completion
Date:
Continuous
9
10. Annually host a public “hazards workshop” for the residents of the
jurisdiction, in combination with local festivals, fairs, or other appropriate
County events.
Category:
Hazard:
All
Jurisdiction:
Multijurisdictional
Goal.Objective(s)
Addressed:
4.1, 4.2
Background:
A hazard workshop for county residents should be added
to an established event drawing large crowds. The
workshop should be geared toward educating them on the
hazards that threaten Shawnee County, and the mitigation
and preparedness measures available to protect them.
Guest speakers from the National Weather Service, the
Kansas Division of Emergency Management, and other
relevant agencies should be invited to attend, and
educational displays/handouts should be provided such as
Flood Insurance Rate Maps, FEMA publications, safety
tips, etc.
Priority:
Moderate
Funding Sources:
Local
Responsibility
Assigned to:
Target
Date:
Continuous
Completion
10
11. Encourage the construction of safe rooms and storm shelters in public
and private schools, day care centers and senior care facilities.
Category:
Property Protection
Hazard:
Multi-hazard
Jurisdiction:
Multijurisdictional
Goal.Objective(s)
Addressed:
2.3, 2.5, 3.1, 3.2
Background:
When severe weather threatens, individuals and families need
advance warning and protection from the dangerous forces of
extreme winds. Individuals and communities in high-risk
tornado and hurricane areas need structurally sound shelters
and early alert systems.
Priority:
High
Funding
Sources:
FEMA/State/Local
Responsibility
Assigned to:
City / County Planners / Emergency Services
Target
Completion
Date:
Continuous
11
12. Educate residents about driving in winter storms and handling winterrelated health effects.
Category:
Hazard:
Multi-hazard
Jurisdiction:
Multijurisdictional
Goal.Objective(s)
Addressed:
4.1, 4.2
Background:
US Department of Transportation (USDOT), the Kansas
Department of Transportation (KDOT) and other agencies
provide information brochures and pamphlets on safe driving
measures at no cost to local governments.
Priority
Moderate
Funding Sources:
Local
Responsibility
Assigned to:
Target Completion
Date:
Continuous
12
13. Promote and educate the jurisdiction’s public and private sectors on
potential agricultural terrorism and bio-terrorism issues that can severely
impact the county and regional economies, and develop and implement
plans to address these issues.
Category:
Natural Resources Protection
Hazard:
Jurisdiction:
Multijurisdictional
Goal.Objective(s)
Addressed:
3.1, 4.3
Background:
Shawnee is an urban county, but maintains an agricultural
base in the unincorporated areas of the county. A natural
or intentional introduction of a foreign animal disease would
be devastating to the local, regional state, economies. This
annex will be added to the Local Emergency Operations
Plan, with additional annexes developed in the future to
address other types of terrorism.
Priority:
Moderate
Funding Sources:
Responsibility
Assigned to:
County Health Department/ County Emergency
Management/ County Extension/ Local Producers
Target Completion
Date:
Continuous
13
14. Form a planning committee to develop an annex to the Local
Emergency Operations Plan (LEOP) for dam/levee failure response and
evacuation plans for high hazard dams/levees in Shawnee County.
Category:
Emergency Services
Hazard:
Dam/Levee
Jurisdiction:
Multijurisdictional
Goal.Objective(s)
Addressed:
1.1, 3.1, 3.2
Shawnee County has 664 dams in the county that are regulated by the
Kansas Department of Agriculture, Water Resources Department. Seven
(7) of these structures are classified as “High Hazard Class C” structures,
and are owned and operated by the following entities:
Background:
Lake Shawnee - Shawnee County
Burnett Dam – Shunganunga Drainage District #1
Lake Sherwood – Sherwood Lake Club
DSN-0165 – City of Topeka
Biddle Creek Detention Dam – City of Topeka
Westridge Detention Dam – City of Topeka
Dam #131 – Cross Creek WJD #42
The State evaluation of the dams is based on location in areas where
failure may cause extensive loss of life, serious damage to
homes, industrial and commercial facilities, important public
utilities, main highways or railroads. It is important to note that a
high hazard dam is not necessarily unsafe, as defined by the
State of Kansas. An individual dam’s hazard classification is
based upon the potential consequences of dam failure and does
not reflect the physical condition of the dam. Preparing for a
potential emergency is an essential planning step to secure the
people and property downstream from a potential breach or dam
failure.
Priority:
High
Funding Sources:
Local
Responsibility
Assigned to:
Target Completion
Date:
June 30, 2012
14
JURISDICTIONAL ACTIONS/PROJECTS
15
1. Research, develop, and adopt a Land Use Plan for Shawnee County.
Category:
Property Protection
Hazard:
All
Jurisdiction:
Unincorporated
Goal.Objective(s)
Addressed:
1.1, 2.1, 3.1
Background:
The distinction between Shawnee County’s historic urban
centers and neighborhoods and their rural natural
surrounding areas is still strong. The purpose of a Land Use
Plan is to guide future land use and development and to
present guidance policies under which County and local
land development activities will be reviewed for consistency.
The Land Use Plan is intended to promote the efficiency
and economy in the process of development including, but
not limited to, adequate provision for traffic; the promotion of
safety from fire, flood waters, and other dangers, and the
adequate provision of public utilities.
Priority:
Moderate
Funding Sources:
Local
Responsibility
Assigned to:
Target Completion
Date:
December 31, 2013
16
2. Develop a program to acquire and preserve parcels of land subject to
repetitive flooding from willing and voluntary property owners.
Category:
Property Protection
Hazard:
Flood
Jurisdiction:
Unincorporated
Goal.Objective(s)
Addressed:
1.1, 2.1, 3.1
Background:
Land acquisition is an effective mitigation technique to
permanently eliminate the potential for damages from future
flood events. Shawnee County can apply for grant funding
to acquire flood-prone parcels of land from voluntary and
willing property owners.
Priority:
High
Funding Sources:
FEMA, KDEM, Local
Responsibility
Assigned to:
Shawnee County Planning Committee/Planner
Target Completion
Date:
Continuous
17
3. Regularly calculate and document the amount of flood prone property
that is preserved as open space to reduce flood insurance burden to the
county.
Category:
Prevention
Hazard:
Flood
Jurisdiction:
Unincorporated
Goal.Objective(s)
Addressed:
1.2, 2.2
Background:
CRS credit is given for areas that are permanently
preserved as open space. Although credit is not given for
federal lands, The jurisdiction maintains and continues to
expand floodplain areas preserved as open space through
wetlands restoration and other projects. The jurisdiction also
has floodplain land within state parks or otherwise
preserved as wildlife and natural preserves, which does
qualify for additional CRS credit.
Priority:
High
Funding Sources:
N/A
Responsibility
Assigned to:
Planner
Target Completion
Continuous
Date:
18
4. Appoint a planning committee to identify flash-flood prone areas to
recommend flood reduction measures to county planners.
Category:
Prevention
Hazard:
Flood
Jurisdiction:
Unincorporated
Goal.Objective(s)
Addressed:
1.1, 2.2
Background:
Flood zone mapping will provide initial identification of
potential hazard areas that can be reviewed with other data
sources, such as the watershed districts goals and
objectives, in developing long range planning activities for
flash-flood prevention, or other planning steps to reduce
exposure to this hazard.
Priority:
Moderate
Funding Sources:
Local
Responsibility
Assigned to:
Target Completion
June 2010
Date:
19
5. Develop and amend the Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance to include a
“no-rise (in base flood elevation)” clause for the county.
Category:
Prevention
Hazard:
Flood
Jurisdiction:
Unincorporated
Goal.Objective(s)
Addressed:
1.1, 2.1, 2.2
Background:
Many floodplain permitting systems, including those that
meet National Flood Insurance Program standards, allow
projects outside the floodway to increase base flood
elevations by up to one foot. While this may not represent a
significant increase for just one project, the cumulative
impact of a number of projects in the same floodplain can be
significant. By prohibiting any rise throughout the 100-year
floodplain, a “no rise” clause ensures that the cumulative
impact of multiple permitted projects will not cause flood
elevations to rise to unacceptable levels.
Priority:
Moderate
Funding Sources:
Local
Responsibility
Assigned to:
Target Completion
Date:
December 31, 2012
20
6. Research and design an appropriate stream buffer ordinance to further
protect the jurisdiction’s water resources and to limit future flood damages
adjacent to major waterways.
Category:
Hazard:
Flood
Jurisdiction:
Unincorporated
Goals.Objective(s)
Addressed:
1.1, 2.1, 2.2
Background:
Riparian buffers serve as natural boundaries between local
waterways and existing development and help protect
resources by filtering pollutants, providing flood control,
alleviating streambank erosion, mitigating stream warming,
and providing room for lateral movement of the stream
channel. Buffer widths can vary greatly depending upon
stream channel size and the intended purpose of the
buffer, but 50-100 feet is generally considered to be
sufficient for purposes of bank stabilization and sediment
control. Many communities require 200 feet for flood
control purposes. Special consideration should be given to
exempting Shawnee County’s agricultural operations from
buffer regulations.
Priority:
Moderate
Funding Sources:
FEMA/State/Local
Responsibility
Assigned to:
Target Completion
Date
January 2013
21
7. Conduct an inventory/survey for emergency response services to identify
any existing needs or shortfalls in terms of personnel, equipment or required
resources.
Category:
Emergency Services
Hazard:
All
Jurisdiction:
Shawnee County (UnInc)
Goal.Objective(s)
Addressed:
1.2, 1.3
Background:
A survey should be completed in order to verify the
county’s current emergency services are adequate
to protect public health and safety from most
probable hazard events. Any identified needs or
shortfalls should become documented and result in
specific recommendations to the County
Commission for emergency service enhancements.
Priority:
Moderate
Funding Sources:
Local/State
Responsibility
Assigned to:
Target Completion
Date:
Continuous
22
8. Amend existing or adopt new zoning and subdivision ordinances to
require installation of onsite tornado shelters for any new Manufactured
Housing and Travel Trailer Parks with more than 30 mobile home spaces.
Category:
Property Protection
Hazard:
Multi-hazard
Jurisdiction:
Goal.Objective(s)
Addressed:
2.4, 2.5
Background:
Mobile homes are particularly vulnerable to damage
from high winds. Residents, even those who live in
mobile homes with tie-downs, should seek safe
shelter when a tornado threatens. Tornado shelters
should be constructed in major mobile home parks
to ensure a safe place for residents to go during a
tornado event. The shelter structure, which should
be designed to withstand a minimum of 120mph
winds, could easily serve an alternate purpose such
as a community center, laundry facility, etc.
Tornado shelters should be for last minute
protection for high wind events.
Priority:
Moderate
Funding Sources:
N/A
Responsibility
Assigned to:
Target Completion
Date:
June 30, 2012
23
9. Develop cross-departmental information collection capabilities, and
incorporate cadastral (building/parcel) data utilizing a GIS for purposes of
conducting more detailed hazard risk assessments and for tracking
permitting / land use patterns, buildings and infrastructure replacement
costs, and overall structural accounting for the county and local
jurisdictions.
Category:
Prevention
Hazard:
All
Jurisdiction:
Goal.Objective(s)
Addressed:
1.2
Background:
A comprehensive catalog of data can greatly
enhance technical capability to manage, analyze
and display spatially referenced data. Shawnee
County has basic GIS capabilities available through
the Shawnee County GIS Department. Further
development of this capability for functional use
across all departments and jurisdictions will
enhance the overall capabilities to document
building/structure cost data, and further hazard
mitigation goals in developing cadastral data for the
county.
Priority:
High
Funding Sources:
Kansas Division of Emergency Management, Local
resources, and grants
Responsibility
Assigned to:
Emergency Management and County GIS / City
Officials
Target Completion
Date:
Continuous
24
10. Develop and implement a wildfire prevention/education program. In
addition to providing education to the general public, the program should
also target children, fire and equipment users, builders and developers,
and homeowners.
Category:
Hazard:
Wildfire
Jurisdiction:
Unincorporated
Goal.Objective(s) Addressed:
1.3, 1.4, 4.3
Background:
Shawnee County has burn-ban resolutions which
require special permission to conduct open burning
operations. In periods of drought or extreme
weather conditions a burn ban may be declared.
When a ban is declared all radio stations, TV
stations, and regional newspapers in the area are
notified as well as mayors, fire chiefs, etc. To
better educate the public at large, Shawnee County
should expand their existing fire protection program
to include wildfire workshops to all age groups and
commercial operations.
Priority:
Moderate
Funding Sources:
Local
Responsibility Assigned to:
Target Completion Date:
Continuous
25
11. Examine the current agreements within the county and assess the need
to expand or update cooperative agreements for firefighting resources.
Include agreements with local, state and federal agencies.
Category:
Emergency Services
Hazard:
Wildfire
Jurisdiction:
Unincorporated
Goal.Objective(s)
1.3, 1.4, 3.2
Addressed:
Background:
Cooperative agreements provide the support needed in times
of emergency, and are an important element of planning, with
the long-range goal of reducing damage to structures and
systems within the jurisdiction.
Priority:
Moderate
Responsibility
Assigned to:
Target Completion
Continuous
Date:
26
12. Create a working group to evaluate the firefighting water supply
resources within the County. This should include both fixed and mobile
supply issues.
Category:
Emergency Services
Hazard:
Wildfire
Jurisdiction:
Unincorporated
Goal.Objective(s)
1.3, 1.4, 3.2
Addressed:
Background:
Lack of sufficient water supply makes it difficult for firefighters to
suppress fires. Whenever possible, increasing access to water
along water service delivery lines (wet and dry hydrants) would
provide additional resources for emergency responders.
Priority:
Moderate
Responsibility
Assigned to:
Target
June 2010
Completion Date:
27
13. Distribute assessment report examples provided by the Kansas Forest
Service to applicable parties to develop an understanding of the
Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP). Recommend joining the
program and completing an assessment report for approval.
Category:
Prevention
Hazard:
Wildfire
Jurisdiction:
Unincorporated
Goal.Objective(s)
Addressed:
1.3, 1.4, 3.2
Background:
The probability of grass/cropland fire in Shawnee county is
relatively high. With over 50-years of history, the likelihood
of future events is estimated to remain the same as
currently calculated. Shawnee County can expect an
average of 31 significant wildfires per year that damage or
destroy a total of 5,924 acres. The average area burned is
approximately 987 acres.
The Kansas Forest Service staff would provide assistance
to interested communities in the form of a Community
Wildfire Hazard Assessment Report and some mitigation
action items.
Priority:
High
Funding Sources:
Local/State/Federal grant programs
Responsibility
Assigned to:
Rural Fire/Emergency Management
Target
Date:
December 31, 2013
Completion
28
14. Appoint a rural fire committee to schedule meetings with the Kansas
Forest Service to map suspected hazardous wildfire areas in the county for
potential participation in the Community Wildfire Protection Program
(CWPP).
Category:
Prevention
Hazard:
Wildfire
Jurisdiction:
Unincorporated
Goal.Objective(s)
1.3, 1.4, 3.2
Addressed:
Background:
In order for a community to take advantage of the Community based
Healthy forests Restoration Act (HFRA), 2003, a community must
develop a Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP). To develop
qualifications the community must identify and map potential hazard
areas as an initial step towards participation in the program.
Priority:
High
Funding Sources: Local/State/Federal
Responsibility
Assigned to:
Target Completion
December 31, 2013
Date:
29
15. Incorporate wildfire maps, develop actions and projects for wildfire
prevention, and complete an assessment report to meet CWPP
requirements for submittal to the Kansas Forest Service.
Category:
Prevention
Hazard:
Wildfire
Jurisdiction:
Unincorporated
Goal.Objective(s)
Addressed:
1.3, 1.4, 3.2
The minimum requirements participation in the CWPP as
described in the HFRA are:
(1) Collaboration: A CWPP must be collaboratively developed
by local and state government representatives, in consultation
with federal agencies and other interested parties.
Background:
(2) Prioritized Fuel Reduction: A CWPP must identify and
prioritize areas for hazardous fuel reduction treatments and
recommend the types and methods of treatment that will protect
one or more at-risk communities and essential infrastructure.
(3) Treatment of Structural Ignitability: A CWPP must
recommend measures that homeowners and communities can
take to reduce the ignitability of structures throughout the area
addressed by the plan.
Priority:
High
Funding Sources:
Local/State/Federal
Responsibility
Assigned to:
Target Completion
Date:
December 31, 2013
30
Adoption Resolutions
Supporting Documents
TOPEKA, KANSAS
FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT PROJECT
FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT
AND
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
WITH APPENDICES
DECEMBER 2008
BUILDING STRONG
Embedded PDF: MIT4_Topeka_Feasibility_RptDec08ver2.pdf
SM
TOPEKA, KANSAS
FLOOD RISK MANGEMENT PROJECT
FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Syllabus ........................................................................................................................................ vii
I.
Introduction....................................................................................................................... 1
II.
Study Authority................................................................................................................. 2
III.
Study Purpose and Scope ................................................................................................. 4
IV.
Prior Project Documents, Studies, and Reports ............................................................ 4
V.
Other Existing Projects in the Kansas River Basin ....................................................... 5
VI.
Problem Identification...................................................................................................... 6
A.
Existing Conditions and Flood History ............................................................................................................6
1.0
Study Area ..................................................................................................................................................6
2.0
Description of Existing Overall Project......................................................................................................7
3.0
Existing Flood Threat ...............................................................................................................................10
4.0
Historic Floods and Damages...................................................................................................................11
5.0
Floodplain Conditions ..............................................................................................................................12
6.0
Geotechnical Conditions...........................................................................................................................13
7.0
Economic Setting......................................................................................................................................13
8.0
Environmental Setting ..............................................................................................................................15
9.0
Fish and Wildlife ......................................................................................................................................15
10.0
Wetlands ...................................................................................................................................................16
11.0
Cultural Resources....................................................................................................................................16
12.0
Hazardous, Toxic, and Radioactive Waste ...............................................................................................16
B.
Future Conditions Without Project................................................................................................................17
1.0
Future Flooding ........................................................................................................................................17
2.0
Socioeconomic Considerations.................................................................................................................20
3.0
Environmental Considerations..................................................................................................................24
C.
Planning Problems and Opportunities ...........................................................................................................24
VII.
Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analysis .............................................................................. 25
A.
Kansas River.....................................................................................................................................................25
B.
Soldier Creek ....................................................................................................................................................26
i
C.
Shunganunga Creek.........................................................................................................................................26
VIII. Flood Damage Estimates ................................................................................................ 27
A.
Economic Damage Analysis Methodology .....................................................................................................27
B.
Study Area Investment ....................................................................................................................................29
C.
Damage Results ................................................................................................................................................29
IX.
Plan Formulation ............................................................................................................ 31
A.
Planning Constraints .......................................................................................................................................31
B.
Planning Objectives .........................................................................................................................................32
C.
Development and Screening of Alternatives ..................................................................................................33
D.
Measures Considered for Plan Formulation..................................................................................................34
1.0
Non-Structural Measures..........................................................................................................................35
2.0
Flood Fighting Alternative .......................................................................................................................35
3.0
Structural Measures ..................................................................................................................................36
E.
Screening of Measures .....................................................................................................................................38
1.0
North Topeka Unit....................................................................................................................................39
2.0
Oakland Unit ............................................................................................................................................41
3.0
South Topeka Unit....................................................................................................................................42
4.0
Waterworks Unit ......................................................................................................................................44
F.
Borrow Areas....................................................................................................................................................44
G.
Initial Plan Formulation and Screening Results ...........................................................................................46
1.0
No Federal Action Alternative..................................................................................................................46
2.0
Structural Alternatives..............................................................................................................................48
H.
1.0
2.0
Detailed Plan Formulation – Final Array of Plans......................................................................................48
No Federal Action ...................................................................................................................................48
Structural Plans........................................................................................................................................48
I.
Economic Analysis and Screening of Plans....................................................................................................49
J.
Environmental Considerations .......................................................................................................................51
1.0
No Federal Action ....................................................................................................................................51
2.0
Structural Alternatives..............................................................................................................................51
K.
Hydraulic and Floodplain Considerations .....................................................................................................52
L.
HTRW Considerations ....................................................................................................................................52
M.
Engineering Considerations ............................................................................................................................52
N.
Plan Selection ...................................................................................................................................................52
ii
X.
Description of the Selected Plan .................................................................................... 53
A.
Recommended Plan - Work Components ......................................................................................................53
B.
Economic Performance of the Selected Plan .................................................................................................56
1.0
Economic Performance.............................................................................................................................56
2.0
Engineering Performance .........................................................................................................................56
3.0
Induced Damages .....................................................................................................................................58
4.0
Residual Risk............................................................................................................................................58
5.0
Future With-Project Condition Summary.................................................................................................59
C.
Environmental and Cultural Considerations ................................................................................................62
1.0
Fish and Wildlife Resources.....................................................................................................................62
2.0
Cultural Resources....................................................................................................................................62
3.0
Cumulative Impacts..................................................................................................................................63
4.0
Environmental Justice...............................................................................................................................63
5.0
Environmental Operating Principles.........................................................................................................64
D.
Hydraulic and Floodplain Considerations .....................................................................................................64
E.
HTRW Considerations ....................................................................................................................................64
F.
Engineering and Construction Considerations .............................................................................................65
G.
Real Estate Considerations..............................................................................................................................65
H.
Operations and Maintenance Considerations ...............................................................................................65
I.
Value Engineering............................................................................................................................................65
XI.
Plan Implementation ...................................................................................................... 66
A.
Cost Sharing Requirements ............................................................................................................................66
B.
Sponsor’s Intent ...............................................................................................................................................67
C.
Project Financing and Sponsor Capability ....................................................................................................67
D.
Summary of Coordination and Public Views ................................................................................................67
1.0
Study Coordination...................................................................................................................................67
2.0
Public Involvement...................................................................................................................................68
E.
Future Project Schedule ..................................................................................................................................68
XII.
Conclusions...................................................................................................................... 68
XIII. Recommendation............................................................................................................. 69
iii
Feasibility Report Plates
Plate 1 – Project Overview
Plate 2 – North Topeka Unit, Station 165+00 to 189+00
Plate 3 – South Topeka Unit, Station 74+41 to 93+86
Plate 4 – South Topeka Unit, Station 22+00 to 48+00
Plate 5 – Waterworks Unit, Station 0+78 to 7+00 and 10+00 to 16+50
Plate 6 – Oakland Unit, Station 64+00 to 80+00
Plate 7 – Oakland Unit, Station 485+86 to 491+01
Plate 8 – East Oakland Pump Station, Station 220+00
Plate 9 – North Topeka Pressure Relief Wells
Plate 10 – Fairchild Pump Station
Plate 11 – South Topeka Borrow Area
Plate 12 – Oakland West Borrow Area
Plate 13 – North Topeka Unit, Mitigation Area
FONSI and Environmental Assessment with Appendices
Feasibility Report Appendices
Appendix A:
Appendix B:
Appendix C:
Appendix D:
Appendix E:
Engineering (including Engineering Plates and Exhibits)
Public Involvement
Real Estate (including Real Estate maps)
Socioeconomics
Cost Estimating
TABLES
Table 1. Kansas River - Five Largest Recorded Annual Peaks at Topeka ................................... 11
Table 2. Soldier Creek - Five Largest Recorded Annual Peaks at Topeka................................... 12
Table 3. Existing Conditions Reliability of Kansas River Units .................................................. 17
Table 4. Future Without Project Condition Summary ................................................................. 21
Table 5. Kansas River Discharge-Frequency Relationship .......................................................... 25
Table 6. Economic Study Reaches............................................................................................... 27
Table 7. Study Area Investment.................................................................................................... 29
Table 8. Equivalent Annual Damages (Without Project) ............................................................ 30
Table 9. Engineering Performance (Without Project) ................................................................. 30
Table 10. Project Alternatives Matrix …………………………………………………………. 38
Table 11. Borrow Quantities Required ........................................................................................ 45
Table 12. Screening Costs Summary ........................................................................................... 49
Table 13. Screening Alternatives - Benefits & Costs Summary.................................................. 50
Table 14. Total NED Project Benefits & Costs ........................................................................... 56
Table 15. Engineering Performance for NED Plan, With vs. Without-Project Conditions......... 57
Table 16. Project Cost Sharing .................................................................................................... 66
iv
FIGURES
Figure 1. Study Area Map……………………………………...………………………………….3
Figure 2. Kansas River Basin Flood Risk Management System………..………………………...6
v
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
vi
Syllabus
Flood risk in the metropolitan area of Topeka, Kansas, the state capitol, is managed by a Federal
levee system which began construction in the late 1930’s and was expanded in the mid-1960s.
This system consists of six separately authorized units and is a component of a larger system of
levees and reservoirs that provides flood risk management benefits to the Kansas River basin.
The study area includes significant industrial, commercial, and residential areas, public facilities
and transportation infrastructure, and agricultural property.
While this flood risk management system is designated as a Federal project, it has long been
turned over to the local sponsors for operation and maintenance. The Corps of Engineers
continues to conduct regular inspections and technical review of significant modifications to the
system. The non-Federal sponsors are the City of Topeka, Kansas, and the North Topeka
Drainage District.
In the early 1990’s, studies conducted by a consultant working for the Kansas State Department
of Transportation as part of a new highway crossing of the river and the levee raised concern that
the levees may not be high enough to provide the intended level of flood risk management. By
letter in March, 1992, the City of Topeka requested the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to conduct
a Reconnaissance Study to review the existing levees. The Reconnaissance Study was
completed in September 1997 and concluded that there was sufficient Federal interest to proceed
to the Feasibility Study phase. The Feasibility Study began in 1998 to evaluate the existing
project and determine alternatives for possible improvement. Section 216 of the 1970 Flood
Control Act provided the study authority.
The feasibility study evaluated various alternatives including the no-action plan using a riskbased analysis. During the analysis, it was determined that the levee height was sufficient, but
that there was a risk of levee failure at less than the design flood due to structural and
geotechnical concerns. The recommended plan includes corrective action to address identified
weaknesses in the geotechnical and structural features of the existing project units. The levee
alignment will remain the same. This plan will have minimal local disruption to both the
populace and the environment. Potential borrow areas have been identified close to the existing
levee.
The recommended plan is the National Economic Development (NED) plan which maximizes
the net economic benefits of the project. The NED plan is also the locally preferred plan. There
are no significant direct or cumulative environmental impacts of the NED plan primarily because
it sustains the existing levee rather then encumbering additional resources for a “new” project.
The long-term environmental and cultural consequences of plan implementation are positive as
the increased reliability of the units act to guard the social and environmental fabric that has
developed within the study area.
The total estimated implementation cost of the NED plan is $21,157,000 (Oct 2008 price level)
shared between the Corps and two non-Federal levee sponsors. The average annual costs of the
NED plan are $1,168,100; benefits, $15,427,600; net benefits, $14,259,500. The resulting
vii
benefit to cost ratio is 13.2 to 1. The sponsors would receive credit for any necessary lands,
easements, rights-of-way, relocations or disposal areas (LERRD). The total Federal share of the
plan is $13,752,050 or 65 percent of the total cost and the sponsors share is $7,404,950 or 35
percent. The sponsors will take ownership of project improvements and assume all operation,
maintenance, repair, and replacement costs of the completed works.
viii
TOPEKA, KANSAS, LOCAL PROTECTION PROJECT
FEASIBILITY REPORT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
I.
Introduction
The Topeka, Kansas, Local Flood Protection Project (the Project) is a part of the general
comprehensive plan for flood risk management and other purposes in the Missouri River Basin.
The original project plan was included in House Document 195, 73rd Congress, 2nd Session (The
Kansas River “308” Report) and was authorized by the Flood Control Act approved 22 June
1936 (Public Law 738, 74th Congress). The authorized plan provided for the construction of
flood risk management works for South Topeka, North Topeka, and the municipal waterworks.
As detailed in the Definite Project Report of 27 October 1936, modifications were made to the
authorized plan to reflect more recent studies, and a partial implementation plan was proposed
for South Topeka to meet the funding limitations of the 1936 Act. Construction of the partial
South Topeka plan and the Waterworks portion was completed in 1939. The North Topeka levee
construction was postponed in 1940 when local interests requested modifications of the proposed
levee system to include a larger area.
Additional studies undertaken in the Kansas River Basin resulted in the development of the
project outlined in H. Doc. 642, 81st Congress, 2nd Session, “Kansas River and Tributaries,
Colorado, Nebraska, and Kansas”, published 13 July 1950. This plan proposed the expansion of
the North Topeka levee to encompass a larger area and also included the cutoff and diversion of
several local tributaries, including Soldier Creek. Prior to authorization of this plan, the July
1951 flood necessitated additional modifications, including the completion of those portions of
the South Topeka unit not constructed in the 1930’s. These proposed modifications were
outlined during Committee Hearings in May 1954, and the modified plan was authorized by the
Flood Control Act approved 2 September 1954 (P.L. 780, 83rd Congress).
Final construction and modification of all project units and appurtenant features was completed
in 1973. The completed Project consisted of six levee units along the Kansas River and its
tributaries, Soldier and Shunganunga Creeks, providing flood risk management for the City of
Topeka, (see Figure 1). The Waterworks, Auburndale, South Topeka, and Oakland Units lie on
the south side, or right bank, of the Kansas River, with the Oakland Unit extending up the left
bank of Shunganunga Creek. The North Topeka Unit lies on the north side (left bank) of the
Kansas River and connects at each end to the Soldier Creek Diversion Unit which includes
levees on both banks of Soldier Creek. Local sponsorship of the existing system is provided by
the City of Topeka and the North Topeka Drainage District.
In the early 1990’s, a private engineering consultant working for the Kansas Department of
Transportation conducted studies for the Oakland Expressway, a new highway bridge to cross
the Kansas River within the project area. Concern arose from their review that the levee in the
area of the new highway may no longer be providing the expected level of flood risk
management. As a result of these concerns, the City of Topeka requested a Reconnaissance
1
Study in a letter dated March 26, 1992.
A Reconnaissance Study, initiated in September 1996 and completed in September 1997, found
that there was a Federal interest in one or more alternatives to improve the level of flood risk
management at Topeka by raising the top of levee elevation. This Feasibility Study was initiated
in August 1998 with the signing of a Feasibility Cost Sharing Agreement between the Corps and
the City of Topeka. The study is financed on a cost-share basis in accordance with the Water
Resources Development Act of 1986. The cost of the study is shared between the Corps (50%)
and the non-Federal Sponsors (50%).
Early in the feasibility study, a delay in study activities was authorized to await completion of
the Upper Mississippi River Flow Frequency Study (UMRFFS). As part of this study, updated
hydraulic models were developed for the Upper Mississippi and Missouri River and several
tributaries, including the Kansas River, using updated gage records and state of the art
technology – the UNET model. The UMRFFS study was completed in 2003. When the
feasibility study resumed with updated hydraulic data, it was determined that the hydraulic
overtopping reliabilities for the existing levee units range from 94 to 99 percent for the 1-percent
chance (100-year) flood. A raise in the system would not be necessary to meet the criteria to
allow FEMA to accredit the system as providing protection from the 1-percent chance flood.
The focus of the study was then directed to examining the reliabilities of the geotechnical and
structural features of the system. The reliabilities of several features within the system have been
found deficient, creating potential failure locations within the levee system. Further description
of these deficiencies will be presented in later sections of this document.
This study report is written using current risk and reliability analysis and flood frequency
terminology that may not be familiar to all readers. The reliability of specific features is
typically expressed as a percentage probability of failure as a measure of the likelihood of that
feature to withstand a certain level of flooding. The frequency of a flood of a certain size is
expressed both in terms of the percent chance of that flood occurring in a single year (i.e. 1%
chance event) and also using the return interval designation (i.e. 100 year flood).
II.
Study Authority
This report details the analysis, results, and recommendations resulting from the Topeka, Kansas,
Flood Risk Management Feasibility Study (the Study). The Study was authorized under Section
216 of the 1970 Flood Control Act, which reads as follows:
The Secretary of the Army, acting through the Chief of Engineers, is authorized to review
the operation of projects, the construction of which has been completed and which were
constructed by the Corps of Engineers in the interest of navigation, flood control, water
supply, and related purposes, when found advisable due to the significantly changed
physical or economic conditions, and to report thereon to Congress with recommendations
on the advisability of modifying structures or their operation, and for improving the quality
2
of the environment in the overall public interest
III.
Study Purpose and Scope
The purpose of the feasibility study is twofold. First, the study serves to update and verify data
on the reliability of the existing flood risk management units. Secondly, the study provides a
means to examine and develop alternative plans (including a review of the “no Federal action”
alternative) for reliability (performance) improvement of the units to reduce damages from
potential flooding on the Kansas River in the vicinity of Topeka, with the ultimate aim of a final
recommended plan for authorization and implementation. The recommended plan for increasing
the reliability of the system will be selected through the basic tests of technical effectiveness and
completeness, economic feasibility, and environmental acceptability.
IV.
Prior Project Documents, Studies, and Reports
Several studies and reports have been completed pertaining to the study area and surrounding
areas. These reports were used to gather information regarding the levee units and past flood
events.
Definite Project Report, Levee System at Topeka, Kansas, 27 October 1936. This document
was prepared subsequent to the Flood Control Act of 1936 and contains general discussion of the
purpose, layout, and costs of the original Federal levee project at Topeka.
Design Memorandums, Volumes 1-15, Topeka, Kansas, Flood Protection Project, Kansas
City District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1956 through 1967. The design memorandums
are the justification documents, subsequent to the Flood Control Act of 1954, which recommend
proceeding with plans and specifications for the various units within the Topeka, Kansas,
Project. They include general design data, previous projects, and a general description of the
authorized project.
Operation and Maintenance Manuals, Volumes 1-8, Topeka, Kansas, Flood Protection
Project, Kansas City District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1961 through 1978. These
document present detailed information for the use and guidance of the local interests in the
operation and maintenance of the Topeka, Kansas, Project.
Flood Plain Information Report, Kansas River, Kansas, Junction City to the Mouth,
Kansas City District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, April 1956. This report evaluated flood
hazards along the Kansas River from Junction City downstream to the confluence with the
Missouri River in Kansas City, Kansas. This document examines the hydrology and hydraulics
of the Kansas River Valley.
Review Report on the Kansas River, Appendix IV, Hydrology, September 1960. This report
examines the hydrology on the Kansas River as part of the extensive study to review the
adequacy of the Kansas River and downstream flood risk management systems. Congress
4
authorized this study in 1953.
Senate Document No. 122, 87th Congress, 2nd Session, Kansas River and Tributaries,
Kansas, Nebraska and Colorado, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, August 1962. This is the
final report submitted to Congress that reviews the Kansas River and tributaries, Kansas,
Nebraska, and Colorado, which was requested by resolution of the Committee on Public Works,
United States Senate, adopted on August 20, 1953 and June 16, 1954.
Flood Insurance Study (FIS), City of Topeka, Kansas, Federal Emergency Management
Agency, June 1981. This report published by the Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) included flood discharges, water surface profiles, and flooded area and floodway maps
for use in developing flood insurance rates. Since the City of Topeka, Kansas is a participating
community in the Flood Insurance Program, all properties are eligible for flood insurance.
Modification to Completed Project, Soldier Creek Diversion Unit, Topeka Local Protection
Project, Kansas, Kansas City District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, March 1987. This
report describes channel degradation concerns in, and upstream of the Soldier Creek Project.
Draft Kansas River and Shunganunga Creek, Flood Plain Study, Oakland Expressway
KDOT Project No. 4-89, K-3362-01, May 1992. This study examines the effects to the Kansas
River and Shunganunga Creek of the proposed Oakland Expressway.
Flood Insurance Study (FIS), Shawnee County, Kansas, Federal Emergency Management
Agency, May 1993. This report published by the Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) included flood discharges, water surface profiles, and flooded area and floodway maps
for use in developing flood insurance rates. Since Shawnee County, Kansas is a participating
community in the Flood Insurance Program, all properties are eligible for flood insurance.
The Great Flood of 1993 Post-Flood Report, Lower Missouri River Basin, Kansas City
District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, September 1994. The report presents a picture of the
Great Flood of 1993 to be used in the analysis of the flood risk management system on the lower
Missouri River and tributaries.
The Upper Mississippi and Missouri River Flow Frequency Study, U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, 2003. This study developed updated hydraulic modeling for the Upper Mississippi
and Missouri Rives, and several tributaries, including the Kansas River, using updated gage
records and state of the art technology, the UNET model.
V.
Other Existing Projects in the Kansas River Basin
The Topeka levee units are a part of a larger flood risk management system in the Kansas River
basin, shown in Figure 2. Additional levee units are located along the Kansas River at several
locations, both upstream and downstream of Topeka. Downstream units are located at
Lawrence, Kansas, approximately 25 river miles below Topeka, and at the river mouth at Kansas
5
City. Upstream units are located at the cities of Manhattan and Abilene.
The basin wide system includes seven reservoirs managed by the Corps of Engineers. The five
reservoirs upstream of Topeka, and the waterways on which they are located in order of
increasing distance from Topeka, are: Tuttle Creek (Big Blue River), Milford (Republican
River), Kanopolis (Smoky Hill River), Wilson (Saline River), and Harlan County (Republican
River). The two downstream reservoirs are Perry Lake on the Delaware River and Clinton Lake
on the Wakarusa River.
There are an additional eleven reservoirs in the watershed managed by the Bureau of
Reclamation, all located upstream of Topeka in the Republican, Saline, and Smoky Hill
watersheds. These reservoirs are generally smaller projects and are not operated for flood risk
management purposes. They are not considered to have a significant effect on Kansas River
flows at Topeka.
Figure 2 –Kansas River Basin Flood Risk Management System.
VI.
Problem Identification
A.
Existing Conditions and Flood History
1.0
Study Area
The Study Area includes those portions of the Kansas River, Soldier Creek, and Shunganunga
Creek drainage basins that are located within the City of Topeka. It is important to examine how
the areas of these basins outside the city may affect the flood conditions at Topeka.
6
The Kansas River flows through the center of the City and is leveed between approximately river
miles 77 and 88.5. The Kansas River drainage basin above Topeka includes 56,720 square miles
of contributing and non-contributing surface area. Of this drainage, approximately 42,000
square miles are modified by sixteen existing Federal reservoirs located on tributaries of the
Kansas River. The Kansas River basin and tributaries are predominately in a wide valley of
well-developed agricultural lands used for general farming. This basin typically produces floods
at Topeka that are slow to develop and slow to recede. The basin has shown, as in the 1951
flood of record, that relatively rapid flooding can occur and is also a serious threat.
The study area includes the confluence of Soldier Creek and the Kansas River. Soldier Creek
flows through north Topeka and enters the Kansas River at river mile 80.6. The Soldier Creek
basin is 331 square miles located to the north of the Kansas River. The predominant use of the
basin is for general farming. The general basin shape is quite narrow (2.5 to 3 miles) near the
headwaters and increases in width as it approaches the confluence with the Kansas River to a
maximum width of 12 miles. This basin produces floods that are quite sudden and recede
quickly.
Shunganunga Creek flows through southeast Topeka and enters the Kansas River at river mile
76.4. The total drainage area of the basin is 75.7 square miles of which 22.5 square miles lay
within the city limits of Topeka. The basin is about 20 miles long and 7 miles wide at its widest
point. The land is flat in the lower part of the basin and hilly in the headwater areas. There are
four detention dams within the basin. In 1935, Lake Shawnee on Deer Creek, a tributary within
the Shunganunga basin, was constructed. However, no provision was made for floodwater
storage in this lake. After the flood of 1951, two more detention basins were constructed;
Burnett Dam on Shunganunga Creek in 1952 and South Branch Dam on South Branch
Shunganunga Creek in 1953. In 1962, Sherwood Lake was constructed upstream from Burnett
Dam.
2.0
Description of Existing Overall Project
General. The existing levee system project was authorized to pass a design flood flow of
314,000 cfs. As constructed the existing system includes approximately 40 miles of main river
levees and 2.91 miles of tieback levees, 4,120 linear feet of concrete floodwall, 9.2 miles of
improved channel on Soldier Creek, 5.5 miles of improved channel on Shunganunga Creek, and
2.6 miles of improved and enlarged channel along the Kansas River. The project also includes
twelve pumping plants, 76 pressure relief wells, 121 gated outlets for drainage structures, four
sandbag gaps, seven stoplog gaps, and a designated interior ponding area.
Analysis of the existing conditions of the levee system has determined that there are areas with
reliability less than the acceptable level of 90% to pass intended design flow due to the potential
for levee underseepage, structural uplift, and structural stability failures under flood conditions.
Restoring project reliability and performance is dependent on the proper functioning of the entire
system and all appurtenant features.
7
The six flood risk management units, although authorized and constructed as separate units, were
designed in coordination with the others as a complete levee system. While some of these
separate units are operationally independent, a direct risk dependency exists between the South
Topeka and Oakland units, i.e. if the South Topeka Unit were to flood; the Oakland Unit
immediately downstream would also flood. This dependency will be then taken into
consideration in the economic and future performance analyses presented later in this report,
where the South Topeka and Oakland areas generally will be treated as a single reach.
The specific physical features found within each unit of the system are described further in the
following paragraphs. The locations of each unit within the system are shown in Figure 1.
Waterworks Unit. The Waterworks Unit is located on the right bank of the Kansas River in the
western portion of the City of Topeka and forms a “U” shape with Interstate 70 serving as the
southern boundary. This unit encloses the City of Topeka’s municipal water treatment plant
which also provides service to a large portion of Shawnee County.
The unit consists of 1,998 feet of levee and 1,662 feet of floodwall. The crest of the levee is 10
feet wide and varies from 10 feet to 14 feet in height above the ground surface. The spread
footing floodwall has an average exposed wall height of between eight and twelve feet. A
sheetpile cutoff wall is embedded in the heel of the floodwall. The unit also includes a system of
nine individually pumped relief wells with header, four stoplog gaps, one sandbag gap, four
gated drainage structures, and intake lines from the Kansas River for the treatment facility. The
floodwall was constructed in 1938 and the rest of the unit was completed in June 1959.
Auburndale Unit. The Auburndale Unit connects the Waterworks and South Topeka Units and is
primarily the Interstate 70 highway embankment. The unit consists of approximately 1.3 miles
of zoned highway fill and some separate levee embankment fill. Also included in the unit is the
Waite Street Levee, an 850-foot sub-levee which is the upstream boundary for a ponding area.
The Auburndale Unit also has fifteen relief wells, one sandbag closure gap structure, two
pumping plants (Waite Street and Ward-Martin), four gated interior drainage structures and
sewers through the levee, and a ponding area to protect a residential area. The area landside of
the Interstate 70 embankment was re-graded to provide the ponding area for collection of interior
drainage. This ponding area is bound by the Interstate 70 embankment to the north, high ground
to the east and south, and the Waite Street tieback levee to the west. The relief wells are located
on a rock fill berm at the landside toe of the Interstate 70 embankment. The unit was constructed
under three separate contracts with the latest being completed in October 1962.
South Topeka Unit. The South Topeka Unit is located in the central portion of the City of
Topeka, on the right bank of the Kansas River. The unit begins at the east end of the Auburndale
Unit and extends to approximately 500 feet upstream of the Burlington, Northern, & Santa Fe
(formerly the Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe) Railroad bridge, which is the west end of the
Oakland Unit.
8
The levee portion of the unit is approximately 1.4 miles long with a 10-foot crest that ranges
from three to 16 feet above the natural ground surface. The levee generally follows the
alignment of a concrete floodwall constructed in 1908 by local interests. Where the original wall
and levee location coincided, portions of the wall were left in place within the new levee
embankment. The levee is founded on an impervious blanket varying in thickness between 5 and
24 feet, with an average of 15.5 feet. The blanket, consisting of silty clays and silty sands,
overlays a sand deposit more than 80 feet thick. Fill placed on the top of the natural blanket
between station 50+00 and 74+30 contains debris, rock, rubble, and sand requiring the
construction of riverside cut-off trenches to reduce seepage. The levee was originally
constructed in 1938 and a raise was completed in 1971.
At Station 74+41, the levee portion of the unit abuts downstream with a 1,945 linear foot
concrete timber-pile founded floodwall that rises ten to twelve feet above the natural ground
surface. A steel sheet pile cutoff wall is embedded in the heel of the levee. The floodwall was
also originally constructed in 1938. Because of the nature of the blanket materials, and the
effects of underseepage observed during the 1951 flood, an elaborate underseepage control
system consisting of approximately twenty manholes and drop inlets, 27 relief wells with
headers, and a new pump station (Kansas Ave.), was installed landward of the floodwall at the
same time as the upstream levee raise. The blanket beneath this fill averages only a few feet in
thickness and appears to be entirely missing between stations 77+50 and 80+50.
The Morrell, Madison Street, and City Park pump stations were constructed by the City of
Topeka in 1931, 1946, and 1956, respectively, for the discharge of storm water to the Kansas
River. The Morrell and City Park stations still exist as originally constructed. A new Madison
Street pump station was constructed in 1970 by the City of Topeka with cost-share assistance
from the Corps.
The unit contains fifteen drainage structures and was originally constructed with two sandbag
railroad closure structures. The closure structure at the Chicago, Rock Island, and Pacific
railroad bridge was converted to a stoplog structure in 1964 and the nine-track closure at the
upstream end of the unit was converted in 1973.
Oakland Unit. The Oakland Unit is located in the eastern portion of the City of Topeka and is
bound by the Kansas River on the north and Shunganunga Creek on the south. It begins
approximately 500 feet upstream of the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (formerly the Atchison,
Topeka & Santa Fe) railroad bridge. The unit creates the right bank levee of the Kansas River
and becomes the left bank levee of Shunganunga Creek until its termination just north of
Interstate Highway 70.
The unit consists of 10 miles of levee, 515 feet of concrete floodwall on Shunganunga Creek,
and 5.5 miles of channel modification. The crest of the levee is 10 feet wide and varies from
five feet to greater than fifteen feet in height above the ground surface. The floodwall height
varies from seven to nine feet above existing ground surface. The Oakland Unit includes 22
9
relief wells, one sandbag gap closure structure, two pump stations, and 48 drainage structures.
The unit was constructed under four separate contracts with the latest being completed in April
1969.
North Topeka Unit. The North Topeka Unit was constructed under two contracts and completed
in January of 1967. The unit encompasses the portion of the city that lies north of the Kansas
River. The unit provides damage reduction from U.S. Highway 4 to Chester Avenue. On the
west, the unit begins at the Soldier Creek Diversion Unit along Menoken Road. The levee then
runs southeast and parallels the left bank of the Kansas River to just above the mouth of Soldier
Creek. At this point the North Topeka Unit connects again with the Soldier Creek Diversion
Unit on the east end.
The unit consists of nine miles of levee with crest heights varying from 3 feet to 17 feet above
the natural ground elevation. The natural blanket for the entire levee unit, consisting
predominantly of silt, varies in thickness from 1 to 23 feet, with an average thickness of 12 feet.
Underseepage is controlled by landside underseepage berms between stations 83+00 and
220+00. Cut-off trenches are present between stations 205+00 and 462+50 at locations where
the blanket is overlain by a sand layer or by existing pervious fill. Three (3) relief wells were
placed at station 392+05 where the natural impervious blanket had been excavated for the
basement of a warehouse building.
The North Topeka Unit includes three pump stations, Quincy Street, Fairchild, and Soldier
Creek, fifteen drainage structures, and one sandbag and stoplog closure each. In 2003, the City
redirected the sanitary and storm sewers that were connected to the Fairchild pump station as
part of local infrastructure improvement. This action removed the majority of the flow for which
the station was originally designed. The Fairchild station still provides removal of interior
drainage from a two to three block residential neighborhood.
Soldier Creek Diversion Unit. Soldier Creek is located on the north side of the City of Topeka.
It is a left bank tributary of, and flows generally parallel, to the Kansas River. Soldier Creek
drains into the Kansas River at approximately river mile 80.6, but originally its mouth was
located approximately 1.6 miles further upstream. The Soldier Creek channel was relocated to
the north to intersect and follow the previous Indian Creek channel.
The Soldier Creek Diversion Unit consists of 9.2 miles of new or modified channel and 17.9
miles of levee on both banks. There are short tieback levees on several small tributaries and 35
drainage structures. The unit was constructed under eight separate contracts with the latest
completed in 1961.
3.0
Existing Flood Threat
Prior to the construction of the levee units, this reach of the Kansas River routinely flooded river
bottomland in the vicinity of Topeka. Also, without the levees, flood stages in excess of 15 feet
caused significant flood damage. For this study, a detailed update of the hydraulics was
10
completed with current state-of-the-art hydraulic modeling, utilizing calibration to the 1993 flood
event. The discharge-frequency data for this study were taken from regulated and unregulated
flow data for the Kansas River developed for the Upper Mississippi River Flow Frequency Study
(UMRFFS), completed in 2003. UMRFFS was a major reevaluation of regulated and
unregulated flows in the subject basin, including the Missouri River and its Kansas River
tributary. The UMRFFS currently estimates the 1-percent event discharge at Topeka to be
217,000 cfs. The authorized design discharge from the project Design Memorandum, published
in 1956, is 314,000 cfs with freeboard, which is approximately a 0.29-percent annual occurrence
event (approximately a 350-yr flood). Further detail of the hydraulic analysis and the design
discharge is presented in later sections of this report.
4.0
Historic Floods and Damages
Kansas River. Major floods on the Kansas River are usually caused by a series of shortduration, high intensity storms following a prolonged period of general rains. Table 1 lists the
five largest annual peaks at the United States Geological Survey (USGS) gage on the Kansas
River at Topeka, Kansas. The period of record for this gage is from 1904 to the present. The
USGS gage (06889000) is located on the Sardou Bridge, river mile 83.1, 2.3 miles upstream of
Soldier Creek.
Table 1. Kansas River - Five Largest Recorded Annual Peaks at Topeka
Year
Discharge (cfs)
July 1951
469,000
May 1903
253,000 (estimated)
August 1908 200,000
July 1993
170,000
June 1935
154,000
It is also known that a great flood occurred on the Kansas River in June of 1844, for which
records do not exist. Various estimations and accounts of the flood indicate that this event may
have been the largest ever to occur on the Kansas River.
In addition to the large historical events noted in Table 1, smaller floods occurred in 1904, 1919,
and 1928; all of which contributed to the inclusion of Topeka in the Flood Control Act of 1936.
However, the cycle of flooding continued through the Forties with notable events in 1941, 1943,
1944, 1945, and 1949, reaching a peak with the flood of July 1951.
The Flood of Record of 1951 was a catastrophic event that impacted the entire Kansas River.
The damages caused by the event in Topeka were estimated at over $34 million (1951 price
level), or about $414 million in 2008 prices. As a result, Federal involvement in Topeka, as well
as other cities in the basin, significantly increased with the passage of the Flood Control Act of
1954. The modifications and additional work implemented in the 1960’s and 70’s were the
result. However, it should be noted that the South Topeka Unit was not fully tested during this
flood event. Historical records indicate that the interior of the unit flooded prior to any levee
11
overtopping or structural failure due to flow through a railroad sandbag gap that was not closed.
Of the discharges shown in Table 1, only the 1993 flood was influenced by full reservoir control
of the upstream basin. Of the sixteen Federal reservoirs, the two most influential lakes that affect
the Kansas River flows at Topeka are Tuttle Creek Lake and Milford Lake. Tuttle Creek Lake is
located on the Big Blue River above Manhattan, Kansas, and began operation in March 1962.
The Big Blue enters the Kansas near river mile 145. Milford Lake is located on the Republican
River above Junction City, Kansas, and began operation in January 1967. The confluence of the
Republican and the Smoky Hill River creates the Kansas River at approximately river mile 171.
Studies indicate that without this upstream flow regulation, the peak discharge of the 1993 flood
at Topeka would have been approximately 192,000 cfs. Additionally, it is estimated that the
1951 flood would have been about 288,000 with full regulation.
Soldier Creek. Floods on Soldier Creek are caused by short duration storms that quickly
develop and recede. Table 2 lists the five largest annual peaks at the USGS gage located
approximately one-third of a mile upstream of the U.S. Highway 75 bridge over Soldier Creek.
The period of record for this gage is from 1929 to the present. There are no upstream reservoirs
that impact the flows of Soldier Creek in Topeka.
Table 2. Soldier Creek - Five Largest Recorded Annual Peaks at Topeka
Year
Discharge (cfs)
October 2005
47,800
June 1982
30,400
July 1981
25,000
June 1999
24,000
September 1977 21,900
Other floods of interest: the July 1993 flood of 18,900 cfs, approximately the 6th largest, and the
June 1951 flood of 11,400 cfs, approximately the 9th highest.
Shunganunga Creek. USGS gage record data is only available for the years 1980-81. Historic
peak discharges are unavailable.
5.0
Floodplain Conditions
The City of Topeka, Kansas, participates in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).
Property owners in a participating community within the 1 percent chance flood zone, and other
specially designated zones, can obtain flood insurance. Any proposed construction in the 1
percent chance floodplain must generally be elevated above the 1 percent chance flood elevation,
or in compliance with local ordinances. The floodway is an area hydraulically defined that must
be reserved in an unobstructed condition in order to pass the base (1 percent chance) flood
without increasing flood levels more than one foot. Existing floodplain ordinances generally
prohibit construction or development within the floodway.
12
6.0
Geotechnical Conditions
The Engineering Appendix presents the results of the geotechnical evaluation of the existing
conditions performed as part of the feasibility flood study. The flood risk management project
within the study area was designed by the Kansas City District U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
and was constructed under its supervision.
The primary goal of this phase of the geotechnical evaluation was to gather and review all
available data and develop an assessment of the existing conditions of each levee unit by
identifying the critical reaches for each unit and their probability of failure for different river
stages. Additionally, the past performance of the levee system was evaluated. This information
is to assist in an assessment of the future performance of the levee during flood events. In
particular, the following tasks were performed for this study:
•
•
•
Review of existing sources of information,
Description of each existing levee unit including design features and subsurface
conditions.
Reliability analyses of each unit and identification of critical reaches of each unit
The evaluation of the existing condition was based on the original subsurface investigation
performed for the design of the project. This was supplemented with additional investigations,
such as cone penetrometer tests and laboratory testing performed on selected samples collected
from borings drilled in areas considered critical.
7.0
Economic Setting
The City of Topeka, Kansas, the State Capital, is centrally located in Shawnee County, in west
central Kansas, near the geographic center of the continental United States. The city covers 57.6
square miles surrounded by unincorporated areas of Shawnee County. The development in
Topeka represents all the features of a mid-sized urban area including transportation by road,
rail, and air, and social and cultural infrastructure including a wide variety of public and private
educational facilities and a particularly diverse selection of health care providers. In addition to
the State government administration, Topeka hosts a wide variety of industries including
preparation of packaged foods, printing and publishing, warehousing and distribution, and
transportation.
Topeka, with a 2006 estimated population of 122,113, is the fourth largest city in Kansas, after
Wichita, Kansas City, and Overland Park, and ranks 195th among all U.S. cities in population.
Population is down slightly from the 123,101 recorded in the 2000 Census, as the area’s
population continues to redistribute itself from the center city to the suburbs, but is up about 2%
from the 1990 total of 119,883. Shawnee County grew 5.5% during the 1990-2000 period and
has grown 1.5% since the 2000 Census to its current (2006) estimated population of 172,693.
The Topeka Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA), meanwhile, has seen a 1.9% increase in
population from 224,551 in 2000 to 228,894 in 2006.
13
The study area, or the areas within the Federal levee project, had an estimated 2000 population of
16,098 (about 13.1% of the total Topeka population) and a total of 7,153 housing units. These
totals are based on data from the Census blocks comprising the study area.
Per capita income in the study area (i.e., the Census block groups comprising the protected areas)
was $17,596 in 2000, which was only 90% of the Topeka per capita income, 84% of Shawnee
County, 86% of the state, and 82% of the national total. Study area residents were more likely
than city and county residents in general to have sub-poverty level incomes or to be unemployed,
and they were somewhat less educated. In housing, the average value of owner units in the study
area was $66,148, which was only 81% of the Topeka average, 70% of the county average, and
64% of the statewide average. The relatively low home values probably resulted in part from the
age of the study area housing stock, which was 46.1 years old on average compared to 39.7 for
Topeka and 36.9 for the county. The study area vacancy rate of 7.9% exceeded the city rate of
7.5% and the county rate of 6.6%. Refer to Appendix D, Section 2 for further discussion of area
demographics.
Commercial, industrial, and residential developments are located in the floodplain of the study
area behind the different levee units. Numerous city streets, county roadways, state and Federal
highways, and railroads cross the floodplain. The Philip Billard Airport, one water treatment
plant, two wastewater treatment plants, and other public utilities are located in the floodplain. In
addition, open land already protected by the levees could be developed for commercial and
industrial uses. Pressures for additional development of the floodplain within the existing levee
system will continue to intensify during the period of analysis due to the concentration in
Oakland and North Topeka of several sites amenable to large-scale commercial or industrial
development. Topeka has only a few other sites available outside of these areas.
The Federal project protects a total of 11,059 acres in Topeka, representing about 31% of the
city’s total area. The largest leveed areas are the North Topeka area (6,076 acres – protected by
two units of the system: North Topeka and Soldier Creek) and the combined Oakland/South
Topeka area (3,582 acres). The four right bank Kansas River main stem units account for a total
of 10.7 miles of leveed riverfront and protect 3,926 acres, while the right bank main stem unit
accounts for 8 miles of leveed riverfront and protects 6,076 acres. In addition to the urban North
Topeka area, the Soldier Creek unit protects an additional 1,057 acres in rural areas. These
seven leveed areas range from 39 to 449 acres in area.
Densely populated urban neighborhoods characterize Auburndale, most of the western two-thirds
of Oakland, and the eastern two-thirds of North Topeka. Industrial land uses dominate the
Waterworks area, the western portion of North Topeka, almost all of South Topeka, and the
southwestern and eastern portions of the Oakland area. A number of neighborhood retail and
service areas are scattered throughout Oakland and North Topeka, which also has a riverfront old
town area of offices, stores and services. Agricultural land uses are found primarily in the
northern portions of Oakland and western portions of North Topeka.
14
The left bank area protected by the North Topeka unit contains significant heavy industry,
including a Goodyear Tire plant, as well as residences and farm acreage on the east and west
ends of the area. Properties in the North Topeka area include 2,752 residences and 539
businesses and public facilities which, together with highways, roads, and rail, have a total
estimated investment of $1.47 billion. Rural sections of the Soldier Creek unit along the north
edge of North Topeka protect a few dozen homes as well as several areas planted in crops, with a
total estimated value of about $30.7 million. The main section of the Soldier Creek unit protects
the same urban North Topeka area that is also protected from the Kansas River by the North
Topeka unit.
On the right bank, the Waterworks unit's sole protected property is a water treatment plant. The
Auburndale unit protects an estimated investment of $119.2 million, including 616 residences
and 18 businesses. The South Topeka Unit contains investment valued at $407.6 million,
including 142 businesses and facilities and 80 homes. The Oakland area contains 2,942
residences and 89 businesses and facilities comprising an estimated investment of $577.7
million. In total, the Topeka federal levee system protects an estimated $2.67 billion in
investment, including 6,487 residences and 790 businesses and public facilities.
8.0
Environmental Setting
The study area is an urban wildlife setting characterized by industrial, residential, and
commercial development. The small areas of natural habitat available are generally confined to
riparian woodland strips along the river corridor. Portions of the Kansas River have been
channelized and, in some locations, the levees are almost right at the riverbank, constraining the
extent of riverine habitat.
Vegetation types present in the study area include: floodplain habitat of cottonwood and willow
trees, oak-hickory forest, and bluestem prairie. Additional detail of the vegetation, climate, and
soil characteristics of the study area is presented in Section 9.0 of the attached Environmental
Assessment.
9.0
Fish and Wildlife
Typical fish species found in the Kansas River include various species of bass, shiner, catfish,
chub, and others. The fisheries resources in this reach of the Kansas River are greatly influenced
by releases from Tuttle Creek Lake. The spring spawning season is a particularly sensitive
period when releases from the lake provide high flows which are critical for spawning success.
Many species of mammals, birds, reptiles and amphibians utilize the riparian woodlands and
grasslands adjacent to the banks of the Kansas River. This riparian corridor, although severely
reduced in much of the study area, continues to represent a significant amount of important
wildlife habitat.
There are three Federally-listed species that may occur within the project area: bald eagle,
piping plover, and least tern.
15
State listed endangered species in Shawnee County include the American burying beetle, Eskimo
curlew, least tern, peregrine falcon, silver chub, and whooping crane. State listed threatened
species include the bald eagle, eastern spotted skunk, piping plover, smooth earth snake, snowy
plover, sturgeon chub, and Topeka shiner.
More detailed information on fish and wildlife resources, and threatened and endangered species,
is provided in Sections 10 of the attached Environmental Assessment. Lists of typical fish and
wildlife species found in the project area are included in the 2007 USFWS Coordination Act
Report (EA, appendix C).
10.0
Wetlands
Based on a review of National Wetland Inventory mapping and site investigations by Corps of
Engineers personnel, there are no wetlands currently present within the project study area.
11.0
Cultural Resources
The Corps conducted a review of the National Register of Historic Places (NHRP), an
appropriate records search at the Kansas State Historical Society, and a field reconnaissance of
the project area. No NRHP properties are recorded in the study area. Also, the records search
found no other archeological sites, historic structures, or shipwrecks recorded within any of these
areas. For additional information see the attached Environmental Assessment, Section 10.6.
12.0
Hazardous, Toxic, and Radioactive Waste
A Hazardous, Toxic, and Radioactive Waste (HTRW) assessment was completed as part of the
Topeka, Kansas, Reconnaissance Report (USACE, 1997), and a more recent assessment
(USACE, 2007) of potential HTRW resources was completed.
Overall, the assessment found very little risk associated with HTRW contamination in the study
area; however, there were three areas of potential HTRW or solid waste impact. Former city
dump sites were identified in parts of the South Topeka and Oakland Units that will need to be
avoided. The description from the Scotch Cleaners site, located in the southeast portion of the
South Topeka Unit, indicates a groundwater plume of chlorinated solvents is emanating from this
site and extends north-northeast to the Kansas River. This plume may be present below the
existing floodwall.
The conclusions of the 2007 HTRW assessment are summarized in the attached Environmental
Assessment, Section 11.0, and the complete investigation report is included with the EA as
Appendix I.
16
B.
Future Conditions Without Project
1.0
Future Flooding
The existing conditions of each unit described earlier were analyzed using current methods and
criteria for factor of safety and reliability. Each unit was systematically analyzed to determine if
any critical reaches for geotechnical and structural concern were evident. For those reaches that
did not meet current factor of safety criteria, an additional reliability analysis was conducted to
calculate the probability of failure. Table 3 presents the current estimates of the reliability of
passing the 1-percent annual chance event for each unit.
As stated earlier, the overtopping reliabilities of the Kansas River units are all above 93%. The
values in Table 3 indicate the significance of the geotechnical and structural weaknesses
identified for each unit.
Table 3. Existing Conditions Reliability of Kansas River Units
Levee Unit
Reliability Against
the 1% event
Waterworks
92.8%
Auburndale
96.8%
South Topeka
84.2%
Oakland
2.9%
North Topeka
14.1%
Supporting detail for the geotechnical and structural analyses is found in Appendix A
(Engineering). Additional detail supporting exceedance probabilities and the consequences of
failure in each unit are presented in Appendix D (Socioeconomics).
Large areas of existing residential, business, and industrial development are now in a zone that is
vulnerable to flood damage due to unacceptable reliability. If a project is not authorized and
implemented, FEMA could initiate a revision of the Flood Insurance Rate Map. The area
currently shown as protected from the 1-percent flood would be placed in the Special Flood
Hazard Area. The designation requires additional considerations for new construction and
substantial improvements, and requires the mandatory purchase of flood insurance as a condition
to financial assistance from a federally regulated source, potentially causing the area to enter into
an economic decline with less viability for improvement or enhancement. Modifications or
improvements to existing businesses, and any new investment within the area, would be
constrained due to flood insurance requirements. If the project recommended by this study is not
implemented by the Federal government, then the non-Federal sponsors will be faced with a
significant financial burden of trying to implement the project themselves, or they will have to
rely on temporary flood-fighting to protect the area from future floods.
The primary goal of evaluating these areas of concern was to identify potential failure modes and
impacts on the ability of the project to continue to perform as intended. Knowing how the
17
system can be expected to react provides the basis for identifying the types of alternatives that
will be most effective in restoring project performance. The specific areas of concern for each
unit and their expected failure modes area discussed in the following paragraphs.
Waterworks
Floodwall Stability. Six analyzed floodwall cross sections failed to meet sliding stability criteria.
Sliding factors of safety calculated vary from 0.78 to 1.15; the minimum requirement is 1.3.
Additionally, the four stoplog closure structures within the floodwall were analyzed with water
to the top of the wall. Each closure showed a factor of safety of less than 1.3 for sliding stability
(values ranged from 0.75 to 1.04). Sliding failure of the wall could lead to separation of the wall
sections, water infiltration through opened wall joints, scour around the openings, and rapid wall
failure.
South Topeka Unit
Underseepage. The critical geotechnical reach for the unit with respect to underseepage was
identified within the earth levee section between stations 22+00 and 48+00. The Probable
Failure Point (PFP), being the water surface elevation corresponding to an 85-percent probability
of failure, occurs 0.2 feet below the top of the levee at that section. This is an excessively high
probability at the top of the levee and indicates that the existing underseepage control fill in this
area is inadequate. Excessive underseepage underneath the levee could cause internal erosion,
undermining the foundation and resulting in collapse of the levee.
Structural Uplift. Uplift concerns are created when the hydraulic pressures in the ground
pushing up on a structure during high flow events are greater than the weight of the structure
itself. Calculations assumed fifty percent efficiency in existing pressure relief wells and up to
three feet of water in the existing underseepage collector system to meet uplift requirements.
Four manhole boxes failed to meet uplift criteria under these conditions (Sta. 16+07, 84+10,
84+10a, and 85+57). The existing factors of safety range from 0.84 to 0.96; 1.1 is the required
uplift factor of safety. Uplift failure of a manhole could result in a path for floodwaters to enter
the unit, causing a failure mode similar to the underseepage failure discussed in the previous
paragraph. Furthermore, three of these manholes are part of the floodwall underseepage control
system. Loss of one manhole could cause loss of the entire underseepage collector system.
Floodwall Stability. The original 1936 construction drawings for the floodwall are available, but
accompanying specifications and design calculations are not. The construction drawings were
employed along with other incomplete records of design and construction, memoranda of
investigations and activities related to 1960’s era modifications to the drainage systems,
inspection reports, and site visit information collected during the feasibility study to conduct a
preliminary stability and strength analysis of the wall.
18
From the information available, the structural analysis initially found that the loads on the timber
piles supporting the wall exceeded the allowable shear stress. By exceeding the allowable
stresses, the piles did not meet the factor of safety included in the allowable loads which
suggested a reliability concern. However, a reliability analysis showed that the combined axial
and bending stresses in the timber piles were less than the allowable stresses, indicating an
acceptable reliability in resistance to shear loads.
A geotechnical analysis was also performed to determine the axial capacity of the existing piles.
Two locations were selected. The first is a reach between station 83+00 and 87+00, where the
foundation conditions were found to be the least desirable. The second is at station 89+00,
which is more representative of the majority of the floodwall foundation conditions. A
deterministic analysis of the axial pile capacity was initially performed for the design loading
condition with water to the top of the wall. The piles at station 89+00 were found to meet the
required factor of safety; however the piles at station 83+75 did not. A reliability analysis was
subsequently performed for station 83+75 starting with water at the top of the floodwall and
lowering the water level in one foot intervals to determine the water surface at which the
probability of failure approaches zero. The probability of failure for the design loading condition
was found to be 45%; a 55% reliability to pass the flood event. A foundation failure could result
in excessive floodwall deflections and rapidly lead to a wall failure.
Pump Station Strength. At the Kansas Avenue pump station, an interior foundation wall exhibits
a factor of safety of 0.97, failing to meet the required 1.5 strength factor. A failure of the steel
within the wall will lead to cracking of the wall and possible loss of the foundation of the pump
station, leading to water infiltration and the inability of the station to operate as intended. As this
pump station is an important part of the floodwall underseepage control system, loss of the
station could contribute to failure of the wall itself.
Oakland Unit
Underseepage. The critical geotechnical section for underseepage was identified between
stations 64+00 and 80+00. The PFP for this section occurs 7.3 feet below the top of levee at this
section. Flood flow elevations higher than the PFP could cause excessive underseepage,
resulting in undermining of the levee foundation and possible loss of the levee. This reach is
immediately adjacent to the Oakland Wastewater Treatment Plant.
Structural Uplift. The 5.5 ft. by 4.5 ft. drop inlet, 6.5 ft. deep, at station 75+50 fails to meet
uplift criteria. The existing structure shows a factor of safety of 0.93. Almost 4 ft of water
would be necessary to meet the minimum required 1.1 uplift factor of safety. An uplift failure of
the manhole would provide a path of floodwaters to enter the unit and potentially undermine the
levee.
The East Oakland Pump station exhibits an uplift factor of safety of 0.76, failing to meet the
minimum of 1.1. An uplift failure would create a path for floodwaters to enter the protected
area. Additionally, a pump station failure would prevent interior drainage from being evacuated
19
to the river, contributing to interior flood damages.
Floodwall Stability. Two cross-sections analyzed of the floodwall on Shunganunga Creek failed
to meet sliding stability, exhibiting factors of safety of 0.76 and 0.85, compared to the minimum
requirement of 1.3. Sliding failure can lead to separation of the floodwall sections, infiltration of
water, scour around the openings, and possible rapid loss of the wall. The wall is adjacent to an
industrial business area.
North Topeka.
Underseepage. Analysis identified the areas between stations 165+00 and 180+00 and stations
246+00 to 250+00 as having piping safety factors less than 1.0. These areas are considered
critical for reliability evaluation. The existing underseepage berm between 165+00 and 180+00
is inadequate and the reach from 246+00 to 250+00 does not have any existing underseepage
control measures. The PFP for the section between stations 165+00 and 180+00 occurs 7.5 feet
below the top of levee at that section. For the reach between stations 246+00 and 250+00, the
PFP occurs 5.8 feet below the top of levee at that location. Flood flow elevations higher than the
PFP could cause excessive underseepage, resulting in undermining of the levee foundation and
possible loss of the levee. These reaches are located adjacent to agricultural and industrial areas,
including such facilities as the North Topeka Wastewater Treatment Plant, grain elevators, and a
railroad switching yard.
Structural Uplift. The Fairchild pump station uplift calculations are based on field measurements
of exterior footprint dimensions, interior sump dimensions, and assumptions for floor member
thickness. Using these dimensions and varying hydraulic grade lines (based on possible
variations in blanket thickness, blanket permeability, and foundation permeability) the uplift
factor of safety was determined to be 0.72. The required minimum is 1.1. Uplift failure of the
pump station could result in a pathway for flood water to enter the unit. The pump station is
located near a small residential neighborhood.
2.0
Socioeconomic Considerations
Continuing neglect of the deficiencies in the Topeka levee system eventually would result in
catastrophic flood losses affecting large urban neighborhoods and industrial areas, as can be seen
from the summary in Table 4. There is at least a 1 in 2 chance that the two largest units, Oakland
and North Topeka, will experience at least one flood in the next 25 years. The probabilities of
failure indicate a serious safety risk due to the fact that some features of the system, such as the
South Topeka floodwall, may catastrophically fail with little or no warning. A “no action”
condition would have negative impacts on the national economic development (NED), regional
economic development (RED), and other social effects (OSE) accounts, as enumerated below.
20
Table 4. Future Without Project Condition Summary
Equiv.
annual
damages
Waterworks
Auburndale
South Topeka/
Oakland
South Topeka
Oakland
North Topeka
Soldier Creek
Urban
Rural
Total
Costs in $1,000's.
Expected
Expected
Affected Affected Affected
Annual
1%-chance event
damages in 1%- damages in 0.2%- population homes businesses exceedance nonexceedance
chance flood
chance flood
and facilities probability
probability
$221.8
$203.7
$0.0
$0.0
$54,536.5
$55,088.0
0
1,468
0
616
1
18
$6,357.6
$182,504.0
$595,883.8
7,241
3,022
231
$16,031.7
$585,917.4
$1,231,906.9
6,725
2,752
539
0.003
0.003
0.928
0.968
0.004
0.057
0.024
0.006
0.842
0.029
0.141
0.668
Chance of
failure or
overtopping
over 25 yrs
1 in 10
1 in 13
1 in 9
1 in 1.3
1 in 2
1 in 5
$1,872.0
$0.0
$250,677.6
(6,725) (2,752)
(539)
$51.1
$0.0
$11,757.8
664
97
1
$22,865.9
$768,421.4
$1,949,173.0
16,098
6,487
790
Soldier Creek urban damages are not included in overall total because North Topeka damages covering the same area are included.
NED (National Economic Development) Effects of No Action - Losses to national economic
output can be quantified to a considerable extent by reference to the equivalent annual damages
(EAD) estimated for this study. EAD is the average damage expected annually over the long
term if existing conditions are maintained - i.e., if the levee system remains in its current
condition. EAD totals an estimated $22.87 million in the study area. This is only an average
annual total; little or no damage might occur in some years, while other years would bring flood
events causing as much as $2 billion in damages. Listed below are several aspects of these
losses.
•
Residential - Many residents in the study area would sustain heavy personal losses from
flooding. A 0.2%-chance flood would be expected to damage more than 6,300 homes in
Topeka. Even a smaller 1%-chance flood would damage more than 5,000 homes.
•
Businesses - Many businesses and public facilities, large and small, would be seriously
damaged by flooding and possibly driven out of business. A 0.2%-chance flood could
damage more than 750 businesses in the city, and a smaller 1%-chance flood could
damage nearly 600 businesses.
•
Public sector - Public sector losses would be catastrophic, to include: (a) Sewage
treatment facilities in the North Topeka and Oakland areas would be subject to relatively
frequent damage and their operations would be interrupted periodically. (b) The
Waterworks plant also would face marginally greater periodic damage to its facilities. (c)
Highways and streets would require very costly repairs. (d) Police and fire-fighting
services employed in flood fights, along with other emergency personnel and their
equipment and temporary offices, would cost the city millions of dollars in significant
floods. (e) Relocation and reoccupation assistance to residents forced from their homes
by flooding would be required for thousands of residents at an average of $7,500 per
home.
21
•
Water supply - The Topeka region’s water supply plant behind the Waterworks levee unit
would suffer periodic operational interruptions or damage, affecting water supply
delivery to 160,000 people and likely resulting in net income losses due to the need to
implement alternative water supply arrangements.
•
Traffic interruptions - Periodic closures during flooding (threatened flooding as well as
actual) would interrupt traffic and commerce along key transportation arteries such as
U.S. Highways 24 and 75, Kansas Route 4, and the two railroad lines in the area.
Lengthy closures could lead to long detours and time-consuming delays on these routes.
•
Business income losses from shutdowns - Production losses at some study area
companies probably could not be made up by other companies or other branches of the
same company, at least not quickly enough to meet consumer needs. Some production
losses probably would represent unquantified NED losses at the Goodyear tire plant,
Hallmark, and the Kansas Lottery, among others.
RED (Regional Economic Development) Effects of No Action - Regional economic
development considerations are factors affecting the Topeka regional economy while not
necessarily affecting national economic outputs. Several such effects in this study would be in
connection with the danger that one or more Federal levee units in the Topeka system could be
decertified. This action would loom large in the area’s business climate. RED effects resulting
from this and other factors would include the following:
•
Residential flood insurance premium costs (probable adverse income impact) - Residents
would face onerous new flood insurance requirements in the event of levee
decertification.
•
Threats to existing local/regional businesses (probable adverse income and jobs impacts)
- Topeka businesses in and around the study area would be threatened by multiple factors
related to flood risk, including (a) catastrophic periodic flood damage; (b) frequent
business closures or scale backs; (c) employee safety during flood events; (d) the cost of
new flood insurance requirements in the event of levee decertification; (e) stiffer building
codes, also in the event of levee decertification, that would work against firms needing to
expand in the floodplain. Large employers in the study area such as BNSF Railroad,
Goodyear, Hallmark, Del Monte, Hill’s and others could decide to relocate from the city
and region. Particularly affected would be manufacturing jobs which are declining
nationally but have been a strong part of the Topeka jobs base, and which are
concentrated in floodplain locations.
•
Threats to economic development prospects (probable adverse income and jobs impacts)
- The same considerations listed just above that would affect existing jobs in the city also
would discourage new development and growth in the form of businesses migrating into
the city or region or the development of new areas. Large companies considering moving
22
into the study area, bringing job concentrations with them, probably would not do so in a
flood-prone area with a decertified levee and the attendant regulatory environment. In
addition, many of the city’s most attractive developable parcels are located in Oakland
and North Topeka, which are the two units with the highest flood risk. Land uses would
in many cases be downgraded from higher valued commercial and residential uses to
greenways and possibly agriculture, resulting in income losses.
•
Threats to riverfront redevelopment (possible adverse income impacts) - Topeka’s
emerging strategy to rehabilitate and revive its riverfront, which has resulted in the recent
redevelopment of the old Union Pacific depot in North Topeka and is likely to spawn
hiking and biking trails and other amenities in the future, could be stymied by periodic
flood damage, resulting in impacts to recreation and tourism revenues.
Other Social Effects of No Action
•
Public safety (probable adverse impacts on human life) - The chance of a major flood in
the next 10 years is 1 in 4 in North Topeka and 1 in 2 in Oakland. At risk are more than
13,700 residents and more than 5,700 homes in these two areas, in addition to large
daytime populations of workers in North Topeka. Warning times would be expected to
be relatively short, since the overwhelmingly likely failure mode would be structural or
geotechnical failure rather than overtopping. Public safety impacts would take the form
of drowning, electrocution, and illness from exposure to contaminated flood waters.
•
Low income residents suffer greatest flood risk (probable adverse socioeconomic
impacts) - The South Topeka, Oakland, and North Topeka neighborhoods collectively
had a 2000 poverty rate of 18.4%. This rate was 48% greater than the Topeka city and
national rates of 12.4% and was 92% greater than the Shawnee County rate of 9.6%. In
some portions of these areas, poverty rates exceeded 40%. The 2000 unemployment rate
of 8.1% in these three areas was 69% greater than the city rate, 93% greater than the
Kansas rate, and 103% greater than the county rate, and some block groups reached rates
as high as 19%. Per capita income for these areas in 2000 was $14,403, which was only
three-quarters of the Topeka per capita income, about seven-tenths of Shawnee County,
and two-thirds of the national figure. (See sections 2.1.2, 2.4.2, 2.5.2, and 2.6.2 as well
as Table D-4.)
•
Minority residents suffer greater flood risk (probable adverse socioeconomic impacts) Hispanics account for 20.4% of South Topeka’s population and 27.1% of Oakland’s
residents. These percentages are approximately twice the national percentage of 12.5%,
two to three times the Topeka percentage of 8.9%, and three to four times the state
percentage of 7.0%. In about half of the Oakland and South Topeka block groups,
Hispanics account for more than 25% of the population, and a few areas have majority
Hispanic populations. (Again, see sections 2.1.2, 2.4.2, and 2.5.2 as well as Table D-4.)
•
Threats to center city redevelopment (probable adverse cultural impacts) - Topeka’s
23
long-term efforts to maintain and rebuild center city areas would be dealt a crippling
blow. The floodplain areas of North Topeka, Oakland and South Topeka comprise a
substantial portion of the center city. Population losses from the center city would occur
as residents flee the likelihood of flood damage and react to the shrinkage in area job
opportunities. High vacancy rates would characterize commercial properties and the
housing stock.
3.0
•
Threats to riverfront redevelopment (possible adverse cultural, historical and aesthetic
impacts) - Also touched on above under R.E.D. impacts; if redevelopment is indeed
hampered, it would negatively affect aesthetic values (removal of blight followed by
orderly, planned redevelopment) and historical values (the riverfront is where the city
began).
•
Untreated sewage releases (adverse health and environmental impacts) - The city sewage
treatment plants in Oakland and North Topeka would likely be subject to frequent shortterm operational interruptions, and the interruptions would be much longer term in flood
events causing physical damages at the facilities. Service interruptions would result in
large releases of unprocessed sewage into the Kansas River, adversely affecting public
health (potentially) and environmental values (certainly).
Environmental Considerations
The future without project condition of the natural environment in the study area is discussed in
the attached Environmental Assessment. Generally, the remaining habitat within the study area
is confined to the riparian corridor and this area is not expected to be subject to impact or change
from future development. However, as development of the City of Topeka increases outside the
current study area, the importance of the existing riparian corridor within the larger
environmental context is expected to increase.
C.
Planning Problems and Opportunities
The primary study area problem is that the existing levee system does not reliably provide the
design level of flood risk management. This is supported by the research of design and
authorizing documents, engineering analysis performed using current criteria, and mathematical
modeling. The specific problem areas of the system that cause low reliability include floodwalls,
pump stations, manholes, and areas of underseepage concern. The low reliabilities exhibited in
this system pose a public safety risk to a significant population and sizeable area of economic
investment.
This study presents the opportunity to restore the reliability of the local flood risk management
system and thereby minimize damages from future flood events. By doing so, there is the
opportunity to provide the affected community the confidence to continue with future economic
development. Opportunities for protection or enhancement of the natural and cultural resources
of the area also exist and may be addressed by the study or by other related activities taking place
24
or proposed in the study area.
VII. Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analysis
As part of the feasibility study, hydraulic investigations were conducted on the Kansas River,
Soldier Creek, and Shunganunga Creek using the HEC-RAS computer software developed by
the Hydrologic Engineering Center, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Hydraulic models were
developed using 1997 survey data supplemented with 1995 four-foot aerial contour maps
supplied by the City of Topeka and calibrated using high water marks from the 1993 Flood.
Water surface profiles were then generated for eight different discharge events. These include
the 10, 2, 1, 0.5, 0.2, 0.133, 0.1, and 0.04-percent chance (10, 50, 100, 200, 500, 750, 1000, and
2500-year) flood events. The discharge uncertainty results are detailed in Chapter 2 of Appendix
A for a range of frequencies.
A.
Kansas River
The area of hydraulic investigation extends from Kansas River mile 73.0 through mile 96.5. A
HEC-RAS hydraulic model was developed to determine the expected flood discharge based on
statistical analysis of the Topeka Gage located on the Sardou Avenue Bridge. The uncertainty in
both stage and discharge were calculated. The standard deviation of stage is 0.85 feet.
The Kansas River discharges and associated flood frequencies, up to the 0.2% (500-year) event,
are shown in Table 5. Model results for larger events and the associated discharge-frequency
curve are provided in Chapter 2 of Appendix A.
Table 5. Kansas River Discharge-Frequency Relationship
Annual
Flow at
Percent Chance Topeka Gage
(cfs)
of Exceedance
0.2
348,000
0.5
268,000
1
217,000
2
173,000
5
123,000
10
93,600
20
67,200
50
36,600
The current authorized design discharge is 314,000 cfs, which corresponds to an approximate
annual percent chance of exceedance of 0.33% (300-year flood). The currently authorized
discharge is less than the discharge of 340,000 cfs originally authorized in 1936. The discharge
was lowered due to the influence of the upstream reservoir control system that was under
development at the time of the 1954 Flood Control Act. However, two of the proposed upstream
reservoirs considered in the discharge determination were later deauthorized and not constructed.
25
Today’s methods of hydraulic analyses are based on risk and uncertainty calculation (reliability)
instead of the freeboard concept used in the past. Current practice is to establish the water
surface elevation at which the intended river flow can be contained by the levee with 90%
reliability. Using the current hydraulic model, the 90% reliable elevations for the design flow
are higher than the top of the existing project in each of the four units where improvements are
proposed; overtopping margins range from 0.3 to 1.47 feet.
According to the current hydraulic model, the North and South Topeka units will begin
overtopping at 300,000 cfs, and the Oakland unit at 305,000 cfs. The average difference in water
surface elevation between 300,000 cfs and the authorized discharge of 314,000 cfs is only 0.4
feet and the standard deviation of the model itself is 0.85 feet, thus making these differences
statistically insignificant.
While an understanding of the hydraulic performance of the levee system at high Kansas River
flows is important, it is secondary to the fact that many of the geotechnical and structural issues
discussed in other sections of this report occur at elevations at, or below, the top of the existing
project, causing a significant risk of project failure before overtopping. Furthermore, the
formulation of alternatives to address a small stage discrepancy at a high flood level is not
considered practical or cost-effective. The potential for increased benefits stemming from such a
raise would be very limited since incremental damage prevention benefits would be associated
with only the most extreme flood events. Thus, no further consideration was given to a levee
raise in this study.
B.
Soldier Creek
The hydraulic investigation was completed on the first ten miles of Soldier Creek. The
hydrologic analysis was completed to determine the expected discharges at the flood risk
management works based upon statistical analyses of four stream flow gages in the watershed.
The model shows that the existing Soldier Creek levees are not overtopped until the 0.5% chance
exceedance (200-year) flood event. The uncertainty in both stage and discharge were calculated.
The standard deviation of stage is 1.68 feet.
C.
Shunganunga Creek
The hydraulic investigation was completed to calculate water surface profiles on approximately
the first five miles of Shunganunga Creek adjacent to the Oakland Levee Unit, from the mouth of
Shunganunga Creek to the 10th Street Bridge. To determine the expected discharges within the
Oakland Levee Unit, a watershed analysis was completed using the Storm Water Management
Model (SWMM) computer software developed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
The model was calibrated using data from a U.S.G.S. gage that was located at the upstream face
of Rice Bridge from May 1980 to September 1981.
26
The model shows that the existing Shunganunga Creek levees are not overtopped until the 0.04%
chance exceedance (2500-year) flood event (with a 50% chance of non-exceedance).
VIII. Flood Damage Estimates
A.
Economic Damage Analysis Methodology
This section provides a summary of the data and methods used to perform the economic risk
analysis of the study area. A detailed discussion is provided in Appendix D of this report. The
study area was divided into reaches for the economic analysis, as summarized in Table 6.
Table 6. Economic Study Reaches
Name
Stream
Bank
Reach Description
WW
AUB
ST
OAK
NT
SC-RB1
SC-RB2
SC-LB1
SC-LB2
SC-LB3
SC-LB4
SC-LB5
SC-LB6
Kansas River
Kansas River
Kansas River
Kansas River
Kansas River
Soldier Creek
Soldier Creek
Soldier Creek
Soldier Creek
Soldier Creek
Soldier Creek
Soldier Creek
Soldier Creek
Right
Right
Right
Right
Left
Right
Right
Left
Left
Left
Left
Left
Left
Waterworks unit
Auburndale unit
South Topeka unit
Oakland unit
North Topeka unit
Urban subunit - North Topeka
Rural subunit @ Silver Creek ditch
Rural subunit @ Hwy. 24
Rural subunit @ Kansas Ave.
Rural subunit @ Rochester Rd.
Rural subunit @ Brickyard Rd
Rural subunit @ Menoken Rd
Rural subunit @ NW 33rd St. west end
Beg.
Station
86.7
85.5
83.7
76.0
80.8
0.2
8.1
0.2
1.9
2.7
5.5
6.8
7.6
End
Station
87.2
86.7
85.5
83.7
88.8
7.2
10.0
0.6
2.3
3.1
6.7
7.5
8.0
Index
Station
87.0
86.1
84.8
82.3
85.6
4.2
8.7
0.4
2.2
3.0
6.2
7.3
7.9
Kansas City District economics staff carried out a structure-by-structure field survey of all
buildings in the study area. The economic structure inventory is categorized in terms of four
basic land uses: residential (including farm sets), non-residential (including businesses, nonprofit institutions such as churches and schools, public facilities and utilities), roads and streets,
and agriculture (crops).
Data obtained from county and city tax and GIS data, the field survey, and discussions with
businesses were further developed, refined, and organized to produce the three key variables for
each property to be used in the damage analysis: beginning damage elevations, property values,
and depth-damage relationships. The risk analysis program used for the damage analysis also
requires specification of uncertainty factors for each of these variables.
The comprehensive structure inventory for the study area – including elevations, values, and
depth-damage functions for each property – was entered into the HEC-FDA software
(Hydrologic Engineering Center’s Flood Damage Analysis program), a risk analysis software
product that is standard for Corps of Engineers flood risk management analyses. All engineering
and economic data are entered into the program in terms of median or most likely values and
accompanied by appropriate uncertainty parameters specifying the range of possible values for
27
each variable. The subsequent risk analysis simulates tens of thousands of theoretical flood
events, synthetically extending the period of record to thousands of years and thereby producing
results that embody uncertainties in assumptions and the dynamic interaction of variables over
time. For each event, the program samples the range of possible values for each variable and
determines (a) whether the flood event results in damage, and (b) how much damage occurs.
A complicating factor in the economic analysis for the Oakland and South Topeka units is
presented by the issue of hydraulic independence. Despite the longstanding practice in older
reports of treating the two units as separate and independent, further inspection determined that
they are instead “partially dependent.” Overland flows from any flood event not contained by
the South Topeka levee can also enter and flood the Oakland area immediately downstream.
Flooding originating in Oakland, on the other hand, cannot overcome the rising land elevations
as it tries to back up into the upstream South Topeka area.
It is apparent from the nature of this relationship that any evaluation of damages or benefits of
proposed alternatives properly attributable to the South Topeka levee unit must account for
damages in Oakland as well as in South Topeka. Damages in the Oakland area can be attributed
to both of these units to some extent. At the same time, computational methods must head off
the potential for double-counting Oakland damages since they can be attributed to either the
Oakland levee or the South Topeka levee. Computations of economic outputs -- damages and
benefits -- in this report will consider the South Topeka and Oakland areas as a single combined
reach in order to avoid double-counting while accounting for the full impact of project
deficiencies. On the other hand, the two units will be rated separately in terms of engineering
performance.
The North Topeka unit along the Kansas River and the main subunit of the Soldier Creek unit
each protect essentially the same urban area of North Topeka. Separate analyses evaluate the
damages attributable to each unit - i.e., the model contains no assumptions or data linking stages
and discharges on Soldier Creek with corresponding data for the Kansas River, and the economic
structure inventory used is identical for both streams. For this reason, the damages for the two
units are not additive. Double counting would result from any summation of North Topeka and
Soldier Creek urban damages. Damage totals for the North Topeka area cited in this analysis
will reflect damages attributable to the North Topeka unit on the Kansas River unless otherwise
stated. It also should be noted that the foregoing discussion applies only to the main urban
subunit of the Soldier Creek unit. The other subunits protect small rural areas primarily on the
left bank of Soldier Creek that are distinct from the urban North Topeka area. These properties
are protected only by the Soldier Creek unit. Damages identified as “Soldier Creek rural” are
distinct from North Topeka area damages and are additive with North Topeka damages, unlike
the “Soldier Creek urban” damages.
The base year for the economic analysis - i.e., the year when the project would be completed and
operational - is 2015. The base year condition also is used to describe the existing condition in
this analysis. Existing conditions data would not differ from base year data in any respect,
including economic structure inventory, hydraulic and hydrologic conditions, or structural and
28
geotechnical estimates. A future condition also is defined for 2038, but it again is based on
exactly the same data sets as the 2015 condition. All available information on prospective
economic development in the floodplain areas was obtained in 2008 as this study was being
completed. Of the possible projects on the horizon, most were not yet definite, while others that
were definite were not far enough along to identify specific locations and estimate investment
and damage potential. Ultimately, expected future development was not included in any of the
conditions used - existing, base, or future.
B.
Study Area Investment
The Topeka Federal Levee system collectively protects property valued at $2.67 billion, as
summarized in Table 7. The study area includes 6,487 homes and 790 businesses and public
facilities as well as 164 miles of roads and streets (including 28 miles of railroad) and more than
800 crop acres. North Topeka accounts for more than half of total investment (55.1%), while
South Topeka and Oakland combined account for about 36.8%. The other units of the system Waterworks, Auburndale, and the Soldier Creek rural areas - have much smaller property bases
that collectively account for about 8% of total investment.
Table 7. Study Area Investment
WW
AUB
S TOP
OAK
N TOP
SOLD CK
RURAL
Non-residential (businesses and public facilities)
Quantity
1
18
142
89
539
1
Structures
$26,961.1
$11,218.4 $151,326.4
$54,279.2
$250,341.5
$83.7
Contents
(equipment/
inventories)
$35,642.6
$11,028.6 $224,581.2 $151,588.0
$886,698.7
$107.1
Total Value
$62,603.7
$22,247.0 $375,907.6 $205,867.2 $1,137,040.2
$190.8
Residential
# Homes
0
616
80
2,942
2,752
97
Structures
$0.0
$47,711.3
$2,318.2 $186,925.9
$129,664.2 $14,638.0
Contents
(including
autos and
landscaping)
$0.0
$33,397.9
$1,622.7 $130,848.1
$90,764.9 $10,246.6
Total Value
$0.0
$81,109.2
$3,940.9 $317,774.0
$220,429.1 $24,884.6
Roads & Streets (railroads, highways, city streets & county roads)
Miles
0.6
11.2
20.0
45.9
82.9
3.3
Total Value
$1,301.2
$15,824.6
$27,758.8
$53,750.3
$113,967.5
$3,561.6
Agriculture
Cropped Acres
0
0
0
90
15
700
Total Value
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$270.0
$45.0
$2,100.0
Total Value
$63,904.9 $119,180.8 $407,607.3 $577,661.5 $1,471,481.8 $30,737.0
% of total
2.4%
4.5%
15.3%
21.6%
55.1%
1.2%
October 2008 prices; all structure and content values reflect depreciated replacement values
C.
TOTAL
STUDY
AREA
% OF
TOTAL
790
$494,210.3
$495,000.3
$1,803,856.5 67.5%
6,487
$381,257.6
$387,744.6
$648,137.8 24.3%
163.9
$216,164.0 8.1%
805
$2,415.0 0.1%
$2,670,573.3 100.0%
Damage Results
This section summarizes the results of the without-project economic analysis as they pertain to
29
beginning damage points and selected flood events. Table 8 presents the Equivalent Annual
Damages (EAD) expected and Table 9 details the expected engineering performance of the
system. A more detailed analysis and discussion of the without-project condition damages is
presented in Appendix D.
Table 8. Equivalent Annual Damages (Existing Conditions)
Oct 2008 prices, 4.625% interest rate; $1,000s
Levee Unit
NonResidential Roads Ag Emergency Disaster
Lost
Total
% of
Residential
Relief Production
Total
KANSAS RIVER
WATERWORKS
$193.1
$0.0
$0.3 $0.0
$28.5
$0.0
$0.0
$221.8
1.0%
AUBURNDALE
$39.9
$125.7
$9.2 $0.0
$14.2
$14.7
$0.0
$203.7
0.9%
SOUTH TOPEKA/OAKLAND
$2,579.6 $2,786.3 $184.6 $0.1
$506.8 $247.3
$52.9
$6,357.6
27.8%
NORTH TOPEKA
$11,694.8 $2,857.8 $480.8 $0.1
$737.0 $149.3
$111.9 $16,031.7
70.1%
TOTAL KANSAS RIVER
$14,507.3 $5,769.8 $674.9 $0.1 $1,286.5 $411.3
$164.9 $22,814.8
99.8%
SOLDIER CREEK
Urban (North Topeka)
$1,258.4
$202.2
$19.3 $0.0
$324.5
$55.3
$12.3
$1,872.0
Rural
$0.2
$42.3
$1.3 $0.9
$3.6
$2.9
$0.0
$51.1
0.2%
TOTAL SOLDIER CREEK
$1,258.6
$244.5
$20.6 $0.9
$328.0
$58.2
$12.3
$1,923.1
TOTAL
$14,507.5 $5,812.1 $676.1 $1.0 $1,290.1 $414.3
$164.9 $22,865.9 100.0%
Soldier Creek urban damages are for the same area covered by the North Topeka unit and are not counted in the study area total.
Oakland totals reflect combined probabilities of failure for both Oakland and South Topeka. The Oakland totals represent all
damage that would occur in Oakland without regard to the source of the flooding, which can be either the Oakland unit or the South
Topeka unit. South Topeka totals include only damage occurring in South Topeka and do not include damages in Oakland
attributable to the South Topeka unit.
Table 9. Engineering Performance (Existing Conditions)
WW
ANNUAL EXCEEDANCE PROBABILITY
(median)
0.003
AUB
0.003
S TOP
0.004
OAK
0.057
N TOP
SOLD CRK
URBAN
0.024
0.006
Return interval (years)
333
333
250
18
42
167
LONG-TERM RISK
(chance of exceedance during indicated period)
over 10 years
1 in 25
1 in 32
1 in 23
1 in 2
1 in 4
1 in 13
over 25 years
1 in 10
1 in 13
1 in 9
1 in 1.3
1 in 2
1 in 5
over 50 years
1 in 5
1 in 7
1 in 5
1 in 1
1 in 1.4
1 in 3
PERFORMANCE VS. 1% FLOOD
Initial overtopping elevation margin over
nominal 1% flood elevation (feet)
5.9
8.2
6.5
3.7
6.6
1.7
Conditional exceedance probability overtopping or failure
0.072
0.032
0.158
0.971
0.860
0.332
Conditional exceedance probability overtopping only
0.067
0.032
0.054
0.058
0.054
0.332
OTHER FLOOD EVENTS - EXCEEDANCE PROBABILITIES
10.0%
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.165
0.004
0.000
4.0%
0.000
0.000
0.003
0.589
0.180
0.002
2.0%
0.003
0.032
0.031
0.857
0.554
0.094
0.4%
0.331
0.213
0.436
0.995
0.970
0.661
0.2%
0.758
0.644
0.806
1.000
0.998
0.817
Annual exceedance probability is the chance of experiencing any flood event - of whatever magnitude - within any year.
Conditional exceedance probability is the probability that a specified flood event would overtop or breach the levee.
In general, the analysis produces two conclusions regarding engineering performance:
30
(1) Hydraulically, all of the Kansas River units at Topeka are sufficiently high to offer protection
against all but the most extreme events.
(2) Significant geotechnical and structural concerns are compromising the reliability of the three
largest units - North Topeka, Oakland, and South Topeka. There also are significant but lesser
concerns at Waterworks, while Auburndale and Soldier Creek have no identified problem areas.
IX.
Plan Formulation
A.
Planning Constraints
The following planning constraints affect many decisions related to study execution:
•
The study shall be conducted in accordance with the Economic and Environmental
Principles and Guidelines for Water and Related Land Resources Implementation
Studies, as approved by President Ronald Reagan, February 3, 1983 and accepted by the
United States Water Resources Council on February 22, 1983. These guidelines are
contained in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Engineering Regulation (ER) 1105-2100, Policy and Planning, Guidance for Conducting Civil Works Planning Studies.
•
Feasible projects will comply with the principles of Executive Order 11988 which
addresses floodplain management and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act concerning the
protection of wetlands. Project planning must be accomplished to minimize project
effects on floodplains in general, and wetlands and other environmental features.
Mitigation must be considered where applicable
•
Project formulation will adhere to FEMA minimum requirements adopted by the City of
Topeka and Shawnee County regarding the regulatory floodway. These guidelines
require that construction in the base floodplain be accomplished in such a manner as to
limit any resulting increase in the 1.0-percent-chance flood elevation to one foot or less.
•
Project Design alternatives recognize the provisions of Section 404 of the Robert T.
Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act and the Hazard Mitigation Grant
Program administered by FEMA and the Kansas State Division of Emergency
Management.
•
Relationships between the levee units will be maintained. For this feasibility study, the
examination of measures to increase the performance of the system will be guided by an
overarching principle that seeks to achieve a relatively consistent level of performance
throughout the system. This essentially means that the study should avoid
recommending:
o Any measures which would directly or indirectly exacerbate any performance
weaknesses (or relative weaknesses) of another unit.
31
o Any measures that would contribute to increasing the level of performance of one
unit without a commensurate increase or at the expense another unit.
•
Project alternative screening will consider the financial capability of the local sponsor.
Feasibility phase financial constraints play a very significant role in the execution of this
study. Sponsor affordability and associated financial constraints demand that feasibility
analysis, scoping, and planning decisions must first focus on those areas, measures and
solutions which address pressing needs or significant performance weaknesses within the
overall system as these will provide the greatest relative opportunity for reliability
improvements.
•
All other items of the study will be in accordance with the standards of the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers.
B.
Planning Objectives
A primary objective of Corps feasibility studies is to comply with the national objective of water
and related land resources planning. This includes contributing to the National Economic
Development (NED) consistent with protecting the Nation’s environment. Contributions to NED
are increases in the net value of the national output of goods and services, expressed in monetary
units. The NED Plan is that alternative that maximizes net benefits over the period of analysis.
Other planning objectives for the Feasibility Study include:
•
Update and verify data on the reliability of the existing project performance under flood
conditions.
•
Formulate measures/components (to include the “no Federal action” alternative) that
provide each levee unit a complete plan to restore unit reliability to acceptable levels as
needed.
•
Identify the National Economic Development (NED) Plan that maximizes net economic
benefits for each unit.
•
Develop a comprehensive plan that provides for acceptable reliability of the entire
existing system and increases economic flood risk management benefits.
•
Provide a complete final recommended plan for implementation that is technically sound,
economically feasible, and environmentally acceptable.
•
Reduce the potential for loss of life and human suffering caused by flooding within the
project area.
•
Integrate the Environmental Operating Principles into the project plan by minimizing the
32
impact of the proposed project, maintaining or improving the current environmental
conditions, and preserving the cultural and historical resources within the project area.
C.
Development and Screening of Alternatives
The results of the existing conditions analysis and observations and effects from historic and
recent flood events were used to formulate potential engineered solutions aimed at lowering the
risk of flooding for units under study. Often these alternatives needed to address problems with
specific segments or locations within a unit (the problem areas are termed “areas of interest”, or
AOI in this report).
An initial set of alternative measures was developed using experience from other levee system
studies and investigation of current engineering practices. These alternatives were screened and
refined for their application at each AOI. As the process continued, additional alternatives
surfaced and were examined. Alternatives were examined and compared considering the Federal
criteria of completeness, efficiency, effectiveness, and acceptability. Alternatives were closely
examined for their potential to impact the environment. As the alternatives passed through this
evaluation and screening process, the economic analysis of each alternative’s incremental cost
was used as a ranking factor in the final selection. Having passed review for engineering
adequacy, environmental and public acceptability, and other evaluation criteria as described
below, the remaining alternative with the highest net benefits to the national economy was
identified as a component of the overall recommended NED plan.
The development and screening of alternatives involved the consideration of a number of
evaluation factors or criteria. Primary among those factors were the following:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Engineering adequacy of the proposed solutions (effectiveness)
Contribution to planning objectives (related to completeness of solution)
Consistency with planning constraints and authorities
Environmental, cultural, and public acceptability
Early cost indicators (early efficiency indicators for screening purposes)
Floodway conveyance considerations
Hazardous and regulated waste site constraints (where applicable)
Constructability (are construction techniques and quality difficult to attain at reasonable price)
Construction site constraints (given existing features and development)
Engineering Adequacy: The engineering adequacy of alternatives was analyzed and reviewed
during the initial screening process. Any alternatives which could not meet the minimum
technical criteria for the expected flood conditions were eliminated from further review. This is
a key effectiveness criterion and normally must be met. The amount of engineering analysis
necessary to perform the engineering review was generally considerable and is contained in the
Engineering Appendix.
Environmental Acceptability: Environmental acceptability of alternatives was reviewed in
33
concert with appropriate resource agency guidance. Any alternative which had major disruptive
effects on the environment was normally screened out. A typical formulation exercise would
involve adjusting some of the alternative measures so as to minimize any environmental impacts
when such impacts could not reasonably be avoided.
Cultural Acceptability: As the alternatives were developed, the areas likely to be affected by
implementation were reviewed for the presence of any known cultural and historical resources.
Steps were taken during the alternatives screening and refinement process to generally avoid any
impacts to culturally significant sites.
Early Cost Indicators (efficiency): Early approximate cost indicators related to the various
alternatives were used to determine if an alternative was prudent for further examination. As the
evaluation process continued, cost estimates and economics were refined. The detailed cost
estimating and economic analysis normally focused only on those alternatives that remained
viable solutions after early screening criteria were passed.
Floodway Conveyance Considerations: Very early in the plan formulation process, a general
guiding rule was adopted: any measures which negatively impacted the established floodway
conveyance should be avoided. This was deemed essential as in most cases levees lie along both
banks of the river reaches within the study area, and are often located either upstream or
downstream of another unit. This principle is consistent with floodway “no rise” criteria as
promulgated under FEMA regulations. This criterion was maintained during feasibility and the
final alternatives are essentially benign in respect to any adverse floodway impact.
The following sections describe the specific measures considered and the results of the screening
and evaluation process.
D.
Measures Considered for Plan Formulation
Traditional Corps analyses for identification of the NED plan (the plan with the highest net
benefits) involve identifying an array of measures (structural and non-structural) to achieve the
stated objectives and then determining the most cost-effective combination of those measures
that fully addresses the identified problems.
The initial plan formulation concepts which guided early portions of the feasibility study were
based on producing a plan and report which addressed all units within the six levee system. This
approach had its genesis in the abbreviated studies conducted during the reconnaissance phase
which indicated the possibility of system-wide levee raises. While no feasibility level plans were
developed along these lines, it was the original guiding expectation.
The initial broad feasibility evaluations of existing conditions undertaken during the first several
years of this study allowed subsequent formulation efforts more focus. The development of
measures to increase reliability was narrowed to the candidate sites which indicated significant
risk, offered the best opportunity for significant reliability improvements, and had the greatest
34
potential for economic return on investment. These candidates were also reviewed for
compatibility with the basic planning objectives and constraints which emphasized the
desirability of a relatively uniform level of flood risk management across the system.
As feasibility progressed, the development of reliability improvements were thus focused on
those areas of interest (AOI) with relatively low reliability; i.e. areas where low reliability
significantly compromised the project’s original intended level of performance. Engineered
reliability remedies and improvements were developed considering both the improvements to
individual unit performance and the performance of the whole system.
1.0
Non-Structural Measures
Beginning with the Flood Control Act of 1936, the Federal government has led the nation's flood
risk management efforts, and as a result, also led the nation's floodplain management activity.
Historically, structural programs such as levees, floodwalls, channelization, and dam and
reservoir projects played the lead role in preventing flood damages. In more recent years, the
Federal government has endeavored to support nonstructural approaches (such as flood warning
systems, flood-proofing of structures, floodplain management, etc.).
Nonstructural approaches have merit when the site characteristics and the flooding threat are
compatible with the nonstructural capabilities. In the case of the existing Topeka flood risk
management system, nonstructural methods were eliminated early as potential solutions due to:
•
Planning objectives for this study (which address existing structural flood risk management
systems) cannot be met through the use of nonstructural measures.
• The need for large-scale risk reduction within the extensive protected areas is best
accomplished through performance improvements to the existing Topeka structural flood risk
management system.
• The performance of the existing Topeka flood risk management system far exceeds the
normal performance parameters of nonstructural measures.
No opportunity for large-scale application of nonstructural measures is foreseen within this study
other than continuing to effectively manage the floodplain using FEMA NFIP guidelines. It may
be possible to find some limited use for nonstructural measures along the fringe of the protected
area and for the prevention of damages due to localized interior flooding. These potential limited
applications are outside the scope of this study and doe not warrant Federal involvement.
2.0
Flood Fighting Alternative
The flood fight alternative normally requires a stockpile of sandbags to be stored near areas
subject to high underseepage pressures or overtopping. Sandbags are then deployed to strategic
locations and placed (or stacked) in accordance with proven flood fighting techniques. These
stacks of sandbags serve to add mass or height in an attempt to temporarily reinforce the
permanent features already in place. When working with major levee systems, flood fighting is
35
generally best thought of as an aid to manage unpredictable and unforeseen problems during
flood events.
For large levee units where substantial investment is protected, some flood fighting can be
planned and implemented for limited low-risk situations. But, in general, when exposed to
massive flood events, flood fighting measures will often prove unreliable. For the levee units
and problems under examination in this study, flood fighting is generally not an acceptable
planning alternative when compared to engineered solutions. Flood fighting generally will not
prevent underseepage failures when dealing with very high pressures, nor can flood fighting
reliably prevent structural floodwall failures under extreme load conditions.
3.0
Structural Measures
Underseepage Measures
•
Landside Seepage Berm. Constructing a seepage berm of pervious fill to control
underseepage during a flood event is considered an effective and relatively reliable
alternative. Direct construction costs associated with this alternative are typically
moderate. Indirect costs such as extending the right-of-way and conducting subsurface
investigations can add additional costs. If sufficient real estate is not available, structural
demolition and relocating of utilities, residences and businesses will greatly increase the
total cost and logistics problems associated with this alternative.
•
Buried Collector System. A buried collector is constructed using perforated pipe placed
within an excavated trench adjacent to the levee on the landside. Typically, buried
collectors include a drainage pipe or ditch, which collects and removes seep water.
Buried collectors require greater maintenance than underseepage berms but are effective
in areas with restricted construction space.
•
Pressure Relief Wells. This alternative consists of installing a series of pressure relief
wells along the landside toe of the levee. Wells can normally discharge directly to
ground or if needed a header system may serve to transfer seep-water from the wells to a
selected discharge area or to a pump station. Relief wells are a highly effective apparatus
used to control underseepage. However, pressure relief well performance is very
dependent upon the quality of construction, and the long-term maintenance costs
associated with this alternative are greater than installing a buried collector system.
Uplift Measures
•
Structure Abandonment. If a structure is determined to no longer be a necessary
component of the flood risk management system, it can be removed and/or properly
abandoned in place. This should not be confused with the No Action alternative as
36
proper abandonment of a deficient structure removes a potential avenue of levee failure
and contributes to lowering the risk of flooding.
•
Pump Station Operational Change Alternative. In the case of a pump station, it may be
possible to change the operations plan to keep more water in the wet well and thereby
increase the weight of the station and counteract the uplift pressures. Leaving more water
in the well may require changes in the pumps themselves.
•
Heel Extension Alternative. A heel extension is another method of increasing the weight
of a structure to counteract uplift pressures. The area around the structure (pump station
or manhole) is excavated to expose the foundation base, or heel, of the structure. The
heel is extended using additional concrete to increase the weight and size of the structure.
•
Remove and Replace Alternative. The most expensive alternative for correcting an uplift
concern is to remove the existing structure and replace with a new structure designed to
counteract the hydraulic pressures. However, for structures where required factors of
safety cannot be obtained by other alternatives, replacement is the preferred alternative.
Floodwall Sliding Stability Measures
•
Wall Replacement. Replacement of the affected wall sections with new sections
designed to better withstand the sliding forces can be complex and construction intensive,
requiring the provision of temporary flood risk management during construction, and
protection of the integrity of the existing sections not being replaced.
•
Foundation Modification. Foundation modifications may increase the factor of safety
against sliding, but would require excavation of the existing foundation which may place
increased stress on the existing wall during construction. Foundation modifications
under an existing wall are technically complex and the quality of installation can be
difficult to maintain. These factors increase the cost of this alternative comparative to
other available alternatives.
•
Landside Stability Berm. The placement of an earthen stability berm along the landside
of the wall would provide the needed additional stability with minimal impact to the
integrity of the existing wall and foundation. A stability berm typically consists of
compacted soil extending from the wall landward and then tapering to the existing
ground surface. Berm dimensions will depend on the degree of stability required.
Comparison of the stability berm alternative to wall replacement or foundation
modification indicates that a berm is typically more cost effective by orders of magnitude
and can provides the same benefits. However, as the need for stability support increases,
the size of the berm can become excessive, requiring additional easement space and the
provision of large quantities of soil material. For floodwalls exhibiting high degrees of
instability, a stability berm may not be as effective as other alternatives.
37
Pump Station Strength Measures
•
Reinforcement. Interior reinforcement of a pump station can be achieved by installation
of a wall stiffener. A wall stiffener is a steel beam or plate attached to the inside of the
station wall that shortens the effective length of the existing steel reinforcement,
increasing its ability to resist bending.
•
Remove and Replace. The removal and replacement of a pump station with a new
structure designed to withstand hydraulic pressures is a much greater cost than
reinforcement.
Floodwall Foundation Measures
E.
•
Construct a new floodwall on same alignment or landward of the existing wall. A new
floodwall designed and constructed with current standards and methods would provide
the risk management benefits intended by the existing wall. By constructing a new wall
landward of the existing wall, costs of removal of the old wall are minimized. However,
sufficient right-of-way would be required for the new structure. If sufficient right-of-way
and clearances are not available the original wall and foundation would require complete
removal.
•
Earthen fill against landside of existing floodwall, temporary or permanent. Similar to a
stability berm, the placement of earthen fill, essentially the same as earth levee
construction, might help the wall to resist deflection during high flows.
•
Structural modification of the existing floodwall and foundation. Structural
reinforcement to resist wall deflection could be installed.
•
Foundation soil strengthening by jet grouting. Soil strengthening may increase the
capacity of the soil to resist pile movement during high flows.
Screening of Measures
The measures presented in the previous section were examined to address their ability to
adequately address the deficiencies and potential failure modes described earlier in this
document. Those found lacking sufficient validity were screened-out. A preliminary assessment
of the potential environmental impact of each measure was also considered. Environmental
impacts of measures carried forward for additional analysis are discussed more fully in the
attached Environmental Assessment.
Table 10 lists the initial array of measures for each AOI, the results of the screening review, and
indicates whether the measure was carried forward for more detailed analysis. The rest of this
section presents more detailed discussions of the screening.
38
1.0
North Topeka Unit
Geotechnical Concerns
Geotechnical analysis of the North Topeka Unit revealed two areas of underseepage risk between
approximately stations 165+00 to 189+00 and stations 246+00 to 250+00.
The area from station 165+00 to 189+00 has a sufficient amount of landward open space to
construct an underseepage berm. A berm in this location would need to be seven feet thick at the
levee toe, sloping down to three feet thick at a distance of 220 feet landward of the levee. This
will require the acquisition of 122,250 cubic yards of fill material and temporary easements for
borrow excavation and construction activities. Borrow source locations and potential impacts
are discussed in the next section.
A relief well system installed in this same area would require a series of thirty-two wells
installed at an average spacing of 75 feet. Installation of a relief well system would not require
the impacts caused by borrow site excavation and would likely require less easement acquisition.
However, relief wells would require expanded future operation and maintenance activities for
periodic cleaning and testing, and eventual replacement.
Neither measure at this location would create an apparent environmental impact. Both the
underseepage berm and relief well measures at this location were carried forward for additional
study at this site.
The area from station 246+00 to 250+00 is constrained by existing railroad tracks and does not
provide enough area to construct a seepage berm without substantial and expensive relocations.
Furthermore, uplift pressures are not high enough to allow ground discharge through a buried
collector system or relief wells.
A pumped relief well and collector system would address the underseepage concern in this area.
Specifically, seven evenly spaced relief wells connected to a header are needed, with temporary
or permanent pumping during high flow events. Temporary pumping does create an added
requirement on the local sponsor during flood fighting and will increase the cost of operation. A
permanent pump station would eliminate the potential logistical issues of providing a temporary
pump during a flood event, but would also substantially increase construction and future
operation and maintenance costs.
The pumped well system measure would not be expected to create an environmental impact and
was carried forward for additional consideration at this site
39
Structural Concerns: Uplift
Structural analysis identified uplift concerns at the Fairchild Pump Station (station 364+40). The
Fairchild Pump Station is no longer used or maintained as an active part of the levee system.
Whereas the probability of failure at this location would be eliminated by installation of a heel
extension or replacement of the structure, the same increase in project reliability could be gained
by removal of the station without the loss of project benefits. The above ground structure would
be removed and the debris properly hauled away and disposed of in a licensed commercial
landfill The below ground portion of the structure, and any pipes running through the levee,
would be abandoned by filling with grout, cement, or other suitable material, and then buried in
place. This would also eliminate the need for future operation and maintenance costs.
Removal of the pump station creates no apparent environmental impact and was carried forward
as the preferred measure at this site.
2.0
Oakland Unit
Geotechnical Concerns
Geotechnical analysis of the Oakland Unit identified one area prone to underseepage, from
station 64+00 to station 80+00. Sufficient open land is available adjacent to the levee at this
location to construct an underseepage berm six and one-half feet thick at the levee toe sloping to
three feet thick at a distance of 240 feet landward of the levee. This installation would require
84,500 cubic yards of material and associated material borrow areas and easements.
A relief well system in this same reach would require the installation of 22 wells at an average
spacing of 75 feet. Installation of a relief well system would not require the impacts caused by
borrow site excavation and would likely require less construction easement acquisition.
This area of the Oakland Unit is adjacent to the Oakland Wastewater Treatment Plant and is
already clear of vegetation or other environmental habitat. Both measures were carried forward
for additional detailed evaluation.
Structural Concerns: Floodwall Stability
Structural analysis found that the concrete floodwall section of the Oakland Unit tieback on
Shunganunga Creek is at risk of a sliding failure when loaded with water near the top of the wall.
Potential weaknesses were found the entire length of the wall from Station 485+86 to 491+01. A
landside stability berm approximately 2 feet thick, extending 5 feet landward, and then sloping at
a 1:3 slope will address the instability. Approximately 388 cubic yards of material would be
required to construct this berm. The floodwall is adjacent to a developed industrial area with
little or nor environmental features to be impacted. The stability berm measure was carried
forward for additional evaluation.
41
Structural Concerns: Uplift
Structural analysis identified uplift concerns at the East Oakland Pump Station at station 220+00
and one utility manhole at station 75+50. Sufficient area is available around each structure for
the installation of a heel extension, which will improve the necessary factors of safety to an
acceptable value. The area around the pump station contains no habitat features that may be
impacted. This measure was carried forward for additional evaluation.
3.0
South Topeka Unit
Geotechnical Concerns: Underseepage
Geotechnical analysis of the south Topeka unit identified one area of underseepage concern,
from station 22+00 to station 48+00.
Sufficient undeveloped land is available adjacent to the levee to construct an underseepage berm
five feet thick at the levee toe sloping to three feet thick at a distance of 100 feet landward. This
installation would require 48,150 cubic yards of material and associated material borrow areas
and easements. Approximately 7.5 acres of existing trees and shrubs would be removed to
allow for access and construction of the berm. Requirements for establishing offsetting habitat
to address this environmental loss are discussed in the Environmental Assessment.
A relief well system in this reach would require the installation of 35 wells at an average spacing
of 75 feet. Installation of a relief well system would not require the removal of existing trees or
the impacts caused by borrow site excavation, and would likely require less construction
easement acquisition. However, relief wells would require additional future expenditures for
maintenance, repair, and eventual replacement.
Both measures were carried forward for additional detailed evaluation.
Structural Concerns: Uplift on Utility Manholes
Structural analysis identified uplift concerns with several utility manholes on the landside of the
levee. Heel extensions will be sufficient to achieve the required uplift factor of safety of the
utility manholes adjacent to the South Topeka unit. This measure does not cause an apparent
environmental impact and was carried forward for additional evaluation.
Structural Concerns: Strength
The Kansas Avenue Pump Station was analyzed and an interior foundation wall was found
deficient for meeting the required strength factor of safety. A wall stiffener installed inside the
Kansas Avenue Pump Station will redistribute the pressure loads and allow the structure to
achieve the required factor of safety for structural strength without the added expense of removal
and replacement of the existing structure. Work will take place inside the existing structure,
42
causing no environmental impacts. This measure was carried forward for additional evaluation.
Geotechnical Concerns: Floodwall Foundation
A risk and reliability analysis of the South Topeka floodwall axial pile capacity was conducted
using the original construction drawings, on-site inspections, assumptions based on typical
1930’s construction methods from other similar facilities studied by the Kansas City District, and
research on the design limitations of this type of construction. The axial pile capacity of the
foundation of the South Topeka floodwall for wall type B between station 83+00 and 87+00 was
found not to meet the required minimum factor of safety for the extreme loading condition of
water to the top of the wall. Pile overloading could result in excessive floodwall deflections,
water infiltration through opened wall joints, scour around the openings, and rapid wall failure.
A lateral deformation analysis, however, was not performed due to the limited knowledge of the
piles and the foundation conditions.
There is very little foreshore on the riverside of the floodwall, preventing any improvement
measures from being installed on that side. On the landside, several large operating industrial
facilities are located along the entire length of the floodwall, some as close as 40 feet. The area
between the existing floodwall and these facilities is congested with underground and overhead
utilities, two flood pump stations and associated collector wells, several railroad spurs used by
the industrial facilities, and other assorted obstacles. These physical site characteristics and the
potential cost and complexity of relocations place severe limitations on the practicality and
feasibility of constructing an additional floodwall or earthen levee landward of the existing wall.
Temporarily placing earthen fill against the landside of the floodwall as flood waters rise, and
removing it when high water recedes, is essentially a time intensive flood fighting measure with
little or no long-term reliability impact and could be excessively costly over the course of several
flood events. Whereas the placement of fill material could counteract the pressures exerted on
the wall by high flood waters, if the temporary fill material is not removed coincident with the
receding of high water, the weight of the fill could excessively stress the existing wall and
foundation and may cause the wall damage similar to that which it is attempting to prevent.
Piles could be added to improve the identified reliability concern. However, doing so would be
very costly due to the new piles and the required stem and footing modifications to tie those piles
into the wall. Additionally, the existing, aging timber piles would still need to be relied on while
their remaining useful life is in question.
Jet grouting or pressure grouting is used in a variety of construction applications to modify soil
properties, but it is not considered a long-term viable solution for floodwall strengthening.
Within the Kansas City District, jet grouting was attempted on some levee features after the 1993
flood with very limited success. Due to the limited capacity of the existing soils, the entire
floodwall foundation (approx. 1,900 feet) would require grout injection. Ensuring the quality of
grout installation sufficient to stabilize the foundation soils over the full distance of the wall
would be difficult and controlling injection pressures to simultaneously achieve sufficient
43
grouting without damaging existing adjacent utilities is problematic. Furthermore, installation
would be complicated and construction quality difficult to maintain with the existing wall
remaining in place.
Due to technical infeasibility and low confidence in the long-term results, wall and foundation
modification measures were eliminated from further consideration.
A new floodwall on the existing alignment would accommodate the physical limitations of the
work site and would include a higher capacity pile foundation system and stronger structural
elements consistent with current construction criteria. New floodwall installation would include
such factors as excavation, raw materials transport, and general construction activity that can
disrupt activities on the adjacent properties, but would overcome space limitations of the area
and may potentially avoid many of the utility relocations and extra excavation needs of other
alternatives. However, the other factors listed previously remain with the addition that
temporary flood risk management capability must be maintained during demolition of the
existing wall. This additional factor could be minimized by maintaining a separation of no more
than three wall sections between demolition activities and new construction activities.
Additionally, an earthen work platform would need to be constructed on the riverside of the
existing wall to allow movement of construction equipment.
No environmental habitat would be disturbed by any of the discussed floodwall stability
measures. Replacing the existing floodwall with a new wall was carried forward for additional
detailed evaluation.
4.0 Waterworks Unit
Structural Concerns: Floodwall Stability
Structural analysis found that some sections of the concrete floodwall portion of the Waterworks
Unit are at risk of a sliding failure when loaded with water near the top of the wall. Potential
weaknesses were found from Station 0+78 to 7+00 and station 10+00 to 16+50. Sufficient area
is available behind the floodwall to construct a stability berm two feet high extending from the
wall five feet and then tapering at a one on three slope to the existing ground surface.
Comparison of this measure to wall replacement or foundation modification indicates that a
berm is more cost effective by orders of magnitude; therefore it was retained for further analysis.
Approximately 958 cubic yards of material would be required to construct this berm. This
measure was carried forward for additional analysis.
F.
Borrow Areas
Borrow material sources are required for underseepage and stability berm construction in three
units of the Topeka Levee system. Two potential borrow sites have been chosen, each on the
riverside of the levee and in close proximity to the areas of work to limit the distance that
material must be hauled. Each site has been reviewed for environmental and cultural resources.
44
Easements and rights-of-way for entrance and removal of material from each site will be
obtained by the non-Federal sponsor during the Pre-Construction Engineering and Design Phase
(PED).
The sites are currently in agricultural production. As possible, steps will be taken to allow these
areas to return to agricultural use after borrow operations have ceased. The top one foot of
topsoil will be removed, stockpiled, and returned to the site after completion of excavation.
Excavation depths in agricultural areas will be kept to a minimum to reduce impacts to the
drainage of fields. Encroachment into adjacent trees and environmental habitat areas is
prevented by the implementation of a minimum separation of 50 feet, although greater distances
are applied in this preliminary plan where allowable.
Preliminary layouts of borrow cells were prepared to determine the availability of the required
quantities of material within the confines of each site and in accordance with the borrow area
guidelines contained in EM 1110-2-1913, “Design and Construction of Levees”. The
calculations used to determine borrow cell sizes, excavation depths, and excavation quantities are
preliminary and subject to change. Borings and surveys will be conducted early in PED to
ensure adequate depth of suitable material and ensure that the proposed excavations will not
adversely affect existing underseepage conditions, foreshore stability, or river bank stability.
To account for shrinkage of material during compaction and losses during excavation and
hauling, all material quantities for the planned levee features are increased by 25%. Table 11
provides the quantities for each feature and the corresponding quantity of borrow needed.
Table 11. Borrow Quantities Required
Unit
South Topeka
Waterworks
North Topeka
Oakland
Oakland
Feature
Underseepage Berm
Stability Berm
Underseepage Berm
Underseepage Berm
Stability Berm
Fill Quantity (cy)
38,520
766
97,800
67,600
310
Borrow Quantity (cy)
48,150
958
122,250
84,500
388
204,996
256,246
Total
South Topeka Borrow Site
The South Topeka Borrow Site is located on the riverside of the Auburndale and South Topeka
Levee Units. This site will be used to provide borrow material for the South Topeka
underseepage berm, the Waterworks floodwall stability berm, and the North Topeka
underseepage berm on the opposite side of the Kansas River.
A cell measuring 1000 ft by 400 ft can provide an estimated 59,259 cubic yards of fill material
when excavated to a depth of four (4.0) feet. At these dimensions, three cells are required. The
cell layout maintains a 100 foot separation between pits for the movement of equipment and to
maintain foreshore stability. The preliminary plan utilizes a minimum 200 foot buffer between
45
the borrow cells and adjacent treed areas although this could be reduced to increase borrow
efficiency and minimize overall impact to the property. All cells are located over 500 feet from
the existing levee and at least 300 feet from the Kansas River. These distances should prevent
adverse underseepage impacts and to maintain bank stabilization.
Oakland Borrow Site
The Oakland Borrow Site is located on the riverside of the Oakland Unit, between levee stations
100+00 and 110+00. This site will be used to provide material for the underseepage and stability
berms in the Oakland Unit.
A cell measuring 1400 ft by 300 ft can provide 46,667 cubic yards of fill material when
excavated to a depth of three (3.0) feet. At these dimensions, a total of 2 cells are required. The
cell layout maintains a 100 foot separation between cells for the movement of equipment and
foreshore stability and provides a 50 foot buffer from adjacent treed areas. All cells are located
over 100 feet from the existing levee and more than 400 feet from the Kansas River.
Effect of Relief Well Alternatives on Borrow Needs
Alternatives utilizing relief wells instead of underseepage berms have also been formulated. If
relief wells prove to be economical and are selected as the preferred alternative, the need for
borrow material will be greatly reduced. Borrow material would only be required for the
Waterworks and Oakland unit stability berms, in the quantities detailed above. This would
significantly decrease the impacts to the designated borrow areas in those units. The
Waterworks stability berm could be supplied by a single borrow cell 175 ft. by 150 ft. by 1 ft.
deep. The Oakland stability berm could be supplied by a single borrow cell 105 ft. by 100 ft. by
1 ft. deep.
Alternatives to Land Based Borrow
Several sand dredging and excavation companies operate in the Topeka area and may be able to
provide material without disturbance to existing lands and property owners. This could possibly
provide a cost savings and minimize the environmental impact of borrow operations. There is
concern that these operators may not be able to provide the quantities necessary in addition to
satisfying their existing commercial demands. Furthermore, conditions on the Kansas River
have recently caused the Corps of Engineers to restrict the regulatory permits of those operators
dredging from the river. The future possibility of sand dredging in the river is unknown. The
availability of these alternative sources will be reevaluated nearer to the time of construction.
G.
Initial Plan Formulation and Screening Results
1.0
No Federal Action Alternative
For each AOI, the No Federal Action alternative was considered. When examining the No
46
Federal Action alternative, it is necessary to project what course of action local entities may take
given the lack of Federal involvement. It is possible that some of the recommended measures
may be undertaken by the local sponsors. These local initiatives are likely to be focused on the
underseepage measures which are the least costly of the recommendations offered herein.
However, the major requirements associated with the South Topeka floodwall are just as likely
not to be accomplished under a local initiative. This would mean significant long-term risk
remaining for at least one of the units analyzed in this report.
The No Federal Action alternative does nothing to alleviate risks to public health and safety.
While some local emergency preparedness plans can be updated and general awareness of the
risks can be increased, this could be considered an inappropriate small scale response to
significant life and safety risks.
The economic implications of the No Federal Action alternative are broadly negative. The
investment at risk within each unit is so large that No Federal Action will subject the study area
to the possibility of an overall long-term adverse impact on the local economy, and dislocations
of industry may even result. In the short term, with an absence of flooding, the current trends inplace for the local economy, tax base, population, and employment may remain intact. However,
if major flooding occurred and one or more of the levee units failed, the long term effects are
likely to include: diminished economic stability, business interruptions that could jeopardize
workers jobs and wages, potential losses in population and employment, and reductions in the
tax base (given net movement out of the protected areas) and generally diminished property
values.
Levee failure(s) would halt or at least significantly impede the nationwide movement of goods
by rail, and major interstate highways could also shut down. During any such failure, it is also
expected that production centers, wholesale distribution, and containerized shipping centers
would close. Following the flood, subsequent restoration periods could be months or years
depending on the damage involved.
The No Federal Action alternative also raises the possibility of permanent loss of local
manufacturing employment through industrial relocation to developing countries. Certain
industries may see moving outside the United States as a more viable option in lieu of industrial
re-investment and rebuilding after any widespread flood damage. Were this to occur, it could
severely degrade the industrial base of the metropolitan area for decades.
The No Federal Action alternative results in no changes to the existing environment in and
around the levee units unless catastrophic levee failure occurs. Levee failure at specific locations
or across the system could result in direct and indirect impacts through inundation of habitat of
terrestrial populations and through release of contaminants to the river systems or floodplain
environment. Direct impacts during flood events would be the displacement of mobile
organisms and the loss of organisms unable to escape inundated areas. Direct and indirect
impacts could also result from the introduction of contaminants currently controlled or contained
by businesses and industries landward of the levee system. Levee failure and inundation of
47
stored chemicals, and the variety of chemicals released within the protected community, would
allow introduction of these contaminants into the Kansas River impacting water quality and
contaminant loading of the rivers during these events. Potential impact to aquatic populations
(fish and benthic communities) from the degradation of water quality and contaminant loading
would result from chemical release during flood events. Subsidence of flood waters could also
result in the introduction or redistribution of chemical contaminants across the foreshore
floodplain and impact terrestrial communities (plants and animals) utilizing the foreshore habitat.
Impacts from the No Federal Action alternative could range from no significant impact under
non-flood events, to minor to significant impact depending on location of levee failure and the
resulting duration of inundation.
2.0
Structural Alternatives
Those measures identified in Table 10 as being carried forward for further analysis were labeled
and combined into alternative plans for each levee unit. In some cases only one measure was
carried forward for a particular area of interest. Measures within a unit that are consistent among
different alternative plans were combined for simplicity. Measures from the same area of
interest cannot be combined. The implementation of corrective measures at each area of interest
was evaluated for its impact on the overall system reliability. It was determined that each
alternative plan must include a measure from each area of interest in order to provide a complete
plan for obtaining the desired overall system reliability.
H.
Detailed Plan Formulation – Final Array of Plans
1.0
No Federal Action
No additional flood risk management would be provided under the “No Action” Alternative.
Without modification to the existing flood risk management system, the study area would
continue to be at risk from large flooding events and the affected community would be faced
with continued economic development concerns. The problem would worsen with time if no
action is taken because flood-insurance rates could rise and prevent new development and may
force existing development out of the study area.
2.0
Structural Plans
The structural plans consist of reliability improvements to each unit in the system. These plans
are confined to modification or replacement of existing unit features on the existing unit
alignment. Two alternative plans each have been prepared for the North Topeka, South Topeka,
and Oakland Units, and one plan for the Waterworks Unit. Each plan includes a measure for
addressing the reliability concern at each area of interest. Multiple plans for the same unit differ
only in their treatment of underseepage concerns (berms versus relief wells).
48
I.
Economic Analysis and Screening of Plans
The economic analysis identifies the extent of the economic impact from flooding with the
existing project and, on a comparable basis, evaluates the range of plans to increase project
performance considered in the study. The analysis first requires a risk-based analysis of the
flood problem under the existing condition (existing levees and floodwalls). The future without
project condition is then determined, and finally a risk-based evaluation in terms of benefits,
costs, and performance of the various alternatives under the with-project condition is completed.
The analysis encompasses all flood-prone properties within the study area.
Screening-level costs were prepared by cost engineering staff for each of the seven alternatives
and are summarized in Table 12. Discussion of the screening results for each unit can be found
in Appendix D. Economic performance results for each of the alternatives screened are shown in
Table 13. Screening costs were completed in 2006 based on October 2005 prices. Only the
NED plan elements were subsequently updated. Therefore, the data shown in Tables 12 and 13
are in October 2005 prices.
Table 12. Screening Costs Summary
October 2005 prices; 4.875% interest rate; 50 year period of analysis; $1,000s
ITEM
PED
LERRD
CONSTR
S&A
TOTAL
FIRST
COST
$3.7
$1.5
$37.1
$2.4
$44.7
$81.7
$1,001.6
$0.5
$849.0
$27.5
$0.0
$457.5
$10,015.7
$5.5
$53.1
$650.0
$0.4
$39.0
$1,122.9
$0.0
$876.5
$390.3
$10,868.9
$115.6
$1,001.6
$0.5
$0.0
$27.5
$0.0
$39.0
$1,156.7
IDC
O&M
TOTAL
ANN.
COSTS
$2.6
$0.0
$2.5
$1,441.3
$11,694.8
$6.4
$82.9
$672.4
$0.4
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$81.9
$664.4
$0.4
$25.3
$728.8
$454.6
$13,597.0
$26.1
$781.8
$0.0
$0.0
$25.8
$772.5
$1,155.6
$10,015.7
$5.5
$75.0
$650.0
$0.4
$1,346.2
$11,694.8
$6.4
$77.4
$672.4
$0.4
$51.0
$0.0
$0.0
$127.5
$664.4
$0.4
$0.0
$27.5
$390.3
$11,567.1
$25.3
$750.7
$454.6
$13,502.0
$26.1
$776.4
$0.0
$51.0
$25.8
$818.1
$94.2
$19.0
$215.3
$0.0
$942.3
$189.9
$61.2
$12.3
$1,313.1
$221.2
$75.5
$12.7
$0.0
$0.0
$74.6
$12.6
$2.0
$14.8
$19.6
$1.3
$37.6
$2.2
$0.0
$2.1
$1.1
$116.3
$0.0
$230.2
$11.3
$1,163.2
$0.7
$75.5
$13.2
$1,585.1
$0.8
$91.1
$0.0
$0.0
$0.8
$90.1
$73.4
$19.0
$0.0
$0.0
$733.8
$189.9
$47.6
$12.3
$854.8
$221.2
$49.1
$12.7
$31.3
$0.0
$79.9
$12.6
$2.0
$14.8
$19.6
$1.3
$37.6
$2.2
$0.0
$2.1
$1.1
$95.5
$0.0
$14.8
$11.3
$954.6
$0.7
$62.0
$13.2
$1,126.8
$0.8
$64.8
$0.0
$31.3
$0.8
$95.3
WATERWORKS ALT 1
Stability berm
SOUTH TOPEKA ALT 1
Underseepage berm
Floodwall replacement
Kansas Avenue pump plant
wall stiffener
Misc. heel extensions
Total
SOUTH TOPEKA ALT 2
Relief wells
Floodwall replacement
Kansas Avenue pump plant
wall stiffener
Total
OAKLAND ALT 1
Underseepage berm
East Oakland pump station
heel extension
Shunganunga tieback
stability berm
Total
OAKLAND ALT 2
Relief wells
East Oakland pump station
heel extension
Shunganunga tieback
stability berm
Total
49
Table 12. Screening Costs Summary (Cont.)
NORTH TOP ALT 1
Underseepage berm (site
$153.5
$181.2
$1,534.5
$99.6
$1,968.8
$113.2
$0.0
$111.8
Relief wells & collector
system (site 2)
Fairchild pump station
abandonment
$39.8
$0.0
$398.1
$25.8
$463.7
$26.7
$10.7
$37.0
$4.0
$0.0
$40.2
$2.6
$46.8
$2.7
$0.0
$2.7
$197.3
$181.2
$1,972.8
$128.0
$2,479.3
$142.6
$10.7
$151.6
$105.8
$39.8
$110.3
$0.0
$1,057.6
$398.1
$68.6
$25.8
$1,342.3
$463.7
$77.2
$26.7
$46.7
$10.7
$122.9
$37.0
$4.0
$0.0
$40.2
$2.6
$46.8
$2.7
$0.0
$2.7
1)
Total
NORTH TOP ALT 2
Relief wells (site 1)
Relief wells & collector
system (site 2)
Fairchild pump station
abandonment
$149.6
$110.3
$1,495.8
$97.1
$106.5
$57.4
$1,852.8
$162.6
Total
Interest During Construction (IDC) assumes project schedule of: PED-Oct 2008 to Sept 2011; LERRD-Oct 2011 to Jun 2012; Construction-Jul
2012 to Apr 2014.
Total first costs = PED + LERRD + construction + S&A
Annual costs = ((Total first costs + IDC) X interest & amortization factor of 0.053722) + O&M
Annual O&M costs include only additional or net costs over and above comparable existing costs.
Table 13. Screening Alternatives - Benefits & Costs Summary
October 2005 prices; 50 year period of analysis; 4.875% interest rate
Unit
Alternative
WW
Alt 1
EAD
South
Top
SOUTH TOPEKA
EAD
Alt 1
Oakland
OAKLAND
Alt 1
Alt 2
NORTH TOPEKA
Alt 1
Alt 2
$2,766.3
$1,834.0
$4,563.8
$2,005.3
$14,228.1
$4,110.1
Alt 2
DAMAGES & BENEFITS
EAD without project
EAD residual
Residual as % of
without project
EAD reduction
Mean
Probabilistic estimates*
0.75
0.5
0.25
Annual benefits –
screening level
$198.4
$193.5
$957.3
$775.3
$1,809.0
$1,058.7
97.5%
81.0%
58.5%
66.3%
43.9%
28.9%
$4.9
$182.0
$750.3
$932.3
$2,558.5
$10,118.0
$3.9
$4.6
$6.1
$81.6
$139.1
$270.6
$395.2
$612.2
$1,164.0
$476.8
$751.3
$1,434.6
$1,516.9
$2,379.9
$3,362.3
$5,829.4
$9,070.0
$13,635.0
$4.9
$182.0
$750.3
$932.3
$2,558.5
$10,118.0
$44.7
--
COSTS
First costs
Annual costs –
screening level
--
$13,597.0
$13,502.0
$1,585.1
$1,126.8
$2,479.3
$1,852.8
$2.5
--$772.5
$818.1
$90.1
$95.3
$151.6
$162.6
1.9
1.2
1.1
28.4
26.8
66.8
62.2
$2.4
$159.8
$114.2 $2,468.4 $2,463.1
$9,966.5
$9,955.4
* Probabilistic EAD reduction shows the minimum level of benefits expected at the indicated probability, resulting in a range of possible
benefit values rather than a single value. For example, North Topeka benefits, expressed as a mean value, equal $10,118.0, but there is 75%
confidence that benefits are at least $5,829.4 and 25% confidence that they exceed $13,635.0.
Alternatives within each reach have identical benefits since they accomplish the same project purposes. The economic performance of the
alternatives differs only in costs.
Screening BCR data will not match the BCR data for the selected plan in Table D-26. This table includes a portion of Oakland damages and
damages reduced that is double-counted in both Oakland and South Topeka benefits for screening purposes. For the NED plan benefits in Table
D-26, the Oakland benefits are accounted incrementally and the double-counting is eliminated. The NED plan benefits also include additional
categories of benefits not considered in the screening analysis.
BENEFIT-COST RATIO
NET BENEFITS
Annual costs for operations and maintenance (O&M) are included only for the alternatives that
produce additional O&M costs over and above current without-project levels. The three
alternatives with net additional O&M costs are the alternatives that include relief wells. For
50
these alternatives, the life-cycle cost analysis for each alternative assumes that each pump will
require servicing every four years at $5,000 per pump. There are 22 wells for the Oakland relief
wells alternative, 35 for South Topeka, and 38 for North Topeka. Complete replacement of the
wells is assumed after 40 years at a cost equal to the current construction cost plus 17% to
account for E&D and S&A.
In addition to the relief wells, the North Topeka alternative also includes underground collector
systems and a temporary pumping component. O&M costs for the collector systems assume that
flushing and cleaning would be required every 25 years and would cost $10,900 in each instance.
This total includes three days of labor by a two-man crew as well as equipment costs. The
temporary pumping plan would be needed when the water surface elevation comes within three
feet of top of levee, which would require an event of about a 0.5% magnitude. It is assumed that
the pumping capability will be needed three times over the 50-year period of analysis. Each
event would require one pump rental for one week costing $700, which includes installation, use,
removal and return.
Results of the Risk-Based Screening
Waterworks – Only one alternative was carried forward from initial screening. This alternative
maximizes the net benefits over the No Action alternative and is recommended as the NED Plan.
South Topeka – Two alternatives were carried forward from the initial screening. Alternative 1
maximizes the net benefits and is recommended as the NED Plan.
Oakland – Two alternatives were carried forward from the initial screening. Alternative 1
North Topeka – Two alternative were carried forward from the initial screening. Alternative 1
The combination of the individual unit NED plans will constitute the overall NED plan for the
Topeka levee system.
J.
Environmental Considerations
1.0
No Federal Action
In the absence of any Federal action addressing levee improvements, a high water event should
cause failure of the levee resulting in the release of a variety of industrial chemicals and
substantially adversely impact the natural and human environment.
2.0
Structural Alternatives
The reliability measures proposed will impact a small amount of existing riparian wildlife
51
habitat. Specifically, the installation of the South Topeka underseepage berm will require the
removal of seven and one-half acres of trees. These impacts will be mitigated on available
riparian area riverward of the North Topeka levee between stations 165+00 and 184+00. A
detailed description of proposed mitigation efforts is found in the attached Environmental
Assessment. The North Topeka underseepage berm and the proposed borrow areas will impact
agricultural properties that are already cleared for crop use. The remaining measures will have
no impact on environmental resources.
K.
Hydraulic and Floodplain Considerations
Implementation of the proposed reliability measures will not change the height of the levee nor
otherwise impact the floodway conveyance. Water surface profiles will not be changed from the
current existing condition.
L.
HTRW Considerations
As presented previously in the discussion of existing conditions, an HTRW site assessment of
the study area was conducted. All proposed plans will stay within the previously assessed
corridor, precluding the need for additional study. Borrow areas have been reviewed and
selected to avoid impacting former solid waste dumping sites. Proposed work in the South
Topeka floodwall area will be reviewed during the project design phase to determine the
potential for encountering contaminated groundwater during construction.
M.
Engineering Considerations
There are no engineering features associated with the No Action plan. The proposed structural
plans have primarily the same engineering characteristics with only minor variations. Each plan
addresses the same reliability risks with a similar level of complexity. There are no special or
unique construction methods required by any of the plans. The only difference of note is the
added future operation and maintenance procedures required by the relief well alternatives.
N.
Plan Selection
Based upon consideration of all pertinent factors, Alternative 1 was selected as the recommended
plan for implementation in each levee unit. For each unit, Alternative 1 is the NED plan,
meeting the planning objectives and the National Economic objectives of maximizing net project
benefits while providing the lowest cost. The combination of each individual unit NED plan is
selected and recommended as the NED plan for the overall Topeka levee system.
Implementation of the project will improve the reliability of the system to provide flood risk
management benefits to the local community. Negative impacts from the project would be
minimal. Some disruption during construction could be expected, affecting traffic and
agricultural activities. No relocation of homes or businesses is required.
52
The evaluation results show strong economic justification for the project in the Topeka areas.
The existing project would be improved to provide greater than 90% reliability against damages
from the base flood.
Plans Considered and Eliminated
Other combinations of reliability improvements were considered and eliminated since they
produce lower levels of net benefits over the period of analysis. The “No Action” alternative
would not resolve the continuing risk to which the area is subject. The no action plan would
have detrimental long term effects to the business and home owners in the area and to the
economy of the local community.
X.
Description of the Selected Plan
The NED Plan consists of a combination of remedial measures and improvements for multiple
sites as summarized in the descriptions below. The NED plan essentially grows from an
assembly of the recommended alternatives from each of the four levee units addressed in the
Feasibility Report. If examined on a unit by unit basis, each unit's recommendations are also the
NED measures for the unit. The NED Plan assembles these individual recommendations into one
complete set of recommendations (one plan). The economic analysis of the NED plan shows that
it is economically viable and furthers national economic development in manner consistent with
Corps of Engineers economic regulations and Administration economic polices.
Plate 1, located at the end of this report, provides a map of the Topeka levees system showing the
location of the sites included in the Recommended Plan for this Feasibility Report
A.
Recommended Plan - Work Components
Major components of the Recommended Plan are discussed in the following paragraphs.
North Topeka Unit
Station 165+00 to 189+00 (Plate 2): Recommended Plan provides for controlling underseepage
at the interior toe of the existing levee by installing an underseepage control berm 220 feet wide,
seven feet thick at the levee toe, and sloping to three feet thick at the end of the berm. This will
require the acquisition of 122,250 cubic yards of fill material and temporary easements for
borrow excavation and construction activities.
Station 246+00 to 250+00 (Plate 9): Recommended Plan provides for controlling underseepage
at the interior toe of the existing levee by installing a series of six stainless steel pressure relief
wells located along the thin blanket zone from station 246+00 to station 250+00. Adequate
pressure control at this site requires removal of seep-water through below grade header piping.
This header piping discharges into a cast-in-place concrete pump pit which collects the seep
water and then allows pumping to discharge the seep water to the river in a controlled manner.
53
Station 364+60 (Plate 10): Recommended plan provides for controlling uplift at the Fairchild
Pump Station by proper in-place abandonment of the structure. The above-grade structure will
be removed and properly disposed of while the below-grade structure and outlet lines will be
filled with flowable fill or other suitable material and buried in-place.
Station 165+00 to 184+00 (Plate 13): An area of approximately 13 acres on the riverside of the
North Topeka Levee was identified as a potential Mitigation Area for planting of riparian habitat
to offset losses caused by construction of features in the South Topeka Unit (discussed below).
The Mitigation area is currently cleared of trees and shrubs and used for agriculture. The
property is adjacent to existing riverward riparian habitat. Details of the proposed plantings are
included in the attached Environmental Assessment.
South Topeka Unit
Station 22+00 to 48+00 (Plate 4): Recommended Plan provides for controlling underseepage at
the interior toe of the existing levee by installing an underseepage control berm 100 feet wide,
five feet thick at the levee toe, and sloping to three feet thick at the end of the berm. This will
require 48,150 cubic yards of material and temporary easements for borrow excavation and
construction activities. The removal of 7.5 acres of trees and shrubs will be required. Planting
of additional habitat to offset these losses is proposed adjacent to the North Topeka levee as
discussed previously.
Kansas Avenue Pump Station (Plate 3): Recommended Plan provides for increasing the strength
factor of safety by installation of a wall stiffener on the interior foundation of the pump station.
Manholes (Plates 3 and 4): Recommended Plan provides for increasing the uplift factor of safety
of several manholes by installation of heel extensions.
Floodwall (Plate 3): Recommended Plan provides for construction of a new concrete wall on
concrete foundation piles following the existing wall alignment to the same length and height
dimensions. Approximately 3,685 cubic yards of concrete will be needed to construct the new
wall. The following construction sequence is recommended:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Stockpile sufficient fill material (approximately 5,000 CY) on site or within easy access
for emergency closure in the event of a flood event during construction.
Remove one monolith section (~84ft) to allow ease of riverside access. This monolith
will be rebuilt at the completion of the project.
Construct riverside construction and haul road to serve as working platform.
Remove three additional floodwall monoliths.
Drive foundation piles, form and place the two monolith pile caps.
The following five sequential construction steps will be repeated until the length of the
wall has been replaced.
54
1. Construct floodwall stem (completing monolith)
2. Remove next floodwall monolith. (No more than four monoliths will be open at
any one time, one for construction access and three for separation between
existing wall removal and new wall construction).
3. Drive pile foundation system. (There is always a separation of at least one monolith
(~84 ft) between piles being driven and freshly poured “green” concrete.)
4. Pour monolith pile cap.
5. Repeat Steps 1-4
As noted, a river side construction and work road will be constructed as a working platform.
This will consist of material placed on the riverside slope adjacent to the existing wall to provide
an area wide enough for the movement of construction equipment. This platform is not
anticipated to extend into or otherwise impact the river itself. Access to this area for
construction of the platform will be from the landside through the first removed section of the
existing wall. After completion of the access/working area on the riverside of the existing wall,
removal of the remaining existing wall, and construction of the new wall, will be conducted from
both sides of the wall alignment.
South Topeka Borrow Area (Plate 11): An agricultural area of approximately 95 acres riverward
of the west end of the South Topeka Unit was identified as a potential source of borrow material.
It is estimated that 27.3 acres of the site can be employed to provide borrow for the construction
of features in the South Topeka, North Topeka, and Waterworks Units.
Waterworks Unit
Stations 0+78 to 7+00 and 10+00 to 16+50 (Plate 5): Recommended Plan provides for increasing
the stability factor of safety by installation of stability berms on the landside of the affected wall
sections. Berms in these locations would consist of compacted soil approximately two feet high
extending from the wall five feet and then tapering at a one on three slope to the existing ground
surface. Approximately 958 cubic yards of material would be required as well as temporary
easements for borrow excavation and construction activities.
Oakland Unit
64+00 to station 80+00 (Plate 6): Recommended Plan provides for controlling underseepage at
the interior toe of the existing levee by installing an underseepage control berm 240 feet wide,
six and one-half feet thick at the levee toe, sloping to three feet thick at the end of the berm. This
will require the acquisition of 84,500 cubic yards of fill material and temporary easements for
borrow excavation and construction activities.
485+86 to 491+01(Plate 7): Recommended Plan provides for increasing the stability factor of
safety by installation of a stability berm two feet high extending from the wall five feet and then
tapering at a one on three slope to the existing ground surface. Approximately 382 cubic yards
of material would be required as well as temporary easements for borrow excavation and
55
construction activities.
East Oakland Pump Station (Plate 8): Recommended Plan provides for increasing the uplift
factor of safety of the station by installation of a heel extension.
Manhole at station 75+50 (Plate 6): Recommended Plan provides for increasing the uplift factor
of safety of the manhole by installation of a heel extension.
Oakland West Borrow Area (Plate 12): An area of 28 acres of agricultural property riverward of
the levee between Stations 100+00 tand110+00 was identified as a potential borrow source. It is
estimated that 19.3 acres will be impacted to provide the required borrow for construction of
features in the Oakland Unit.
B.
Economic Performance of the Selected Plan
1.0
Economic Performance
Table 14 summarizes the economic performance of the selected plan. For further elaboration of
the NED plan benefits and how they were calculated, please refer to Tables D-31 and D-32, as
well as section 7.4, of Appendix D.
Table 14. Total NED Project Benefits & Costs
October 2008 prices; 4.625% interest rate; $1,000s
Unit
Annual
Benefits
$11,408.2
NORTH TOPEKA UNIT
$5.5
WATERWORKS UNIT
$4,013.9
SOUTH TOPEKA / OAKLAND UNIT
TOTAL
$15,427.6
2.0
First Costs
Annual
Costs
$169.2
$2.8
$996.1
$1,168.1
$2,867.0
$51.0
$18,239.0
$21,157.0
BCR
Net Benefits
67.4
2.0
4.0
13.2
$11,239.0
$2.7
$3,017.8
$14,259.5
Engineering Performance
Table 15 compares with and without-project condition reliability statistics for the NED plan.
The key results of implementing the NED plan would be as follows:
•
The median annual exceedance probability would increase to 0.003 (333-year) for the
overall levee system. In other words, there would be a 0.3% chance of a damaging flood
in any year. Currently, it is as much as 0.057 (18-year) for Oakland, 0.024 (42-year) for
North Topeka, and 0.004 (250-year) for South Topeka (See Table 9 – Engineering
Performance Without Project).
56
3.0
•
In a 1%-chance flood event, all Kansas River units would have between a 5% and 7%
chance of experiencing damage. Currently, Oakland has a 97.1% chance of a damaging
flood in an event of that magnitude, North Topeka an 86.0% chance, and South Topeka a
15.8% chance. For Waterworks, the nonexceedance probability would increase
marginally to 93.3%, but the performance of other Kansas River units would be
substantially improved.
•
The long-term risk of a damaging flood in any of the Kansas River units over a 50-year
period would be approximately 1 in 6. The risk over 25 years would be 1 in 11. Over 10
years, it would be 1 in 27.
Induced Damages
The NED Plan does not affect water surface profiles of the Kansas River or its tributaries and
will not results in the creation of induced damages. No new levees would be constructed and no
existing levees would be raised. All project elements involve only strengthening of the existing
levee system to meet expected design levels of performance rather than enhancement of
performance to new levels.
4.0
Residual Risk
Although floodplain users and occupants may desire total protection from flooding, it cannot be
overemphasized that this is an unachievable goal. No flood risk management project can
guarantee total elimination of flooding. A flood risk management project designed relative to a
1%-chance flood event (the event critical to levee certification) can be especially misleading.
The reasoning is that an event of historical magnitude is not necessarily required to overwhelm
the project and cause catastrophic damage, yet many floodplain tenants will feel that they have
near-total protection against flooding. Therefore, it is important for floodplain users and
occupants to be aware of the level of flood risk that remains even after project implementation.
The selected plan has substantial economic benefits and reduces study area equivalent annual
damages in the existing condition by more than two-thirds. The probability and occurrence of
flooding will be greatly diminished. There would remain a significant total of residual
equivalent annual damages of $7.4 million. There still would be a 1 in 6 chance of exceedance
over a 50-year period (see Appendix D Table 28). The median annual exceedance probability of
0.003 indicates that there is a 0.3% chance of a damaging flood event in any given year.
If the capacity of the Federal levee system is exceeded in a particular event, most of the areas
inside the levees would be affected due to the flat floodplain topography in these areas. In
general, if the amount of water that gets through or over the levees is sufficient to produce severe
flood depths, damages in the study area would reach $2 billion or more. Prohibitive depths of
water would remain inside the levees for at least two weeks. Large-scale evacuations of urban
neighborhoods would be necessary in advance, followed by relocation assistance. A number of
highly-traveled highways and streets as well as railroad track would be closed and in some cases
58
inundated. Water supply delivery to the entire city would be interrupted, perhaps for a few
weeks.
Local leadership and emergency operations staff will need to design plans for these extreme
flood events, which may be infrequent, but would hold the potential for catastrophe if they
occurred. Effective emergency planning in advance is the best way to protect communities and
minimize the damage from these rare flood events. Meanwhile, those who currently hold flood
insurance policies might very well find it advantageous to keep their policies, which usually are
fairly inexpensive in areas with certified levees.
5.0
Future With-Project Condition Summary
A recently reinvigorated emphasis on collaborative planning within the Corps of Engineers has
set the stage for greater consideration of the full range of Federal interest in water resources
projects. This includes not only tangible NED effects of the project, but also non-NED
economic impacts, social impacts, and environmental impacts on the city and region.
Environmental aspects are discussed in later sections and the attached Environmental
Assessment, while this section discusses some of the major economic and social considerations.
NED Effects of NED Plan - The overall NED contribution to the national economy is $14.3
million, which are the total net benefits of the project. The project would reduce the existing
condition EAD of $22.9 million by more than two-thirds to $7.4 million in residual EAD. The
chances of experiencing floods that could result in major inundation would be greatly reduced
(although not eliminated completely). Most of the adverse impacts described previously under
the future without-project condition would be headed off, including the following:
•
Residential - Residents would be spared most of the heavy personal losses they would
face from flood damage if no action was taken.
•
Businesses - Business owners likewise would be spared most of their potential flood
losses in buildings, equipment and inventories. This includes physical flood damages as
well as income losses from shutdowns.
•
Public sector - Public sector repair costs would be greatly reduced at public facilities such
as parks, community centers, Billard Airport, and the Oakland and North Topeka sewage
treatment plants. Costly repairs to city streets and roads would be reduced. Expenditures
on flood-fighting by emergency personnel, as well as relocation and reoccupation
assistance, would also be reduced.
•
Water supply - Water supply delivery to 160,000 customers in and around Topeka would
be favorably affected by reducing the chances of operational disruptions from flooding at
the Waterworks plant. The city’s major sewage treatment plants in North Topeka and
Oakland, both of which would have been subject to frequent flood damage or operational
interruptions in the without-project condition, would be subject to much less frequent
59
damage and their operations also would be interrupted less frequently.
•
Transportation networks - The risk of frequent flood-related closings and detours on
heavily traveled routes would be greatly reduced along highways, city streets and
railroads. Drivers would be favorably affected in avoiding lost time opportunity costs
and increased vehicular operating costs. Costly flood-related physical damages to roads
and railroad track also would be greatly reduced.
•
Flood control works operation and maintenance costs (probable minor adverse impact on
income) - The project would add net annual O&M costs of about $12,800 to the North
Topeka unit.
RED Effects of NED Plan - Regional economic development factors associated with project
implementation, mostly positive, include the following:
•
Existing local jobs, income and tax base (probable positive impacts on income and jobs) The planning horizon for existing companies in and around the study area would include
a much reduced degree of flood risk. Discouraging factors in the business climate such
as the potential of ruinous flood damage and income losses from shutdowns would be
reduced, while the potential for flood insurance requirements and stiffer building codes
would be removed. The risk of relocation from the city and region by large regional
employers such as BNSF Railroad, Goodyear, Hallmark, Del Monte, Hill’s and others
would be sharply reduced. Population losses, likely to occur in the context of a serious
and ongoing flood risk, would be far less likely. The threat of large-scale job losses from
relocations as well as reductions of the city’s tax base would be sharply reduced.
•
Economic growth (probable positive impacts on income and jobs) - The project would
greatly alleviate potential obstacles presented by high flood risk for attracting new
businesses with new jobs. Certification of the Federal levees would not be called into
question, meaning that the looming threats of new costs for flood insurance and stiffer
construction codes could be removed from the planning horizon. This would at the very
least forestall adverse impacts to local jobs and incomes by improving the regulatory
climate for those businesses wishing to expand, build, or move into the market from the
outside. Key areas targeted for future business growth in North Topeka and Oakland among the few significant sites the city has available for significant business
development - would gain a high enough degree of protection to minimize flood damage
impacts and remove flood-related regulatory burdens. Commercial operations at Billard
Airport would not face the prospect of frequent shutdowns and flood damage.
•
Riverfront redevelopment (possible positive impact on income) - Topeka’s planned
redevelopment of the riverfront in the center city could proceed absent the likelihood of
increasing blight from frequent flood damage. Successful redevelopment would be
expected to bring tourism and recreation revenues into the city and the study area.
60
•
Project construction impacts (miscellaneous possible minor impacts, both positive and
adverse, to jobs and income) - (a) No businesses or homes are slated for acquisition or
relocation due to the project. (b) The region would temporarily gain some jobs during
construction of the project. (c) The temporary presence of construction workers may
bring a temporary increase in demand for some local services, but also a temporary
increase in volume, profits, and sales tax receipts at local retail and service businesses.
(d) Modest transitory population increases could occur in the study area in connection
with project construction. (e) Minor traffic disruption near the levees could occur during
construction, although based on the best available information at this time, no roads are
anticipated to be blocked or closed for extended periods. Most of the project area would
be accessed from the levee road and should not interfere with the normal flow of traffic.
Other Social Effects of the NED Plan
•
Public safety (probable positive impacts to human life) - Serious public safety concerns,
particularly in Oakland and North Topeka, would be minimized by a large reduction in
flood risk. The chance of project exceedance (i.e., a damaging flood event) over a 25year period, which currently is no more than 1 in 2 for Oakland and North Topeka, would
increase to 1 in 11 (see Table D-28). Moreover, any floods that did occur in extreme
circumstances likely would be overtopping rather than breaching events, which would
imply a greater warning time.
•
Effects on minority and low-income residents (probable positive socioeconomic impacts)
Topeka residents in lower-income areas and minority neighborhoods would be
disproportionately affected by ongoing flood risk; refer to the detailed discussion of
demographics in these neighborhoods in section 5.4.3 as well as section 2.2. Thus, the
same groups in South Topeka, Oakland and North Topeka also would benefit
disproportionately from the project.
•
Threats to center city redevelopment (probable positive cultural impacts) - Local efforts
to revitalize center city areas would avoid a substantial obstacle if flood risk is
significantly reduced in the floodplain areas of North Topeka, Oakland and South
Topeka. It bears repeating that much of the “center city” of Topeka is also floodplain
terrain inside the Federal levees, and it would otherwise be subject to catastrophic flood
damage in the future. Flood risk reduction would be a significant stabilizing influence
for these neighborhoods.
•
Threats to riverfront redevelopment (possible positive cultural, historical and aesthetic
impacts) - The possibility that periodic flooding would blight the riverfront and interfere
with successful redevelopment would be greatly reduced.
•
Treatment plant operations (positive health and environmental impacts) - The likelihood
of periodic service interruptions at the Oakland and North Topeka sewage treatment
plants, resulting in large releases of untreated sewage into the Kansas River, would be
61
greatly reduced
C.
Environmental and Cultural Considerations
Detailed discussion of the environmental and cultural considerations of the recommended plan is
included in the attached Environmental Assessment. Included here is a summary of the key
environmental factors with references to the location of additional information.
1.0
Fish and Wildlife Resources
Construction of the NED plan requires excavations in several areas for modifications of existing
structural features and the installation of relief wells and berms along portions of the levees. The
construction of the South Topeka underseepage berm will result in the permanent removal of
approximately 7.5 acres of woodland habitat landward of the levee. Compensatory mitigation is
proposed for this impact (see Plate 13 for mitigation area location). Temporary impacts to
wildlife will result from noise and traffic associated with the construction efforts.
Borrow excavation is needed within approximately 27.3 acres riverward of the South Topeka
Unit and approximately 19.3 acres riverward of the Oakland Unit (see Plates 11 and 12 for
potential borrow locations). Impacts within these agricultural borrow sites is considered
temporary in nature and are expected to be less than significant. Standard construction site
erosion and sediment control practices will be employed to prevent erosion and sediment
deposition into adjacent waterways. The riverward borrow areas impacted will likely revert back
to agricultural use after construction, unless the creation of ecosystem habitat is preferred by the
non-Federal sponsor and the land owner. More information is available in the Environmental
Assessment.
A detailed ecosystem mitigation plan is described in Appendix F of the attached Environmental
Assessment. This plan has been coordinated with local and federal agencies including the U.S.
Fish & Wildlife Service and the Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks.
2.0
Cultural Resources
Record searches and field reconnaissance were performed for the project area. No NRHP
properties or archeological sites are recorded in the proposed project locations or borrow areas.
All cultural reviews in the project area determined that there are no cultural, historic, or
archeological sites of any significance that would be affected by the proposed project. The
Kansas State Historic Preservation Office concurred with the findings and recommended no
further action. The potential extent of project features is the same at this time as presented to the
agencies prior to the findings, and no changes in formulation of the project have occurred
subsequently to affect these findings.
62
3.0
Cumulative Impacts
Section 14.0 of the Environmental Assessment, entitled “Cumulative Impacts”, provides a
detailed assessment of potential cumulative impacts of the levee modifications associated with
the selected plan. Based on the analysis conducted, the recommended plan of flood risk
management reliability improvements within the Topeka metropolitan area will not result in
substantial adverse cumulative impacts.
4.0
Environmental Justice
Executive Order 12898 on Environmental Justice (EJ) requires consideration of social equity
issues, particularly any potential disproportionate impacts to minority or low-income groups.
The study evaluated demographic and census data for the project area and analyzed the potential
effects of the proposed project on minority and low-income groups. Although the project area
does contain EJ populations such as minority and low-income groups, they would not be
disproportionately impacted in a negative way; rather these groups would equally benefit from
increased public safety and a reduced risk of flooding if this project is implemented. The
proposed levee modifications would be primarily constructed adjacent to and/or within industrial
and agricultural areas, and are not anticipated to cause any disproportionate impacts to sensitive
populations, but are anticipated to uniformly provide increased economic benefit and a safer
living environment to populations living and working behind the levee systems on both sides of
the Kansas River. Further, there are no induced impacts to the levee systems located upstream
and downstream of the project area that would result from the proposed plan.
Public coordination of the project to the EJ communities within the affected area consisted of the
following: The project was coordinated with EJ communities thru distribution of the project
information to EJ contacts provided by EPA. Distribution of project information included
notifications of the availability of information regarding the project, a project fact sheet, along
with the project’s website address, contact information for the project manager, an
announcement of the public meeting that was held in Topeka, Kansas on October 22, 2008, and a
media press release that was sent to local newspapers, radio stations in the Topeka and
surrounding metropolitan area. No comments on the project were received from the EJ
communities and contacts during the public involvement process. The public involvement
process will continue to reach out and provide information to the communities affected by the
proposed plan as implementation proceeds.
Based upon the analysis, the proposed plan meets the intent of Executive Order 12898 and does
not provide any imbalance or disproportionate affects to minority or low-income populations
within the project area. More information is available in Section 12.0 of the Environmental
Assessment.
63
5.0
Environmental Operating Principles
Under the seven Environmental Operating Principles (EOP), the Corps of Engineers is mandated
to proactively seek and consider ways to improve and sustain the environment. An existing
project in an urban area such as Topeka, with permanent structural features dating back several
decades, has inherent limitations to the inclusion of viable environmental improvements. EOP
#1 “Strive to achieve Environmental Sustainability” is the most applicable to this project. The
direct affects of the proposed levee modifications will be minimized and mitigated in order to
sustain as much of the existing environmental resources as possible. The specific methods
chosen to perform this mitigation will adhere to EOP #5, “Seek way and means to assess and
mitigate cumulative impacts to the environment.”
The data collection and analysis efforts of this Feasibility Report have helped satisfy EOP #6,
which reads “Build and share an integrated scientific, economic, and social knowledge base that
supports a greater understanding of the environment and impacts of our work.” Application of
Environmental Operating Principle #7, “Respect the views of individuals and groups interested
in Corps activities,” is evidenced by past and future public involvement activities to include
public review of this document and presentation of the Recommended Plan at a public meeting.
While the potential for environmental improvements under associated with the existing levees is
limited, the partnership between the Corps and the City Topeka has allowed for the identification
of potential projects under other available authorities. Upstream of the current project study
area, but still within the city limits of Topeka, a separate wetland restoration and creation project
has been proposed under the Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration authority of Section 206 of the
Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) of 1996. For several years now, the Kansas City
District has been a partner with the City of Topeka and the Topeka Riverfront Authority in
developing a master plan for the Topeka riverfront. The Corps has participated in cost-share
studies of potential riverfront redevelopment efforts through the Planning Assistance to States
program, authorized by Section 22 of the WRDA of 1974. This effort will assist the sponsors
and other stakeholders in bringing additional compatible recreation opportunities to the area, and
providing a linkage to comprehensive recreation master plans of other communities on the
Kansas River.
D.
Hydraulic and Floodplain Considerations
The recommended plan addresses only reliability improvements to the existing system and will
not affect water surface profiles within the Kansas River for any flood event.
E.
HTRW Considerations
HTRW considerations associated with the selected plan are the same as previously described.
64
F.
Engineering and Construction Considerations
There are no unusual engineering/design or construction issues associated with this project.
Conventional construction methods will be used, and space is sufficient on site to provide for
contractor mobilization and staging of construction.
G.
Real Estate Considerations
The non-Federal Sponsors currently hold permanent easements sufficient for the existing levees
and these are available for implementation of the selected alternative. Temporary easements will
be acquired and used for installation of the underseepage and stability berms, borrow areas,
equipment storage, access roads, construction vehicles, and staging areas. The width of the work
area easements will vary depending on the project site, as additional lands are required.
A detailed description of the Lands, Easements, Relocations, Rights-of-Way, and Disposal
(LERRD) requirements is outlined in the Real Estate Plan (Appendix C). This includes acreage,
estate required, estimated land values, borrow areas, non-federal incidental costs, and in-house
government cost. The proposed borrow areas will be further refined as the project moves into
Pre-Construction Engineering and Design (PED).
H.
Operations and Maintenance Considerations
Operation, maintenance, repair, rehabilitation, and replacement (OMRR&R) considerations are
the responsibility of the local sponsor. The Corps is responsible for inspections. Future
OMRR&R practices would remain the same as current operations for inspection and monitoring,
levee mowing, vegetation control, outfall cleaning, maintenance of wells, etc. Additional cost
will be added by the project with respect to maintenance of six new relief wells and temporary
pumping of the well header during high flood events. The appropriate Operation and
Maintenance manuals will be updated accordingly at the conclusion of the project.
I.
Value Engineering
A Value Engineering Study appropriate to the feasibility phase, as required by Corps
Regulations, was conducted and completed in October 2008. This value engineering process
identified one potentially beneficial improvement that might be implemented to realize cost
savings for the project.
The possibility of employing drilled anchors instead of a heel extension for the control of the
East Oakland Pump Station uplift concern was considered and is recommended for further
review during the PED phase. Drilled anchors have recently been proposed for use in other
levee systems to address pump station uplift concern. In other projects, the uplift concern has
been of a greater magnitude, making a heel extension too large of an undertaking. The Topeka
pump station concern is smaller resulting in the preliminary indication that the costs for a heel
extension versus drilled anchors are very similar. Additional comparison using updated design
65
information to be collected during the PED phase is needed to make a final determination.
XI.
Plan Implementation
A.
Cost Sharing Requirements
The project cost allocation is 100% Flood Risk Management. The non-Federal cost share is
determined according to the cost sharing procedures prescribed in the Water Resources
Development Act of 1986 (WRDA 86), as amended. In accordance with the typical allocation,
the Federal government will be responsible for 65% of implementation costs and the NonFederal sponsors for the remaining 35%.
Table 16 presents the estimated project costs and cost sharing portions divided by unit. Costs are
presented in current (Oct 2008) dollars and as a fully funded estimate. The fully funded estimate
includes inflation from Oct 2008 to the expected mid-point of the construction period.
Additional detailed cost estimates are provided in Appendix E.
Table 16. Project Cost Sharing
Oct. 2008 Prices, $1,000’s
NED Plan Feature Summary
Planning, Engineering, and Design (PED)
Construction
Construction Management
LERRD
Total NED Project Cost
NED Project Cost Sharing and Credit
Non-Federal Share:
Cash Contribution
LERRD
Total Non-Federal Share (35%)
Total Federal Share (65%)
Water
Works
South
Topeka/
Oakland
North
Topeka
Total
$ 4
$ 43
$ 3
$ 1
$ 51
$ 1,580
$ 14,523
$
975
$ 1,161
$ 18,239
$ 248
$ 2,348
$ 154
$ 117
$ 2,867
$ 1,832
$ 16,914
$ 1,132
$ 1,279
$ 21,157
$ 17
$ 1
$ 18
$ 33
$ 5,223
$ 1,161
$ 6,384
$ 11,855
$ 886
$ 117
$ 1,003
$ 1,864
$ 6,126
$ 1,279
$ 7,405
$ 13,752
Water
Works
South
Topeka/
Oakland
North
Topeka
Total
$ 5
$ 46
$ 4
$ 1
$ 56
$ 1,726
$ 16,064
$ 1,222
$ 1,254
$ 20,266
$ 271
$ 2,598
$ 193
$ 125
$ 3,187
$ 2,002
$ 18,708
$ 1,419
$ 1,380
$ 23,509
$ 13
$ 7
$ 20
$ 36
$ 5,839
$ 1,254
$ 7,093
$ 13,173
$ 990
$ 125
$ 1,115
$ 2,072
$ 6,842
$ 1,386
$ 8,228
$ 15,281
Fully Funded, $1000’s
NED Plan Feature Summary
Planning, Engineering, and Design (PED)
Construction
Construction Management
LERRD
Total NED Project Cost
NED Project Cost Sharing and Credit
Non-Federal Share:
Cash Contribution
LERRD
Total Non-Federal Share (35%)
Total Federal Share (65%)
66
The local sponsor share for the Waterworks, South Topeka, and Oakland Units will be the
responsibility of the City of Topeka. The share for the North Topeka Unit will be the
responsibility of the North Topeka Drainage District.
B.
Sponsor’s Intent
The sponsor’s intent to participate in the feasibility study was originally stated in letters received
in 1992 requesting the initiation of the study. The sponsors committed to the study financially
by signing the original Feasibility Cost Sharing Agreement (FCSA) in 1998. Several schedule
and cost changes have been enacted during the study, each with the written approval of the local
sponsor. The sponsors have shown every indication that they fully intend to progress into the
design and construction phase of the project with the same support given to this Feasibility
Study.
C.
Project Financing and Sponsor Capability
The project and local cost sharing requirements have been discussed with the sponsors during the
study. They are legally constituted bodies under State statutes with taxing authority, and the
Corps’ assessment indicates that they have the necessary financial basis to cost share a project of
this magnitude. The districts have expressed their intent to fund the non-Federal share and are
expected to issue general obligation bonds under authority granted them by the State or
implement other financing option that may involve a levy on property owners and/or additional
contributions by selected large facilities in the protected area. The sponsors have continually
expressed very strong support for the project.
D.
Summary of Coordination and Public Views
1.0
Study Coordination
The non-Federal sponsors strongly support the Recommended Plan. Each of the sponsors
continues to keep the project in good condition as evidenced by recent annual inspection reports
and by the evaluations undertaken in the feasibility study. The sponsors will continue to provide
full cooperation and are prepared to meet the necessary financial obligation associated with the
recommendations contained in the Feasibility Report.
Extensive coordination with several State and Federal agencies took place during development
and evaluation of the Recommended Plan and the Environmental Assessment. The following
agencies were coordinated with and in some cases have provided comments or participated in the
review of this project:
•
•
Federal Emergency Management Agency
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
67
•
•
•
•
•
2.0
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Natural Resources Conservation Service
Kansas Department of Wildlife & Parks
Kansas Department of Health and Environment
Kansas State Historic Preservation Office
Public Involvement
Public involvement and coordination is discussed in Appendix B.
E.
Future Project Schedule
The project designs, cost estimates and economic analyses presented in this report are based on a
future project milestone schedule as follows:
DEC 2008
APR 2009
OCT 2011
MAR 2012
APR 2012
OCT 2014
Feasibility Report Approval
Execution of Project Design Agreement with Local Sponsor and
initiation of Pre-Construction Engineering and Design Phase
Initiation of Land and Easement Acquisition by the Local Sponsor
Execution of the Project Cooperation Agreement with the Local Sponsor
Initiation of Construction Phase
Completion of Project Construction
Cost estimates were prepared on the basis of one construction contract per levee unit, for a total
of four separate contracts. These contracts are anticipated to be scheduled simultaneously.
Costs and economic analyses are periodically reviewed during future project phases and
reevaluated as needed based on actual project progress and status.
XII. Conclusions
The Recommended Plan (NED Plan) reduces the risk of flooding through project improvements
and remedies planned within the existing flood risk management system examined in this
Feasibility Report. In general, the Recommended Plan would implement several geotechnical
and structural reliability improvements at different areas of interest within the system.
This plan helps to restore a uniform level of flood risk management for the study area. The NED
plan will provide a project that functions in a safe, viable, and reliable manner, as was initially
intended by its designers. It is not required as a result of changed conditions or inadequate
maintenance, is generally limited to the existing features and does not change the scope or
function of the authorized project. It is also economically justified.
There are no significant long-term social or environmental impacts. Design considerations of the
plan include avoidance of environmental resources, cultural resources, and HTRW where
68
possible. The long-term environmental and cultural consequences of plan implementation are
positive as the increased reliability of the units act to guard the social and environmental fabric
that has developed within the protected areas for the last 50 years. A minimal amount of tree and
shrub habitat would be lost and mitigation is planned accordingly.
The Recommended Plan carries a small increase in OMRR&R. The sponsors have sufficiency to
provide all real estate requirements.
XIII. Recommendation
Upon considering the economic, environmental, social, and engineering aspects of making
improvements to the existing Topeka, Kansas, Local Flood Protection Project, it has been
determined that a project to reduce the risk of flooding is in the public interest. Accordingly, the
Corps of Engineers recommends that the Recommended Plan, as described in this report, be
submitted to Congress for implementation with such modifications as the Chief of Engineers
may find advisable, and in accordance with existing cost sharing and financing requirements.
The estimated implementation cost of the Recommended Plan is $13,752,050 Federal and
$7,404,950 Non-Federal for a total estimated cost of $21,157,000 at October 2008 price levels.
The net benefits of the Recommended Plan are $14.26 million, indicating a very strong
contribution to the nation’s economic output by the project. The average annual flood risk
management benefits of the Recommended Plan exceed the average annual cost by a ratio of
13.2 to 1.
All items included in the Recommended Plan are necessary to continue providing the flood risk
management benefits as intended by Congress.
Federal implementation of the recommended project would be subject to the non-Federal sponsor
agreeing to comply with applicable Federal laws and policies, including but not limited to:
a. Provide a minimum of 35 percent, but not to exceed 50 percent of total project costs as
further specified below:
1. Provide 25 percent of design costs in accordance with the terms of a design
agreement entered into prior to commencement of design work for the project;
2. Provide, during the first year of construction, any additional funds necessary to
pay the full non-Federal share of design costs;
3. Provide, during construction, a contribution of funds equal to 5 percent of total
project costs;
4. Provide all lands, easements, and rights-of-way, including those required for
relocations, the borrowing of material, and the disposal of dredged or excavated
69
material; perform or ensure the performance of all relocations; and construct all
improvements required on lands, easements, and rights-of-way to enable the
disposal of dredged or excavated material all as determined by the Government to
be required or to be necessary for the construction, operation, and maintenance of
the project;
5. Provide, during construction, any additional funds necessary to make its total
contribution equal to at least 35 percent of total project costs;
b. Shall not use funds from other Federal programs, including any non-Federal contribution
required as a matching share therefore, to meet any of the non-Federal obligations for the
project unless the Federal agency providing the Federal portion of such funds verifies in
writing that expenditure of such funds for such purpose is authorized;
c. Not less than once each year, inform affected interests of the extent of protection afforded
by the project;
d. Agree to participate in and comply with applicable Federal floodplain management and
flood insurance programs;
e. Comply with Section 402 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986, as amended
(33 U.S.C. 701b-12), which requires a non-Federal interest to prepare a floodplain
management plan within one year after the date of signing a project cooperation
agreement, and to implement such plan not later than one year after completion of
construction of the project;
f. Publicize floodplain information in the area concerned and provide this information to
zoning and other regulatory agencies for their use in adopting regulations, or taking other
actions, to prevent unwise future development and to ensure compatibility with protection
levels provided by the project;
g. Prevent obstructions or encroachments on the project (including prescribing and
enforcing regulations to prevent such obstructions or encroachments) such as any new
developments on project lands, easements, and rights-of-way or the addition of facilities
which might reduce the level of protection the project affords, hinder operation and
maintenance of the project, or interfere with the project’s proper function;
h. Comply with all applicable provisions of the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real
Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Public Law 91-646, as amended (42 U.S.C.
4601-4655), and the Uniform Regulations contained in 49 CFR Part 24, in acquiring
lands, easements, and rights-of-way required for construction, operation, and
maintenance of the project, including those necessary for relocations, the borrowing of
materials, or the disposal of dredged or excavated material; and inform all affected
persons of applicable benefits, policies, and procedures in connection with said Act;
70
i. For so long as the project remains authorized, operate, maintain, repair, rehabilitate, and
replace the project, or functional portions of the project, including any mitigation
features, at no cost to the Federal Government, in a manner compatible with the project’s
authorized purposes and in accordance with applicable Federal and State laws and
regulations and any specific directions prescribed by the Federal Government;
j. Give the Federal Government a right to enter, at reasonable times and in a reasonable
manner, upon property that the non-Federal sponsor owns or controls for access to the
project for the purpose of completing, inspecting, operating, maintaining, repairing,
rehabilitating, or replacing the project;
k. Hold and save the United States free from all damages arising from the construction,
operation, maintenance, repair, rehabilitation, and replacement of the project and any
betterments, except for damages due to the fault or negligence of the United States or its
contractors;
l. Keep and maintain books, records, documents, or other evidence pertaining to costs and
expenses incurred pursuant to the project, for a minimum of 3 years after completion of
the accounting for which such books, records, documents, or other evidence are required,
to the extent and in such detail as will properly reflect total project costs, and in
accordance with the standards for financial management systems set forth in the Uniform
Administrative Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements to State and Local
Governments at 32 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Section 33.20;
m. Comply with all applicable Federal and State laws and regulations, including, but not
limited to: Section 601 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Public Law 88-352 (42 U.S.C.
2000d) and Department of Defense Directive 5500.11 issued pursuant thereto; Army
Regulation 600-7, entitled "Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Handicap in Programs and
Activities Assisted or Conducted by the Department of the Army”; and all applicable
Federal labor standards requirements including, but not limited to, 40 U.S.C. 3141- 3148
and 40 U.S.C. 3701 – 3708 (revising, codifying and enacting without substantial change
the provisions of the Davis-Bacon Act (formerly 40 U.S.C. 276a et seq.), the Contract
Work Hours and Safety Standards Act (formerly 40 U.S.C. 327 et seq.) and the
Copeland Anti-Kickback Act (formerly 40 U.S.C. 276c et seq.);
n. Perform, or ensure performance of, any investigations for hazardous substances that are
determined necessary to identify the existence and extent of any hazardous substances
regulated under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), Public Law 96-510, as amended (42 U.S.C. 9601-9675), that may
exist in, on, or under lands, easements, or rights-of-way that the Federal Government
determines to be required for construction, operation, and maintenance of the project.
However, for lands that the Federal Government determines to be subject to the
navigation servitude, only the Federal Government shall perform such investigations
unless the Federal Government provides the non-Federal sponsor with prior specific
71
Embedded PDF: MIT4_CrossCreek_Letter.pdf
Comments
Mitigation Action Plan (MAP)
Category
Jurisdiction
Hazard
Priority
Assigned To
Prevention
MultiJurisdictional
Flood
High
Commence
Date
Target Complete
Date
Anticip.
Duration
Continuous
% Complete
0
Initiative (Action)
1. Shawnee County and the cities of Topeka, Auburn, Rossville, Silver Lake, and Willard are committed to continued participation and compliance with the National
Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).
Background / Benefits
The decision on whether to join the NFIP is very important for a jurisdiction (community).There is no Federal law that requires a jurisdiction to join the program, and
participation is voluntary. A benefit of participation is that the citizens are provided the opportunity to purchase flood insurance to protect themselves against flood
losses. Another consideration is that a jurisdiction that has been identified by FEMA as being flood-prone and has not joined the NFIP within one year of being
notified of being mapped as flood-prone will be sanctioned. Jurisdictions that regulate development in floodplains are able to participate in the National Flood
Insurance Program (NFIP). To participate in the NFIP the jurisdiction must adopt and enforce floodplain management regulations that meet or exceed the minimum
requirements of the program.
Goal.Objective
Funding Sources
1.1, 2.1,
State/FEMA/Program
Grants
Category
Jurisdiction
Structural
Projects
Shawnee Heights USD
450
Actual Complete
Date
Notes
Hazard
Priority
Tornado
Low
Assigned To
Commence
Date
Target Complete
Date
Anticip.
Duration
December 31,
2015
School District
% Complete
0
Initiative (Action)
1. Develop and fund mitigation projects for the construction of tornado safe rooms for Unified School District 450 schools.
Schools are particularly vulnerable to potential damage from tornadoes and high winds. Students, faculty, and staff should seek safe shelter when a tornado
threatens. Tornado safe rooms should be constructed in schools to ensure a safe place for students to go during a tornado event. Safe rooms may be funded by
FEMA during new school construction, as part of school additions, or as retrofits.
Actual Complete
Date
Notes
Jurisdiction
Hazard
Priority
Assigned To
Topeka Public Schools
USD 501
Tornado
Low
School District
Goal.Objective
Funding Sources
2.4, 3.1,
Category
Structural
Projects
Commence
Date
Target Complete
Date
Anticip.
Duration
December 31,
2015
% Complete
0
Initiative (Action)
Actual Complete
Date
Notes
Jurisdiction
Hazard
Priority
Assigned To
Seaman USD 345
Tornado
Low
School District
Goal.Objective
Funding Sources
2.4, 3.1,
Category
Structural
Projects
Commence
Date
Target Complete
Date
Anticip.
Duration
December 31,
2015
% Complete
0
Initiative (Action)
Actual Complete
Date
Notes
Jurisdiction
Hazard
Priority
Assigned To
Auburn-Washburn USD
437
Tornado
Low
School District
Goal.Objective
Funding Sources
2.4, 3.1,
Category
Structural
Projects
Commence
Date
Target Complete
Date
December 31,
2015
Anticip.
Duration
% Complete
0
Initiative (Action)
Actual Complete
Date
Notes
Jurisdiction
Hazard
Priority
Assigned To
Washburn University
Tornado
Low
Washburn University
Goal.Objective
Funding Sources
2.4, 3.1,
Category
Structural
Projects
Commence
Date
Target Complete
Date
Anticip.
Duration
December 31,
2015
% Complete
0
Initiative (Action)
1. Develop and fund mitigation projects for the construction of tornado safe rooms for select buildings located on Washburn University property.
Actual Complete
Date
Notes
Jurisdiction
Hazard
Priority
Assigned To
Auburn
Flood
Moderate
Floodplain Manager /
Mitigation Officer
Goal.Objective
Funding Sources
2.4, 3.1,
Category
Prevention
Commence
Date
Target Complete
Date
Anticip.
Duration
December 31,
2015
% Complete
0
Initiative (Action)
1. Identify flash-flood prone areas to consider flood reduction measures to the city's Floodplain Manager / Mitigation Officer.
Identification of high-risk areas will provide essential information for additional mitigation studies for development of actions and projects to prevent future damage
from flash flooding events.
Goal.Objective
Funding Sources
1.1, 2.1,
Local
Category
Jurisdiction
Prevention
Rossville
Actual Complete
Date
Notes
Hazard
Priority
Assigned To
Moderate
Zoning Officer
Flood
Commence
Date
Target Complete
Date
Anticip.
Duration
December 31,
2015
% Complete
0
Initiative (Action)
1. Identify flash-flood prone areas to consider flood reduction measures within the City of Rossville.
from flash flooding events. Rossville has experienced numerous flooding events due to the presence of Cross Creek, located along the east, north, and west sides
of the city. The City of Rossville is currently working with the Army Corps of Engineers to perform a study to determine methods to alleviate flooding.
Goal.Objective
Funding Sources
1.1, 2.1,
Local
Category
Jurisdiction
Prevention
Silver Lake
Actual Complete
Date
Notes
Hazard
Priority
Assigned To
Moderate
Mitigation Officer
Flood
Commence
Date
Target Complete
Date
Anticip.
Duration
December 31,
2015
% Complete
0
Initiative (Action)
1. Identify flash-flood prone areas to consider flood reduction measures to the city's floodplain manager / mitigation officer.
Goal.Objective
Funding Sources
1.1, 2.1,
Local
Category
Jurisdiction
Prevention
Topeka
Actual Complete
Date
Notes
Hazard
Priority
Assigned To
Moderate
Planning Officer
Flood
Commence
Date
Target Complete
Date
December 31,
2015
Anticip.
Duration
% Complete
0
Initiative (Action)
1. Identify flash-flood prone areas to consider flood reduction measures to the city's floodplain manager / planning officer.
Goal.Objective
Funding Sources
1.1, 2.1,
Local
Actual Complete
Date
Notes
Category
Jurisdiction
Hazard
Priority
Assigned To
Prevention
Willard
Flood
Moderate
City Officials
Commence
Date
Target Complete
Date
Anticip.
Duration
December 31,
2015
% Complete
0
Initiative (Action)
1. Identify flash-flood prone areas to consider flood reduction measures to the city officials.
Actual Complete
Date
Notes
Hazard
Priority
Assigned To
Moderate
Water District
Goal.Objective
Funding Sources
1.1, 2.1,
Local
Category
Jurisdiction
Property
Protection
Shawnee County
Multi-Hazard
Consolidated RWD No. 1
Commence
Date
Target Complete
Date
Anticip.
Duration
Continuous
% Complete
0
Initiative (Action)
1. Continue to assess the impact of natural hazards on water distribution lines, systems, and equipment. Seek funding sources to mitigate damage to critical
infrastructure.
The Shawnee County Consolidated RWD No. 1 provides potable water to their customers throughout Shawnee County. Maintaining distribution capabilities of
potable water is the jurisdiction's top priority.
Actual Complete
Date
Notes
Jurisdiction
Hazard
Priority
Assigned To
Tri County Drainage
District No. 1
Dams / Levees
Moderate
Tri County Drainage
District No. 1
Goal.Objective
Funding Sources
1.2, 3.2,
Local / State / FEMA
Category
Property
Protection
Commence
Date
Target Complete
Date
Anticip.
Duration
Continuous
% Complete
0
Initiative (Action)
1. Continue to construct, operate, and maintain levee systems along the Kansas River and a portion of Cross Creek and Bourbanois Creek for flood protection.
The Tri-County Drainage District No. 1 is an incorporated entity containing 8,920 acres within Shawnee County, and is also located within the taxing districts of
Pottawatomie County and Wabaunsee County. The general mission of the drainage district is to construct, operate, and maintain levee systems along the Kansas
River and a portion of Cross Creek and Bourbanois Creek for flood protection. The organization will evaluate the need for further maintenance projects, and
additional effort will be made to seek alternative funding as they become available.
Actual Complete
Date
Notes
Jurisdiction
Hazard
Priority
Assigned To
North Topeka Drainage
District
Dams / Levees
Moderate
District
Goal.Objective
Funding Sources
1.1, 1.2,
Category
Property
Protection
Commence
Date
Target Complete
Date
Anticip.
Duration
Continuous
% Complete
0
Initiative (Action)
1. Continue to maintain and operate flood control levees, flood gate structures, and channels, allowing storm water runoff to pass through the District without
causing flooding of property.
The North Topeka Drainage District is an incorporated entity containing 920 acres within Shawnee County. The drainage district Board was formed in 1906, and
meets monthly. The general mission of the drainage district is to pass stormwater run-off through the District without causing flooding of property through
maintenance and operation of flood control levees, flood-gate structures, and channels. The organization will evaluate the need for further maintenance projects,
and additional effort will be made to seek alternative funding as they become available.
Actual Complete
Date
Notes
Jurisdiction
Hazard
Priority
Assigned To
Kaw River Drainage
District
Dams / Levees
Moderate
Kaw River Drainage
District
Goal.Objective
Funding Sources
1.1, 1.2,
Category
Property
Protection
Commence
Date
Target Complete
Date
Anticip.
Duration
December 31,
2014
% Complete
0
Initiative (Action)
1. Continue to perform flood control and river bank stabilization within the Drainage District.
The Kaw River Drainage District is an incorporated entity containing 5,500 acres within Shawnee County. The drainage district Board was formed in 1905, and
meets monthly. The general mission of the drainage district is flood control and river bank stabilization.
Goal.Objective
Funding Sources
1.1, 1.2,
Category
Jurisdiction
Actual Complete
Date
Notes
Hazard
Priority
Assigned To
Commence
Date
Target Complete
Date
Anticip.
Duration
% Complete
Emergency
Services
Shawnee (UnInc.)
Dams / Levees
Moderate
Department / Emergency
Services
December 31,
2015
0
Initiative (Action)
1. Develop an annex to the Local Emergency Operations Plan for dam failure response and evacuation planing for high hazard dams in Shawnee County.
Shawnee County has 664 dams in the county that are regulated by the Kansas Department of Agriculture, Water Resources Department. Seven (7) of these
structures are classified as “High Hazard Class C” structures, identified as follows: Lake Shawnee; Burnett Dam; Lake Sherwood; Unnamed Dam (City of Topeka);
Biddle Creek Detention Dam; Westridge Detention Dam; Dam #131. The State evaluation of the dams is based on several factors including: location in areas where
failure may cause extensive loss of life, serious damage to homes, industrial and commercial facilities, important public utilities, main highways or railroads. It is
important to note that a high hazard dam is not necessarily unsafe, as defined by the State of Kansas. An individual dam’s hazard classification is based upon the
potential consequences of dam failure and does not reflect the physical condition of the dam. Preparing for a potential emergency is an essential planning step to
secure the people and property downstream from a potential breach or dam failure.
Actual Complete
Date
Notes
Jurisdiction
Hazard
Priority
Assigned To
Shunganunga Drainage
District
Dams / Levees
Moderate
District
Goal.Objective
Funding Sources
1.1, 3.1, 3.2,
Local
Category
Property
Protection
Commence
Date
Target Complete
Date
Anticip.
Duration
Continuous
% Complete
0
Initiative (Action)
1. Continue to construct, operate, and maintain water detention dams for flood reduction in the drainage district.
The Shunganunga Drainage District is an incorporated entity encompassing the area along the Shunganunga Creek within Shawnee County. The drainage district
Board was formed in 1906, and meets monthly. The operating budget for 2008 was $23,670 and for 2009 was $34989. The general mission of the drainage district
is care and maintenance of the Shunganunga Drainage District dams, including the South Branch Dam and the Burnett Dam. Future planning, if funding is available,
includes cement-work on the spillways of each dam and the possible raising of the level of the South Branch Dam to meet state regulations. The organization will
evaluate the need for further construction, operation, and maintenance projects, and additional effort will be made to seek alternative funding as they become
available.
Actual Complete
Date
Notes
Jurisdiction
Hazard
Priority
Assigned To
Cross Creek Watershed
Dams / Levees
Moderate
Joint District No. 42
Goal.Objective
Funding Sources
1.1, 1.2,
Category
Property
Protection
Commence
Date
Target Complete
Date
Anticip.
Duration
Continuous
% Complete
0
Initiative (Action)
1. Continue to construct, operate, and maintain water detention dams for flood reduction in the watershed district.
The Cross Creek Watershed Joint District No. 42 is an incorporated entity containing 17,900 acres within Shawnee County, and is also located within the taxing
districts of Pottawatomie County and Jackson County. The operating budget was $96,570 for 2009. The organization will evaluate the need for further construction,
operation, and maintenance projects, and additional effort will be made to seek alternative funding as they become available.
Actual Complete
Date
Notes
Jurisdiction
Hazard
Priority
Assigned To
Kaw Valley USD 321
Tornado
Low
School District
Goal.Objective
Funding Sources
1.1, 1.2,
Category
Structural
Projects
Commence
Date
Target Complete
Date
Anticip.
Duration
December 31,
2015
% Complete
0
Initiative (Action)
Actual Complete
Date
Notes
Jurisdiction
Hazard
Priority
Assigned To
Kaw Valley USD 321
Flood
Moderate
Kaw Valley USD 321
Goal.Objective
Funding Sources
2.4, 3.1,
Category
Structural
Project
Commence
Date
Target Complete
Date
December 31,
2015
Anticip.
Duration
% Complete
0
Initiative (Action)
2. Assess elevations and water flow in the Kaw Valley Unified School District 321 to qualify the benefit of flood control projects at the Rossville Grade School.
The Kaw Valley Unified School District 321 would like to analyze the potential benefits of flood control projects in the area of the Rossville Grade School within the
District to mitigate the effects from flooding.
Goal.Objective
Funding Sources
Actual Complete
Date
Notes
1.1, 3.1, 3.2,
Category
Jurisdiction
Hazard
Priority
Assigned To
Prevention
Shawnee (UnInc.)
Dams / Levee
High
County Planning
Committee
Commence
Date
Target Complete
Date
Anticip.
Duration
December 31,
2015
% Complete
0
Initiative (Action)
2. Shawnee County will work with the Auberndale, North Topeka, South Topeka, Oakland, Soldier Creek, and Waterworks levee owners to ensure certification
requirements are maintained.
Levee owners or communities have the responsibility to provide documentation that a levee meets the requirements of Title 44 of the Code of Federal Regulations,
Section 65.10 of the national Flood Insurance Program regulations (44CFR Section 65.10), as part of a study/mapping project. Without the required documentation
necessary to comply with 44 CFR Section 65.10, the area behind the levee will be re-delineated and mapped as Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) on the Digital
Flood Insurance Rate Map (DFIRM). Procedure Memorandum No. 34 allows for the issuance of a deadline to the community for submitting the required documents.
Goal.Objective
Actual Complete
Date
Notes
Jurisdiction
Hazard
Priority
Assigned To
Seaman USD 345
Terrorism /
Agri-Terrorism /
Civil Disorder
Moderate
Board of Education /
School Superintendent
Funding Sources
1.1, 1.2, 2.1, 3.1,
3.2,
Category
Prevention
Commence
Date
Target Complete
Date
Anticip.
Duration
December 31,
2015
% Complete
0
Initiative (Action)
2. Seek funding to retain a professional school safety and security firm to review and update the school’s Security Plan for domestic acts of terrorism, building
security, and contagious disease response.
As domestic acts of terrorism are becoming more of reality, many officials believe that the next wave of terrorists acts may be aimed at public school systems.
Although these events are impossible to predict with great accuracy, updating building security, school security plans, and USD emergency plans can prepare
school districts such as USD 345 for these events. Companies such as the National School Safety and Security Services provide the expertise in this field to help
review and upgrade plans for the district.
Goal.Objective
Funding Sources
1.3, 3.1,
Category
Jurisdiction
Emergency
Services
Actual Complete
Date
Notes
Hazard
Priority
Assigned To
High
Dams / Levees
Commence
Date
Target Complete
Date
Anticip.
Duration
April 31, 2011
% Complete
0
Initiative (Action)
2. Appoint a committee to develop and submit an Emergency Action Plan (EAP) for the High Hazard Dam owned by Cross Creek Watershed Joint District No. 42.
Approval is granted through the Department of Agricultures Water Resources Division - State Engineering Office. The EAP should be integrated into the Shawnee
The dam is identified as Dam #131 (State ID #DSN-0693) which is owned and operated by the Cross Creek WJD No. 42 and was constructed in 2004. The dam is
required to have an EAP filed with the State of Kansas. The State evaluation of high-hazard dams is based on its location in areas where failure may cause
extensive loss of life, serious damage to homes, industrial and commercial facilities, important puiblic utilities, or main highways or railroads. It is important to note
that a high hazard dam is not necessairily unsafe, as defined by the State of Kansas. An individual dam's hazard classification is based upon the potential
consequences of dam failure and does not reflect the physical condition of the dam. Preparing for a potential emergency is an essential planning step to secure the
poeple and property downstream from a potential breach or dam failure.
Goal.Objective
Funding Sources
1.1, 1.3, 2.1,
Local
Category
Jurisdiction
Emergency
Services
District
Actual Complete
Date
Notes
Hazard
Priority
Assigned To
High
District
Dams / Levees
Commence
Date
Target Complete
Date
Anticip.
Duration
April 31, 2011
% Complete
0
Initiative (Action)
2. Appoint a committee to develop and submit an Emergency Action Plan (EAP) for the High Hazard Dam owned by the Shunganunga Drainage District. Approval is
granted through the Department of Agriculture's Water Resources Division - State Engineering Office. The EAP should be integrated into the Shawnee County Local
Emergency Operations Plan.
The dam is identified as Burnett Dam (State ID #DSN-0045,owned and operated by the Shunganunga Drainage District No. 1, and was constructed in 1953). The
dam is required to have an EAP filed with the State of Kansas. The State evaluation of high-hazard dams is based on its location in areas where failure may cause
extensive loss of life, serious damage to homes, industrial and commercial facilities, important puiblic utilities, or main highways or railroads. It is important to note
Goal.Objective
Funding Sources
1.1, 1.3, 2.1,
Local
Category
Jurisdiction
Actual Complete
Date
Notes
Hazard
Priority
Assigned To
Commence
Target Complete
Anticip.
% Complete
Date
Property
Protection
Willard
Flood
Moderate
Date
Duration
December 31,
2015
City of Willard
0
Initiative (Action)
2. Research, develop, and adopt a Floodplain Management Plan for the City of Willard.
Portions of the City of Willard have had historic flooding issues. The City currently does not have a Floodplain Management Plan to help in alleviating flooding
issues.
Actual Complete
Date
Notes
Jurisdiction
Hazard
Priority
Assigned To
Washburn University
Multi-Hazard
Moderate
Washburn University / City
of Topeka / Shawnee
County
Goal.Objective
Funding Sources
1.1, 2.1, 3.1,
Category
Emergency
Services
Commence
Date
Target Complete
Date
Anticip.
Duration
December 31,
2015
% Complete
0
Initiative (Action)
2. Develop a radio communications plan between campus security units and outside agencies of Shawnee County and the City of Topeka to ensure interoperability
between all communities. The Plan should address equipment compatibility and upgrade requirements to implement the Plan.
Washburn University has identified a need to implement interoperable radio communications between its security staff and county and city services in case of
campus emergency.
Goal.Objective
Funding Sources
1.3, 4.1,
Category
Jurisdiction
Prevention
Tri County Drainage
District No. 1
Actual Complete
Date
Notes
Hazard
Priority
Assigned To
Moderate
Tri County Drainage
District No. 1
Dams / Levees
Commence
Date
Target Complete
Date
Anticip.
Duration
December 31,
2014
% Complete
0
Initiative (Action)
2. Conduct a study of the Tri County Drainage District No. 1 levees to determine PM43 requirements for certification and continue protection of areas located behind
levees.
The Tri County Drainage District No.1 identified levees used to control flooding located within the District, but did not provide information regarding number of
levees, ownership, construction/inspection data, or potential FEMA certifications regarding the levees. This information, and the location of the levees, should be
identified, and a determination be made as to whether the existing levees within the Tri County Drainage District meet the applicable PM 43 requirements.
Goal.Objective
Funding Sources
1.1, 1.2,
Category
Jurisdiction
Property
Protection
Silver Lake
Actual Complete
Date
Notes
Hazard
Priority
Assigned To
Moderate
Silver Lake Mitigation
Officer / Floodplain
Manager
Flood
Commence
Date
Target Complete
Date
Anticip.
Duration
December 31,
2015
% Complete
0
Initiative (Action)
2. Appoint a Planning Committee to work with Shawnee County to develop a plan to reduce flooding in areas of the City of Silver Lake currently located within a
floodplain.
The northern portion of the City of Silver Lake is located within a floodplain, and reportedly floods frequently. The City of Silver Lake intends to work with Shawnee
County to identify methods of flood-reduction in this area, which may require structural projects.
Goal.Objective
Funding Sources
1.1, 1.2, 2.1,
Category
Jurisdiction
Emergency
Services
Topeka
Actual Complete
Date
Notes
Hazard
Priority
Dams / Levees
Moderate
Assigned To
City of Topeka
Commence
Date
Target Complete
Date
December 31,
2015
Anticip.
Duration
% Complete
0
Initiative (Action)
2. Develop and submit Emergency Action Plans (EAPs) for the three High Hazard Dams owned by the City of Topeka. Approval is granted through the Department
of Agriculture's Water Resources Division - State Engineering Office. The EAPs should be forwarded to the Shawnee County Emergency Management Department
for inclusion in the Shawnee County Local Emergency Operations Plan.
The dams are identified as the City of Topeka Unnamed Dam (State ID #DSN-0613) constructed in 1977, the Biddle Creek Detention Dam (State ID
#DSN-0634)construction date unknown, and the Westridge Detention Dam (State ID #DSN-0681)construction date unknown. The dams are required to have an
EAP filed with the State of Kansas. The State evaluation of high-hazard dams is based on its location in areas where failure may cause extensive loss of life, serious
damage to homes, industrial and commercial facilities, important puiblic utilities, or main highways or railroads. It is important to note that a high hazard dam is not
necessairily unsafe, as defined by the State of Kansas. An individual dam's hazard classification is based upon the potential consequences of dam failure and does
not reflect the physical condition of the dam. Preparing for a potential emergency is an essential planning step to secure the people and property downstream from a
potential breach or dam failure.
Goal.Objective
Funding Sources
1.1, 1.3, 2.1,
Local
Category
Jurisdiction
Property
Protection
Kaw River Drainage
District
Actual Complete
Date
Notes
Hazard
Priority
Assigned To
Moderate
Kaw River Drainage
District
Dams / Levees
Commence
Date
Target Complete
Date
Anticip.
Duration
December 31,
2014
% Complete
0
Initiative (Action)
2. Continue levee maintenance and river bank repair within the Drainage District.
meets monthly. The general mission of the drainage district is flood control and river bank stabilization. Future planning includes levee maintenance and river bank
repair as needed.
Goal.Objective
Funding Sources
1.1, 1.2,
Category
Jurisdiction
Property
Protection
District
Actual Complete
Date
Notes
Hazard
Priority
Assigned To
Moderate
District
Dams / Levees
Commence
Date
Target Complete
Date
Anticip.
Duration
December 31,
2014
% Complete
0
Initiative (Action)
2. Seek funding to repair Soldier Creek levees and channel damaged by 2005 flood waters.
maintenance and operation of flood control levees, flood-gate structures, and channels. Future planning, if funding is available, includes repair of Soldier Creek
levees and channel damaged by 2005 flood waters.
Goal.Objective
Funding Sources
1.1, 1.2,
Category
Jurisdiction
Prevention
Rossville
Actual Complete
Date
Notes
Hazard
Priority
Assigned To
Moderate
Floodplain Manager / Utility
Superintendent
Flood
Commence
Date
Target Complete
Date
Anticip.
Duration
December 31,
2015
% Complete
0
Initiative (Action)
2. Seek funding to complete a stormwater drainage study/plan for the City of Rossville that will lead to a stormwater management ordinance.
Historically, the City of Rossville has experienced areas of flooding within the city limits due to inadequate drainage of stormwater runoff.
Actual Complete
Date
Notes
Jurisdiction
Hazard
Priority
Assigned To
MultiJurisdictional
Flood
High
Goal.Objective
Funding Sources
1.1, 3.2,
Local, State, Federal
Category
Public
Information &
Awareness
Commence
Date
Target Complete
Date
Anticip.
Duration
Continuous
% Complete
0
Initiative (Action)
2. On an annual basis, contact owners identified in high-risk flood areas and inform them of potential availability of assistance through the Federal Flood Mitigation
Assistance (FEMA) program, in addition to other flood protection measures.
Property owners should be contacted every year to promote the availability of the FEMA funding and to determine their level of interest in applying for the program.
Goal.Objective
Funding Sources
3.1, 4.3,
Local
Category
Jurisdiction
Property
Protection
Shawnee (UnInc.)
Actual Complete
Date
Notes
Hazard
Priority
Assigned To
Low
Shawnee County Planning
Committee/Planner
Flood
Commence
Date
Target Complete
Date
Anticip.
Duration
December 31,
2015
% Complete
0
Initiative (Action)
3. Develop a program to acquire and preserve parcels of land subject to repetitive flooding from willing and voluntary property owners.
Land acquisition is an effective mitigation technique to permanently eliminate the potential for damages from future flood events. Shawnee County can apply for
grant funding to acquire flood-prone parcels of land from voluntary and willing property owners.
Goal.Objective
Funding Sources
1.1, 2.1, 3.1,
FEMA, KDEM, Local
Category
Jurisdiction
Actual Complete
Date
Notes
Hazard
Priority
Assigned To
Commence
Target Complete
Anticip.
% Complete
Date
Structural
Projects
Rossville
Tornado
Low
Date
Duration
December 31,
2015
Zoning Administrator
0
Initiative (Action)
3. Seek funding to retain an engineer to design a community tornado shelter and apply for grant funding for construction.
A lack of tornado shelters poses a serious risk to the safety of the community. The City of Rossville has identified a need for Community Storm Shelters.
Actual Complete
Date
Notes
Jurisdiction
Hazard
Priority
Assigned To
District
Dams / Levees
Moderate
District
Goal.Objective
Funding Sources
2.4, 3.1,
FEMA
Category
Property
Protection
Commence
Date
Target Complete
Date
Anticip.
Duration
December 31,
2014
% Complete
0
Initiative (Action)
3. Upgrade of the levee located along the north side of the Kansas River within the drainage district.
maintenance and operation of flood control levees, flood-gate structures, and channels. Future planning, if funding is available, includes the upgrade of the levee
located along the north side of the Kansas River in the District.
Goal.Objective
Funding Sources
1.1, 1.2,
Category
Jurisdiction
Prevention
Kaw River Drainage
District
Actual Complete
Date
Notes
Hazard
Priority
Assigned To
Moderate
Kaw River Drainage
District
Dams / Levees
Commence
Date
Target Complete
Date
Anticip.
Duration
December 31,
2014
% Complete
0
Initiative (Action)
3. Conduct a study of the Kaw River Drainage District levees to determine PM43 requirements for certification and continue protection of areas located behind
levees.
meets monthly. The general mission of the drainage district is flood control and river bank stabilization. Future planning, if funding is available, includes levee
maintenance and river bank repair as needed.
Actual Complete
Date
Notes
Jurisdiction
Hazard
Priority
Assigned To
MultiJurisdictional
Flood
High
City-County Planners
Goal.Objective
Funding Sources
1.1, 1.2,
Category
Property
Protection
Commence
Date
Target Complete
Date
Anticip.
Duration
Continuous
% Complete
0
Initiative (Action)
3. Advertise and promote the availability of flood insurance to property owners by direct mail once a year.
Shawnee County, including the cities of Auburn, Rossville, Silver Lake, Topeka, and Willard participate in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). There are
currently 949 policies in effect, with a total coverage amount of $144,838,400. Since the jurisdictions joined the program, there have been 250 claims paid for a total
loss paid amount of $2,977,231. (Source: FEMA, 2008). NFIP flood insurance policies protect property owners by offering affordable rates for protecting both
structures and contents.
Goal.Objective
Funding Sources
4.2,
Local
Category
Jurisdiction
Structural
Projects
Silver Lake
Actual Complete
Date
Notes
Hazard
Priority
Assigned To
Low
Silver Lake Mitigation
Officer / Zoning
Administrator
Tornado
Commence
Date
Target Complete
Date
Anticip.
Duration
December 31,
2015
% Complete
0
Initiative (Action)
3. Seek funding to retain an engineer to design a community tornado shelter and apply for grant funding for construction.
A lack of tornado shelters poses a serious risk to the safety of the community. The City of Silver Lake has identified a need for Community Storm Shelters within the
existing Community Center and/or City Hall, as neither structure has a basement.
Actual Complete
Date
Notes
Jurisdiction
Hazard
Priority
Assigned To
Washburn University
Multi-Hazards
Moderate
Washburn University
Goal.Objective
Funding Sources
2.4, 3.1,
FEMA
Category
Emergency
Commence
Date
Target Complete
Date
December 31,
Anticip.
Duration
% Complete
0
Services
2014
Initiative (Action)
3. Appoint a committee to research and implement enhancements to the University's early warnings systems for students and staff for weather alerts and campus
emergencies.
Washburn University has identified a need to enhance the University's ability to issue early warnings for students and staff for weather events or campus
emergencies in an effective, dependable, and rapid manner.
Actual Complete
Date
Notes
Jurisdiction
Hazard
Priority
Assigned To
Topeka
Dams / Levees
Low
City of Topeka
Goal.Objective
Funding Sources
1.3, 4.1,
Category
Property
Protection
Commence
Date
Target Complete
Date
Anticip.
Duration
December 31,
2015
% Complete
0
Initiative (Action)
3. The City of Topeka will continue to operate and maintain their levee systems in accordance with the provisional PM 43 certification granted by FEMA, and will
continue to work with other jurisdictions and levee owners for future compliance issues.
The US Army Corps of Engineers prepared a Flood Risk Management Project - Feasibility Study Report and Environmental Assessment performed in connection
with the City of Topeka levee system in December 2008, on behalf of the City of Topeka Public Works Department. The Study Area includes those portions of the
Kansas River, Soldier Creek, and Shunganunga Creek drainage basins that are located within the City of Topeka. Upon considering the economic, environmental,
social, and engineering aspects of making improvements to the existing Topeka, Kansas, Local Flood Protection Project, it was determined that a project to reduce
the risk of flooding was in the public interest. The Corps of Engineers recommended that the Project be submitted to Congress for implementation with existing cost
sharing and financing requirements. Information obtained through the City of Topeka Public Works Department indicated that the Project had been submitted to
Congress, and the levee system has been provisionally certified for two-years by FEMA.
Actual Complete
Date
Notes
Jurisdiction
Hazard
Priority
Assigned To
Topeka
Tornado
Low
City of Topeka
Goal.Objective
Funding Sources
1.1, 1.2,
Category
Structural
Projects
Commence
Date
Target Complete
Date
Anticip.
Duration
December 31,
2015
% Complete
0
Initiative (Action)
4. Seek funding to retain an engineer to design Storm Shelters within several city-owned buildings and apply for grant funding for construction.
A lack of tornado shelters poses a serious risk to the community, including City of Topeka employees. The City of Topeka has identified a need for Storm Shelters
within the existing Street and Fleet Operations Building and the Administration Building/Parks and Recreation Field Office within the city limits.
Actual Complete
Date
Notes
Jurisdiction
Hazard
Priority
Assigned To
District
Dams / Levees
Moderate
District
Goal.Objective
Funding Sources
2.4, 3.1,
FEMA
Category
Prevention
Commence
Date
Target Complete
Date
Anticip.
Duration
December 31,
2014
% Complete
0
Initiative (Action)
4. Conduct a study of the North Topeka Drainage District levees to determine PM43 requirements for certification and continue protection of areas located behind
levees.
The North Topeka Drainage District identified levees used to control flooding located within the jurisdiction, but did not provide information regarding number of
levees, ownership, construction/inspection data, or potential FEMA certifications regarding the levees. This information, and the location of the levees, should be
identified, and a determination be made as to whether the existing levees within the North Topeka Drainage District meet the applicable PM 43 requirements.
Actual Complete
Date
Notes
Jurisdiction
Hazard
Priority
Assigned To
Shawnee (UnInc.)
Flood
High
Planner
Goal.Objective
Funding Sources
1.1, 1.2,
Category
Prevention
Commence
Date
Target Complete
Date
Anticip.
Duration
Continuous
% Complete
0
Initiative (Action)
4. Regularly calculate and document the amount of flood prone property that is preserved as open space to reduce flood insurance burden to the county.
CRS credit is given for areas that are permanently preserved as open space. Although credit is not given for federal lands, The jurisdiction maintains and continues
to expand floodplain areas preserved as open space through wetlands restoration and other projects. The jurisdiction also has floodplain land within state parks or
otherwise preserved as wildlife and natural preserves, which does qualify for additional CRS credit.
Goal.Objective
Funding Sources
1.2, 2.2,
Local
Category
Jurisdiction
Actual Complete
Date
Notes
Hazard
Priority
Assigned To
Commence
Date
Target Complete
Date
Anticip.
Duration
% Complete
Public
Information &
Awareness
MultiJurisdictional
All
High
Chamber of
Commerce/Emergency
Management
Continuous
0
Initiative (Action)
4. Collect educational materials on individual and family preparedness/mitigation measures for property owners, and display at both the library and routinely visited
government offices.
FEMA, the Kansas Division of Emergency Management, the National Weather Service and other agencies provide information brochures and pamphlets on property
protection measures at no cost to local governments.
Actual Complete
Date
Notes
Jurisdiction
Hazard
Priority
Assigned To
MultiJurisdictional
Utility /
Infrastructure
Failure
High
Public Works / City
Officials
Goal.Objective
Funding Sources
4.3,
Local
Category
Property
Protection
Commence
Date
Target Complete
Date
Anticip.
Duration
December 31,
2015
% Complete
0
Initiative (Action)
5. Coordinate county and local government mitigation efforts with Rural Electric Cooperatives (REC’s), encourage identification of hazards potentially affecting their
infrastructure, assessment of the vulnerabilities of the infrastructure to these hazards, and identification of mitigation strategies.
Long-term planning goals that will reduce exposure to loss of electrical power are beneficial to all organizations and citizens within the jurisdiction. Power loss during
extreme periods of cold or heat increase damage potential to people and property.
Actual Complete
Date
Notes
Jurisdiction
Hazard
Priority
Assigned To
Shawnee (UnInc.)
Flood
Moderate
Committee
Goal.Objective
Funding Sources
3.2,
Local
Category
Prevention
Commence
Date
Target Complete
Date
Anticip.
Duration
December 31,
2015
% Complete
0
Initiative (Action)
5. Identify flash-flood prone areas to recommend flood reduction measures to county planners.
Flood zone mapping will provide initial identification of potential hazard areas that can be reviewed with other data sources, such as the watershed districts goals
and objectives, in developing long range planning activities for flash-flood prevention, or other planning steps to reduce exposure to this hazard.
Goal.Objective
Funding Sources
1.1, 2.2,
Local
Category
Jurisdiction
Public
Information and MultiJurisdictional
Awareness
Actual Complete
Date
Notes
Hazard
Priority
Assigned To
All
Moderate
Chamber of
Commerce/Emergency
Management
Commence
Date
Target Complete
Date
Anticip.
Duration
Continuous
% Complete
0
Initiative (Action)
6. Annually host a public “hazards workshop” for the residents of the jurisdiction, in combination with local festivals, fairs, or other appropriate events.
A hazard workshop for residents should be added to an established event drawing large crowds. The workshop should be geared toward educating them on the
hazards that threaten Shawnee County, and the mitigation and preparedness measures available to protect them. Guest speakers from the National Weather
Service, the Kansas Division of Emergency Management, and other relevant agencies should be invited to attend, and educational displays/handouts should be
provided such as Flood Insurance Rate Maps, FEMA publications, safety tips, etc.
Actual Complete
Date
Notes
Jurisdiction
Hazard
Priority
Assigned To
MultiJurisdictional
Multi-hazard
High
City / County Planners /
Emergency Services
Goal.Objective
Funding Sources
4.3,
Local
Category
Property
Protection
Commence
Date
Target Complete
Date
Anticip.
Duration
Continuous
% Complete
0
Initiative (Action)
7. Encourage the construction of safe rooms and storm shelters in public and private schools, day care centers and senior care facilities.
When severe weather threatens, individuals and families need advance warning and protection from the dangerous forces of extreme winds. Individuals and
communities in high-risk tornado and hurricane areas need structurally sound shelters and early alert systems.
Goal.Objective
Funding Sources
Actual Complete
Date
Notes
2.3, 2.4, 3.1, 3.2, FEMA/State/Local
Category
Jurisdiction
Hazard
Priority
Assigned To
Natural
Shawnee (UnInc.)
Flood
Moderate
Commence
Date
Target Complete
Date
December 31,
Anticip.
Duration
% Complete
0
Resource
Protection
Committee
2015
Initiative (Action)
7. Research and design an appropriate stream buffer ordinance to further protect the jurisdiction’s water resources and to limit future flood damages adjacent to
major waterways.
Riparian buffers serve as natural boundaries between local waterways and existing development and help protect resources by filtering pollutants, providing flood
control, alleviating streambank erosion, mitigating stream warming, and providing room for lateral movement of the stream channel. Buffer widths can vary greatly
depending upon stream channel size and the intended purpose of the buffer, but 50-100 feet is generally considered to be sufficient for purposes of bank
stabilization and sediment control. Many communities require 200 feet for flood control purposes. Special consideration should be given to exempting Shawnee
County’s agricultural operations from buffer regulations.
Actual Complete
Date
Notes
Jurisdiction
Hazard
Priority
Assigned To
Shawnee (UnInc.)
All
Moderate
Department
Goal.Objective
Funding Sources
1.1, 2.1, 2.2,
FEMA/State/Local
Category
Emergency
Services
Commence
Date
Target Complete
Date
Anticip.
Duration
December 31,
2015
% Complete
0
Initiative (Action)
8. Conduct an inventory/survey for emergency response services to identify any existing needs or shortfalls in terms of personnel, equipment or required resources.
A survey should be completed in order to verify the county’s current emergency services are adequate to protect public health and safety from most probable hazard
events. Any identified needs or shortfalls should become documented and result in specific recommendations to the County Commission for emergency service
enhancements.
Actual Complete
Date
Notes
Jurisdiction
Hazard
Priority
Assigned To
MultiJurisdictional
Multi-hazard
Moderate
Emergency Management /
Local Officials
Goal.Objective
Funding Sources
1.2, 1.3,
Local/State
Category
Public
Information &
Awareness
Commence
Date
Target Complete
Date
Anticip.
Duration
Continuous
% Complete
0
Initiative (Action)
8. Educate residents about driving in winter storms and handling winter-related health effects.
US Department of Transportation (USDOT), the Kansas Department of Transportation (KDOT) and other agencies provide information brochures and pamphlets on
safe driving measures at no cost to local governments.
Actual Complete
Date
Notes
Jurisdiction
Hazard
Priority
Assigned To
MultiJurisdictional
Terrorism /
Agri-Terrorism /
Civil Disorder
Moderate
County Health Department/
County Emergency
Management/ County
Extension/ Local
Producers
Goal.Objective
Funding Sources
4.3,
Local
Category
Natural
Resources
Protection
Commence
Date
Target Complete
Date
Anticip.
Duration
December 31,
2015
% Complete
0
Initiative (Action)
9. Promote and educate the jurisdiction’s public and private sectors on potential agricultural terrorism and bio-terrorism issues that can severely impact the county
and regional economies, and develop and implement plans to address these issues.
Shawnee is an urban county, but maintains an agricultural base in the unincorporated areas of the county. A natural or intentional introduction of a foreign animal
disease would be devastating to the local, regional state, economies. This annex will be added to the Local Emergency Operations Plan, with additional annexes
developed in the future to address other types of terrorism.
Actual Complete
Date
Notes
Jurisdiction
Hazard
Priority
Assigned To
Shawnee (UnInc.)
Multi-hazard
Moderate
Committee
Goal.Objective
Funding Sources
3.1, 4.4,
Category
Property
Protection
Commence
Date
Target Complete
Date
December 31,
2015
Anticip.
Duration
% Complete
0
Initiative (Action)
9. Amend existing or adopt new zoning and subdivision ordinances to require installation of onsite tornado shelters for any new Manufactured Housing and Travel
Trailer Parks with more than 10 mobile home spaces.
Mobile homes are particularly vulnerable to damage from high winds. Residents, even those who live in mobile homes with tie-downs, should seek safe shelter
when a tornado threatens. Tornado shelters should be constructed in major mobile home parks to ensure a safe place for residents to go during a tornado event.
The shelter structure, which should be designed to withstand a minimum of 120mph winds, could easily serve an alternate purpose such as a community center,
laundry facility, etc. Tornado shelters should be for last minute protection for high wind events.
Goal.Objective
Funding Sources
2.3, 2.4,
N/A
Category
Jurisdiction
Prevention
Shawnee (UnInc.)
Actual Complete
Date
Notes
Hazard
Priority
Assigned To
Moderate
and County GIS / City
Officials
All
Commence
Date
Target Complete
Date
Anticip.
Duration
December 31,
2015
% Complete
0
Initiative (Action)
10. Develop cross-departmental information collection capabilities, and incorporate cadastral (building/parcel) data utilizing a GIS for purposes of conducting more
detailed hazard risk assessments and for tracking permitting / land use patterns, buildings and infrastructure replacement costs, and overall structural accounting for
the county and local jurisdictions.
A comprehensive catalog of data can greatly enhance technical capability to manage, analyze and display spatially referenced data. Shawnee County has basic GIS
capabilities available through the Shawnee County GIS Department. Further development of this capability for functional use across all departments and
jurisdictions will enhance the overall capabilities to document building/structure cost data, and further hazard mitigation goals in developing cadastral data for the
county.
Goal.Objective
Funding Sources
1.2,
Kansas Division of
Emergency
Management, Local
resources, and grants
Category
Jurisdiction
Public
Information and Shawnee (UnInc.)
Awareness
Actual Complete
Date
Notes
Hazard
Priority
Assigned To
Wildfire
Moderate
Fire Officials / Emergency
Management
Commence
Date
Target Complete
Date
Anticip.
Duration
December 31,
2015
% Complete
0
Initiative (Action)
11. Develop and implement a wildfire prevention/education program. In addition to providing education to the general public, the program should also target children,
fire and equipment users, builders and developers, and homeowners.
Shawnee County has burn-ban resolutions which require special permission to conduct open burning operations. In periods of drought or extreme weather
conditions a burn ban may be declared. When a ban is declared all radio stations, TV stations, and regional newspapers in the area are notified as well as mayors,
fire chiefs, etc. To better educate the public at large, Shawnee County should expand their existing fire protection program to include wildfire workshops to all age
groups and commercial operations.
Actual Complete
Date
Notes
Jurisdiction
Hazard
Priority
Assigned To
Shawnee (UnInc.)
Wildfire
High
Fire Officials/Emergency
Management
Goal.Objective
Funding Sources
1.3, 1.4, 4.4,
Local
Category
Emergency
Services
Commence
Date
Target Complete
Date
Anticip.
Duration
December 31,
2015
% Complete
0
Initiative (Action)
12. Examine the current agreements within the county and assess the need to expand or update cooperative agreements for firefighting resources. Include
agreements with local, state and federal agencies.
Cooperative agreements provide the support needed in times of emergency, and are an important element of planning, with the long-range goal of reducing damage
to structures and systems within the jurisdiction.
Actual Complete
Date
Notes
Jurisdiction
Hazard
Priority
Assigned To
Shawnee (UnInc.)
Wildfire
Moderate
Fire Officials / Emergency
Management
Goal.Objective
Funding Sources
1.3, 1.4, 3.2,
Local
Category
Emergency
Services
Commence
Date
Target Complete
Date
Anticip.
Duration
December 31,
2015
% Complete
0
Initiative (Action)
13. Create a working group to evaluate the firefighting water supply resources within the County. This should include both fixed and mobile supply issues.
Lack of sufficient water supply makes it difficult for firefighters to suppress fires. Whenever possible, increasing access to water along water service delivery lines
(wet and dry hydrants) would provide additional resources for emergency responders.
Actual Complete
Date
Notes
Jurisdiction
Hazard
Priority
Assigned To
Shawnee (UnInc.)
Wildfire
High
Rural Fire/Emergency
Management/Kansas
Forest Service
Goal.Objective
Funding Sources
1.3, 1.4, 3.2,
Local
Category
Prevention
Commence
Date
Target Complete
Date
December 31,
2015
Anticip.
Duration
% Complete
0
Initiative (Action)
14. Distribute assessment report examples provided by the Kansas Forest Service to applicable parties to develop an understanding of the Community Wildfire
Protection Plan (CWPP). Recommend joining the program and completing an assessment report for approval.
The probability of grass/cropland fire in Shawnee County is relatively high. With the known history of wildfire occurrence, the likelihood of future events is estimated
to remain the same as currently calculated. Shawnee County can expect an average of 31.46 significant wildfires per year that damage or destroy a total of 5,924
acres. The average area burned is approximately 987 acres, with a average dollar loss of $7,283.43. The Kansas Forest Service staff would provide assistance to
interested communities in the form of a Community Wildfire Hazard Assessment Report and some mitigation action items.
Actual Complete
Date
Notes
Jurisdiction
Hazard
Priority
Assigned To
Shawnee (UnInc.)
Wildfire
High
Rural Fire / Emergency
Management
Goal.Objective
Funding Sources
1.3, 1.4, 3.2,
Local/State/Federal grant
programs
Category
Prevention
Commence
Date
Target Complete
Date
Anticip.
Duration
December 31,
2015
% Complete
0
Initiative (Action)
15. Appoint a rural fire committee to schedule meetings with the Kansas Forest Service to map suspected hazardous wildfire areas in the county for potential
participation in the Community Wildfire Protection Program (CWPP).
In order for a community to take advantage of the Community based Healthy forests Restoration Act (HFRA), 2003, a community must develop a Community
Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP). To develop qualifications the community must identify and map potential hazard areas as an initial step towards participation in the
program.
Actual Complete
Date
Notes
Jurisdiction
Hazard
Priority
Assigned To
Shawnee (UnInc.)
Wildfire
High
Rural Fire / Emergency
Management / Kansas
Forest Service
Goal.Objective
Funding Sources
1.3, 1.4, 3.2,
Local/State/Federal
Category
Prevention
Commence
Date
Target Complete
Date
Anticip.
Duration
December 31,
2015
% Complete
0
Initiative (Action)
16. Incorporate wildfire maps, develop actions and projects for wildfire prevention, and complete an assessment report to meet CWPP requirements for submittal to
the Kansas Forest Service.
The minimum requirements participation in the CWPP as described in the HFRA are: (1) Collaboration: A CWPP must be collaboratively developed by local and
state government representatives, in consultation with federal agencies and other interested parties. (2) Prioritized Fuel Reduction: A CWPP must identify and
prioritize areas for hazardous fuel reduction treatments and recommend the types and methods of treatment that will protect one or more at-risk communities and
essential infrastructure. (3) Treatment of Structural Ignitability: A CWPP must recommend measures that homeowners and communities can take to reduce the
ignitability of structures throughout the area addressed by the plan.
Goal.Objective
Funding Sources
1.3, 1.4, 3.2,
Local/State/Federal
Category
Jurisdiction
Natural
Resource
Protection
Shawnee (UnInc.)
Actual Complete
Date
Notes
Hazard
Priority
Assigned To
Low
Mission township /
Sherwood Improvement
District
Flood
Commence
Date
Target Complete
Date
Anticip.
Duration
December 31,
2015
% Complete
0
Initiative (Action)
17. Seek funding to replace the undersized culverts located across SW 40th Street to eliminate excessive erosion in the lower end of the Lake Sherwood watershed
due to current and future development runoff.
Due to inadequate culvert size, this watershed creek has overtopped the road numerous times and has caused extensive erosion of silk and rock being washed
away and deposited in the cove of Lake Sherwood. The recommended work would include removing the two existing small culverts and replace with a larger one,
with additional road work to accommodate the changes. The subject culvert is located at the south edge of the Sherwood Improvement District and outside the
taxing authority of the SID, approximately 1.4 miles west of Wanamaker Road on 40th Street at the 7100 block. The estimated project cost is approximately
$225,000.
Goal.Objective
Funding Sources
1.1, 2.1, 2.2,
FEMA/State/Local
Category
Jurisdiction
Emergency
Services
Shawnee (UnInc.)
Actual Complete
Date
Notes
Hazard
Priority
Assigned To
High
Sherwood Lake Club /
Mission Township
Dams / Levees
Commence
Date
Target Complete
Date
December 31,
2015
Anticip.
Duration
% Complete
0
Initiative (Action)
18. Develop and submit an Emergency Action Plan (EAP) for the Lake Sherwood High Hazard Dam to the State of Kansas and the Shawnee County Emergency
Management Department. Approval is granted through the Department of Agricultures Water Resources Division - State Engineering Office. The EAP should be
integrated into the Shawnee County Local Emergency Operations Plan.
The dam is identified as the Lake Sherwood Dam (State ID #DSN-0165), which is owned and operated by the Sherwood Lake Club and was constructed in 1964.
The dam is required to have an EAP filed with the State of Kansas. The State evaluation of high-hazard dams is based on its location in areas where failure may
cause extensive loss of life, serious damage to homes, industrial and commercial facilities, important public utilities, or main highways or railroads. It is important to
note that a high hazard dam is not necessairily unsafe, as defined by the State of Kansas. An individual dam's hazard classification is based upon the potential
Actual Complete
Date
Notes
Jurisdiction
Hazard
Priority
Assigned To
Shawnee (UnInc.)
All
Moderate
Goal.Objective
Funding Sources
1.1, 1.3, 2.1,
Local
Category
Prevention
Commence
Date
Target Complete
Date
Anticip.
Duration
December 31,
2015
% Complete
0
Initiative (Action)
19. Identify the most at-risk critical facilities and evaluate potential mitigation techniques for protecting each facility to the maximum extent possible.
A thorough evaluation of potential mitigation opportunities for the jurisdiction's critical facilities must still be completed. Currently, there is limited data available on
these facilities. An inventory/database on critical facilities should be created and maintained by the county and shared with the Kansas Division of Emergency
Management. This inventory should include information on the location and risk to each facility, and should also document any cost-effective mitigation techniques
to consider when funding becomes available.
Goal.Objective
Funding Sources
Actual Complete
Date
Notes
Hazard
Priority
Assigned To
Moderate
1.2, 1.3, 3.1, 3.2, Local
Category
Property
Protection
Jurisdiction
Shawnee (UnInc.)
Dams / Levees
Commence
Date
Target Complete
Date
Anticip.
Duration
Continuous
% Complete
0
Initiative (Action)
20. The Cross Creek Watershed will continue to construct, operate, and maintain water detention dams for flood reduction in the watershed district.
The Cross Creek Watershed Joint District No. 42 contains 17,900 acres within Shawnee County, and is also located within the taxing districts of Pottawatomie
County and Jackson County. The operating budget was $96,570 for 2009. The organization will evaluate the need for further construction, operation, and
maintenance projects, and additional effort will be made to seek alternative funding as they become available.
Goal.Objective
Funding Sources
1.1, 1.2,
Category
Jurisdiction
Property
Protection
Shawnee (UnInc.)
Actual Complete
Date
Notes
Hazard
Priority
Assigned To
Moderate
Kaw River Drainage
District
Dams / Levees
Commence
Date
Target Complete
Date
Anticip.
Duration
December 31,
2015
% Complete
0
Initiative (Action)
21. The Kaw River Drainage District will continue to perform flood control and river bank stabilization within the Drainage District.
The Kaw River Drainage District contains 5,500 acres within Shawnee County. The drainage district Board was formed in 1905, and meets monthly. The general
mission of the drainage district is flood control and river bank stabilization.
Goal.Objective
Funding Sources
1.1, 1.2,
Category
Jurisdiction
Property
Protection
Shawnee (UnInc.)
Actual Complete
Date
Notes
Hazard
Priority
Assigned To
Moderate
District
Dams / Levees
Commence
Date
Target Complete
Date
Anticip.
Duration
Continuous
% Complete
0
Initiative (Action)
22. The North Topeka Drainage District will continue to maintain and operate flood control levees, flood gate structures, and channels, allowing storm water runoff to
pass through the district without causing flooding of property.
The North Topeka Drainage District contains 920 acres within Shawnee County. The drainage district Board was formed in 1906, and meets monthly. The general
mission of the drainage district is to pass stormwater run-off through the District without causing flooding of property through maintenance and operation of flood
control levees, flood-gate structures, and channels. The organization will evaluate the need for further maintenance projects, and additional effort will be made to
seek alternative funding as they become available.
Goal.Objective
Funding Sources
1.1, 1.2,
Category
Jurisdiction
Property
Protection
Shawnee (UnInc.)
Actual Complete
Date
Notes
Hazard
Priority
Assigned To
Low
District
Dams / Levees
Commence
Date
Target Complete
Date
December 31,
2015
Anticip.
Duration
% Complete
0
Initiative (Action)
23. The North Topeka Drainage District will seek funding to repair Soldier Creek levees and channel damaged by 2005 flood waters.
control levees, flood-gate structures, and channels. Future planning, if funding is available, includes repair of Soldier Creek levees and channel damaged by 2005
flood waters.
Actual Complete
Date
Notes
Jurisdiction
Hazard
Priority
Assigned To
Shawnee (UnInc.)
Dams / Levees
Low
District
Goal.Objective
Funding Sources
1.1, 1.2,
Category
Property
Protection
Commence
Date
Target Complete
Date
Anticip.
Duration
December 31,
2015
% Complete
0
Initiative (Action)
24. The North Topeka Drainage District will consider an upgrade of the levee located along the north side of the Kansas River within the drainage district.
control levees, flood-gate structures, and channels. Future planning, if funding is available, includes the upgrade of the levee located along the north side of the
Kansas River in the District.
Actual Complete
Date
Notes
Jurisdiction
Hazard
Priority
Assigned To
Shawnee (UnInc.)
Multi-Hazard
Moderate
Shawnee County
Consolidated RWD No. 1
Goal.Objective
Funding Sources
1.1, 1.2,
Category
Property
Protection
Commence
Date
Target Complete
Date
Anticip.
Duration
December 31,
2015
% Complete
0
Initiative (Action)
25. The Shawnee County Consolidated RWD No. 1 will continue to assess the impact of natural hazards on water distribution lines, systems, and equipment. Seek
funding sources to mitigate damage to critical infrastructure.
The Shawnee County Consolidated RWD No. 1 provides potable water to their customers throughout Shawnee County. Maintaining distribution capabilities of
potable water is the water district's top priority.
Actual Complete
Date
Notes
Jurisdiction
Hazard
Priority
Assigned To
Shawnee (UnInc.)
Dams / Levees
High
District
Goal.Objective
Funding Sources
1.2, 3.2,
Category
Property
Protection
Commence
Date
Target Complete
Date
Anticip.
Duration
December 31,
2015
% Complete
0
Initiative (Action)
26. The Shunganunga Drainage District will continue the care and maintenance of the Shunganunga Drainage District Dams, including the South Branch Dam and
the Burnett Dam.
The Kaw River Drainage District encompasses the area along Shunganunga Creek in Shawnee County, but is responsible only for the maintenance of the dams
located on the Creek. The drainage district Board was formed in 1906, and meets monthly. The general mission of the drainage district is care and maintenance of
the Shunganunga Drainage District Dams. Future planning includes cement-work on the spillways of each dam and possible raising the level of the South Branch
Dam to meet state regulations.
Actual Complete
Date
Notes
Jurisdiction
Hazard
Priority
Assigned To
Shawnee (UnInc.)
Dams / Levees
High
District
Goal.Objective
Funding Sources
1.1, 1.2,
Category
Emergency
Services
Commence
Date
Target Complete
Date
Anticip.
Duration
December 31,
2015
% Complete
0
Initiative (Action)
27. Develop and submit an Emergency Action Plan (EAP) for the Burnett Dam owned and maintained by the Shunganunga Drainage District. Approval is granted
through the Department of Agriculture's Water Resources Division - State Engineering Office. The EAP should be integrated into the Shawnee County Local
Emergency Operations Plan.
The high hazard dam is identified as the Burnett Dam which is owned and operated by the Shunganunga Drainage District. The dam is required to have an EAP
filed with the State of Kansas. The State evaluation of high-hazard dams is based on its location in areas where failure may cause extensive loss of life, serious
damage to homes, industrial and commercial facilities, important public utilities, or main highways or railroads. It is important to note that a high hazard dam is not
necessarily unsafe, as defined by the State of Kansas. An individual dam's hazard classification is based upon the potential consequences of dam failure and does
not reflect the physical condition of the dam. Preparing for an emergency is an essential planning step to secure the people and property downstream from a
potential breach or dam failure.
Goal.Objective
Funding Sources
1.1, 1.3, 2.1,
Local
Category
Jurisdiction
Actual Complete
Date
Notes
Hazard
Priority
Assigned To
Commence
Target Complete
Anticip.
% Complete
Date
Property
Protection
Shawnee (UnInc.)
Dams / Levees
Moderate
Tri County Drainage
District No. 1
Date
Duration
December 31,
2015
0
Initiative (Action)
28. The Tri-County Drainage District No. 1 will continue to construct, operate, and maintain levee systems along the Kansas River and a portion of Cross Creek and
Bourbanois Creek for flood protection.
The Tri-County Drainage District No. 1 contains 8,920 acres within Shawnee County, and is also located within the taxing districts of Pottawatomie County and
Wabaunsee County. The general mission of the drainage district is to construct, operate, and maintain levee systems along the Kansas River and a portion of Cross
Creek and Bourbanois Creek for flood protection. The organization will evaluate the need for further maintenance projects, and additional effort will be made to seek
alternative funding as they become available.
Goal.Objective
Funding Sources
1.1, 1.2,
Category
Jurisdiction
Emergency
Services
Shawnee (UnInc.)
Actual Complete
Date
Notes
Hazard
Priority
Assigned To
High
Shawnee County
(unincorporated)
Dams / Levees
Commence
Date
Target Complete
Date
April 31, 2015
Anticip.
Duration
% Complete
0
Initiative (Action)
29. Develop and submit an Emergency Action Plan (EAP) for the Lake Shawnee High Hazard Dam. Approval is granted through the Department of Agriculture's
Water Resources Division - State Engineering Office. The EAP should be integrated into the Shawnee County Local Emergency Operations Plan.
The dam is identified as the Lake Shawnee Dam (State ID #DSN-0017), which is owned and operated by Shawnee County and was constructed in 1937. The dam
is required to have an EAP filed with the State of Kansas. The State evaluation of high-hazard dams is based on its location in areas where failure may cause
extensive loss of life, serious damage to homes, industrial and commercial facilities, important public utilities, or main highways or railroads. It is important to note
Goal.Objective
Funding Sources
1.1, 1.3, 2.1,
Local
Actual Complete
Date
Notes

Shawnee County, Kansas Multi-Jurisdictional Mitigation Plan

Transcription

Similar documents

5100 Block of SW 29th Street

Paisano`s Ristorante Ohlde`s Family swim party

What you have told us

PDF - City of Terrell Hills

sports facility guide

project profile - Bowden Contracting Co.

Thursday, April 24 @ 7:30pm AMC BarryWoods 24

Group tours - Child Care Aware of Eastern Kansas

Are You Ready for Change? - Sales and Marketing Executives

Fanfare for Christmas