3 risk assessment

Transcription

3 risk assessment

3 RISK ASSESSMENT
44 CFR Requirement §201.6(c)(2): [The plan shall include] A risk assessment that provides the
factual basis for activities proposed in the strategy to reduce losses from identified hazards. Local
risk assessments must provide sufficient information to enable the jurisdiction to identify and
prioritize appropriate mitigation actions to reduce losses from identified hazards.
The risk assessment process identifies and profiles relevant hazards and assesses the exposure of
lives, property, and infrastructure to these hazards. The goal of the risk assessment is to estimate
the potential loss in Neosho County, including loss of life, personal injury, property damage, and
economic loss, from a hazard event. The risk assessment process allows communities in Neosho
County to better understand their potential risk from natural hazards and provides a framework
for developing and prioritizing mitigation actions to reduce risk from future hazard events.
The risk assessment for Neosho County and its jurisdictions followed the methodology described
in the FEMA publication 386-2, Understanding Your Risks: Identifying Hazards and Estimating
Losses (2002), which includes a four-step process:
•
•
•
•
Identify Hazards
Profile Hazard Events
Inventory Assets
Estimate Losses
This chapter is divided into three parts: hazard identification, hazard profiles, and vulnerability
assessment:
•
•
•
•
Section 3.1 Hazard Identification identifies the hazards that threaten the planning area and
describes why some hazards have been omitted from further consideration.
Section 3.2 Hazard Profiles discusses the threat to the planning area and describes previous
occurrences of hazard events and the probability of future occurrence.
Section 3.3 Vulnerability Assessment assesses the County’s total exposure to natural
hazards, considering critical facilities and other community assets at risk, and assessing
growth and development trends. Hazards that vary geographically across the planning area
are addressed in greater detail. This section includes steps 3 and 4 from above.
Section 3.4 Summary of Key Issues provides a summary of the key issues or problems
identified in the Risk Assessment.
Neosho County
Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan
January 2009
DRAFT
3.1
Multi-Jurisdictional Risk Assessment
For this multi-jurisdictional plan, the risk assessment assesses each jurisdiction’s risks where
they deviate from the risks facing the entire planning area. Neosho County is not a large county
geographically (578 square miles) and is fairly uniform in terms of climate and topography as
well as construction characteristics and development trends. Accordingly, overall hazards and
vulnerability do not vary greatly across the planning area for most hazards. Weather-related
hazards, such as drought, extreme heat, hailstorm, lightning, tornado, windstorm, and winter
storm, affect the entire planning area.
The hazards that do vary across the planning area include dam and levee failure, flood, and
wildfire. In Section 3.1, Hazard Identification, Table 3.2 indicates with a checkmark the hazards
identified for each participating jurisdiction. In Section 3.2, Hazard Profiles, the Geographic
Location section discusses how the hazard varies among jurisdictions across the planning area.
The Previous Occurrences section lists the best available data on where past events have
occurred and the associated losses to particular jurisdictions. Section 3.2.2, Community Asset
Inventory, describes critical facilities and other community assets by jurisdiction. Section 3.3.3,
Vulnerability by Hazard, identifies structures and estimates potential losses by jurisdiction where
data is available and hazard areas are identified for hazards of moderate and high planning
significance. Table 3.24 at the end of Section 3.2 summarizes the planning significance rating for
each hazard by jurisdiction.
The previous chapter, Chapter 2 Planning Area Profile and Capabilities, discussed the existing
mitigation capabilities of each jurisdiction, such as plans and policies, personnel, and financial
resources, which are currently used to reduce hazard losses.
3.1 Hazard Identification
Requirement §201.6(c)(2)(i): [The risk assessment shall include a] description of the type…of all
natural hazards that can affect the jurisdiction.
3.1.1 Methodology
The Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee (HMPC) reviewed data and discussed the impacts of
each of the hazards suggested by FEMA for consideration, which are listed alphabetically below:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Avalanche
Coastal Erosion
Coastal Storm
Dam/Levee Failure
Debris Flow
Drought
Earthquake
Neosho County
January 2009
DRAFT
3.2
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Expansive Soils
Extreme Heat
Flood
Hailstorm
Hurricane
Land Subsidence
Landslide
Severe Winter Storm
Tornado
Tsunami
Volcano
Wildfire
Windstorm
In addition to considering the hazards suggested by FEMA for consideration, the HMPC also
reviewed data and discussed the impacts of the following natural hazards that were included in
the State of Kansas Hazard Mitigation Plan:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Agricultural Infestation
Fog
Lightning
Major Disease Outbreak
Soil Erosion & Dust
Utility/Infrastructure Failure
Data on the past impacts and future probability of these hazards in the Neosho County planning
area was collected from the following sources:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Kansas Hazard Mitigation Plan (November 2007)
Information on past hazard events from the Spatial Hazard Event and Loss Database
(SHELDUS), a component of the University of South Carolina Hazards Research Lab that
compiles county-level hazard data for 18 different natural hazard event types
Information on past extreme weather and climate events from the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) National Climatic Data Center
Federal Disaster Declarations from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
USDA Farm Service Agency Disaster Declarations
Draft Neosho County Mitigation Plan in MitigationPlan.com™, a web-based planning tool
developed by Visual Risk Technologies
Various articles and publications available on the internet (sources are indicated where data
is cited)
Neosho County
January 2009
DRAFT
3.3
The HMPC eliminated some hazards from further profiling because they do not occur in the
planning area or their impacts were not considered significant in relation to other hazards. Table
3.1 lists these hazards and provides a brief explanation for their elimination.
Table 3.1 Hazards Not Profiled in the Plan
Hazard
Avalanche
Coastal Erosion
Coastal Storm
Debris Flow
Hurricane
Fog
Landslide
Land
Subsidence
Major Disease
Outbreak
Tsunami
Volcano
Explanation for Omission
There are no mountains in the planning area.
Planning area is not near coastal areas.
There are no mountainous regions in the planning area susceptible to debris flow
Although fog does occur in the planning area occasionally, the HMPC determined that the
impacts are restricted primarily to traffic accidents and are difficult to mitigate
This hazard does not occur in the planning area due to the flat topography.
There are no known subsurface void spaces in Neosho County and no known historical
occurrences of this hazard.
The Neosho County Health Department maintains plans relating to prevention and response for
major disease outbreaks. The HMPC chose not to duplicate those efforts by addressing this
hazard in this mitigation plan.
There are no volcanic mountains in the planning area.
The HMPC identified 15 natural hazards that significantly affect the planning area and organized
these hazards to be consistent with the Kansas Hazard Mitigation Plan (2007). These hazards are
listed below and profiled in further detail in the next section. The HMPC agreed not to address
manmade hazards, which are planned for in other documents such as the emergency operations
plan.
Table 3.2. Hazards Identified for Each Participating Jurisdiction
Hazard
Dam and Levee Failure
Drought
Earthquake
Expansive Soils
Extreme Heat
Flood
Hailstorm
Lightning
Soil Erosion and Dust
Utility/Infrastructure Failure
Tornado
Wildfire
Windstorm
Winter Storm
Neosho County
January 2009
Neosho County
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
DRAFT
Chanute
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Erie
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
St. Paul
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Thayer
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
3.4
3.1.2 Disaster Declaration History
One method used by the HMPC to identify hazards was to examine events that triggered federal
and/or state disaster declarations. Federal and/or state declarations may be granted when the
severity and magnitude of an event surpasses the ability of the local government to respond and
recover. Disaster assistance is supplemental and sequential. When the local government’s
capacity has been surpassed, a state disaster declaration may be issued, allowing for the
provision of state assistance. Should the disaster be so severe that both the local and state
governments’ capacities are exceeded; a federal emergency or disaster declaration may be issued
allowing for the provision of federal assistance.
The federal government may issue a disaster declaration through FEMA, the U.S. Department of
Agriculture (USDA), and/or the Small Business Administration. FEMA also issues emergency
declarations, which are more limited in scope and do not include the long-term federal recovery
programs of major disaster declarations. Determinations for declaration type are based on scale
and type of damages and institutions or industrial sectors affected.
A USDA disaster declaration certifies that the affected county has suffered at least a 30 percent
loss in one or more crop or livestock areas and provides affected producers with access to lowinterest loans and other programs to help mitigate disaster impacts. In accordance with the
Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act, counties neighboring those receiving disaster
declarations are named as contiguous disaster counties and are eligible for the same assistance.
Table 3.3 lists federal disaster declarations received by Neosho County. Each of the disaster
events affected multiple counties; estimated damages reflect total losses to all counties.
Table 3.3 Disaster Declaration History in Neosho County, 1969-Present
Declaration
Number
Declaration
Date
Disaster
Description
Counties Included
Estimated
Damage (2008 $)
Major Disaster Declarations
1711
7/2/2007
Severe Storms
and Flooding
1600
8/23/2005
Severe Storms
and Flooding
1462
5/6/2003
Severe Storms,
Tornadoes, and
Flooding
Neosho County
January 2009
Allen, Anderson, Bourbon, Butler, Chautauqua,
Cherokee, Coffey, Cowley, Crawford, Edwards,
Elk, Franklin, Greenwood, Harper, Labette, Linn,
Miami, Montgomery, Neosho, Osage, Pawnee,
Wilson, Woodson
Cherokee, Crawford, Neosho
Allen, Anderson, Cherokee, Crawford, Douglas,
Haskell, Labette, Leavenworth, Meade, Miami,
Neosho, Osage, Seward, Woodson, Wyandotte
DRAFT
43,259,800
3,655,689
16,848,760
3.5
Declaration
Number
1402
Declaration
Date
2/6/2002
Disaster
Description
Ice Storm
Estimated
Damage (2008 $)
1327
5/3/2000
Severe Storms
and Tornadoes
1258
11/5/1998
Severe Storms
and Flooding
Butler, Chase, Coffey, Cowley, Douglas, Franklin,
Greenwood, Harper, Harvey, Johnson,
Leavenworth, Lyon, Marion, Neosho, Saline,
Sedgwick, Sumner, Wilson, Woodson, Wyandotte
780
10/22/1986
Severe Storms,
Flooding
Allen, Bourbon, Chautauqua, Cherokee, Cowley,
Elk, Labette, Montgomery, Neosho, Wilson
514
7/13/1976
Severe Storms,
High Winds,
Flooding
Butler, Cherokee, Crawford, Cowley, Elk,
Greenwood, Labette, Neosho, Montgomery,
Wilson
267
7/15/1969
Tornadoes,
Severe Storms,
Flooding
Allen, Anderson, Bourbon, Crawford, Dickinson,
Douglas, Ellsworth, Franklin, Johnson,
Leavenworth, Linn, Lyon, McPherson, Miami,
Morris, Neosho, Osage, Saline, Woodson,
Wyandotte
Counties Included
Allen, Anderson, Barber, Bourbon, Butler,
Chautauqua, Cherokee, Coffey, Comanche,
Cowley, Crawford, Douglas, Elk, Franklin,
Greenwood, Harper, Jefferson, Johnson,
Kingman, Kiowa, Labette, Leavenworth, Linn,
Lyon, Miami, Montgomery, Neosho, Osage,
Pratt, Sedgwick, Shawnee, Sumner, Wilson,
Woodson, Wyandotte
Crawford, Labette, Neosho
71,015,060
3,739,826
27,122,420
4,579,850
24,001,560
4,295,500
Emergency Declarations
3236
9/10/2005
Hurricane Katrina
Evacuation
All
0
Source: Federal Emergency Management Agency, www.fema.gov/;
Note: Incident dates are in parentheses. Zero values (0) may indicate missing data.
Table 3.4 below lists U.S. Department of Agriculture disaster declarations and their related
causes for Neosho County for the period 2005-2007.
Table 3.4. USDA Disaster Declarations in Neosho County 2005-2007
USDA Disaster
Number
M1711
S2525
S2485
S2413
M1600
M1579
Start Date
6/26/2007
4/4/2007
1/1/2006
1/1/2006
6/30/2005
1/4/2005
Drought
Heat
X
X
X
X
X
Cause
Excessive
Moisture
X
High
Winds
Severe
Storms
X
Winter
Storms
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Source: USDA Farm Service Agency, www.fsa.usda.gov, http://www.fsa.usda.gov/Internet/FSA_File/2005-2007_elig_co_031208.xls
Neosho County
January 2009
DRAFT
3.6
3.2 Hazard Profiles
Requirement §201.6(c)(2)(i): [The risk assessment shall include a] description of the…location and
extent of all natural hazards that can affect the jurisdiction. The plan shall include information on
previous occurrences of hazard events and on the probability of future hazard events.
3.2.1 Methodology
Each hazard identified in Section 3.1, Hazard Identification, is profiled individually in this
section in alphabetical order for easier reference. The level of information presented in the
profiles varies by hazard based on the information available. With each update of this plan, new
information will be incorporated to provide for better evaluation and prioritization of the hazards
that affect Neosho County.
The sources used to collect information for these profiles include those mentioned in Section
3.1.1 as well as those cited individually in each hazard section. Detailed profiles for each of the
identified hazards include information on the following characteristics of the hazard:
Hazard Description
This section consists of a general description of the hazard and the types of impacts it may have
on a community. It also includes a ranking to indicate typical warning times and duration of
hazard events. Definitions for these rankings are included in Table 3.x.
Geographic Location
This section describes the geographic extent or location of the hazard in the planning area.
Where available, maps are utilized to indicate the areas of the planning area that are vulnerable
to the subject hazard.
Previous Occurrences
This section includes information on historic incidents and their impacts based upon the sources
described in Section 3.1 Hazard Identification and the information provided by the Hazard
Mitigation Planning Committee.
Probability of Future Occurrence
The frequency of past events is used to gauge the likelihood of future occurrences. Where
possible, the probability or chance of occurrence was calculated based on historical data.
Probability was determined by dividing the number of events observed by the number of years
and multiplying by 100. This gives the percent chance of the event happening in any given year.
An example would be three droughts occurring over a 30-year period, which suggests a 10
Neosho County
January 2009
DRAFT
3.7
percent chance of a drought occurring in any given year. The probability was assigned a rank as
defined in Table 3.5.
Magnitude/Severity
The magnitude of the impact of a hazard event (past and perceived) is related directly to the
vulnerability of the people, property, and the environment it affects. This is a function of when
the event occurs, the location affected, the resilience of the community, and the effectiveness of
the emergency response and disaster recovery efforts.
The magnitude of each profiled hazard is classified in the following manner:
•
•
•
•
Level 4-Catastrophic—More than 50 percent of property severely damaged; shutdown of
facilities for more than 30 days; and/or multiple deaths
Level 3-Critical—25-50 percent of property severely damaged; shutdown of facilities for at
least two weeks; and/or injuries and/or illnesses result in permanent disability
Level 2-Limited—10-25 percent of property severely damaged; shutdown of facilities for
more than a week; and/or injuries/illnesses do not result in permanent disability
Level 1-Negligible—Less than 10 percent of property severely damaged, shutdown of
facilities and services for less than 24 hours; and/or injuries/illnesses treatable with first aid
Hazard Summary
To maintain a consistent reporting format, the Neosho County Hazard Mitigation Planning
Committee (HMPC) used the methodology from the MitigationPlan.com™ planning tool to
prioritize the hazards. This prioritization was based on a calculated priority risk index (CPRI)
that considered four elements of risk: probability, magnitude/severity, warning time, and
duration. Table 3.5 defines the rankings for each element of risk. The CPRI for each hazard is
provided in Table 3.6.
Neosho County
January 2009
DRAFT
3.8
Table 3.5 Calculated Priority Risk Index (CPRI) Element Definitions
Element/Level
Probability
4 - Highly Likely
Characteristics
Event is probable within the calendar year.
Event has up to 1 in 1 year chance of occurring (1/1=100%)
History of events is greater than 33% likely per year.
Event is "Highly Likely" to occur
3 – Likely
Event is probable within the next three years.
Event has up to 1 in 3 years chance of occurring (1/3=33%)
History of events is greater than 20% but less than or equal to 33% likely per year
Event is "Likely" to occur
2 – Occasional
Event is probable within the next five years.
History of events is greater than 10% but less than or equal to 20% likely per year
Event could "Possibly" occur
1 – Unlikely
Event is possible within the next 10 years
History of events is less than or equal to 10% likely per year
Event is "Unlikely" but is possible of occurring
Magnitude / Severity**
4 - Catastrophic
Multiple deaths
Complete shutdown of facilities for 30 or more days
More than 50 percent of property is severely damaged
3 – Critical
Injuries and/or illnesses result in permanent disability
Complete shutdown of critical facilities for at least two weeks
25–50 percent of property is severely damaged
2 – Limited
Injuries and/or illnesses do not result in permanent disability
Complete shutdown of critical facilities for more than one week
10–25 percent of property is severely damaged
1 – Negligible
Injuries and/or illnesses are treatable with first aid
Minor quality of life lost
Shutdown of critical facilities and services for 24 hours or less
Less than 10 percent of property is severely damaged
Warning Time
4
3
2
1
Duration
4
3
2
1
Less Than 6 Hours
6-12 Hours
12-24 Hours
24+ Hours
More Than 1 Week
Less Than 1 Week
Less Than 1 Day
Less Than 6 Hours
Source: MitigationPlan.com™
* Based on history, using the definitions given, the likelihood of future events is quantified.
** According to the severity associated with past events or the probable worst case scenario possible in the state.
Using the ranking described in the table above, the formula used to determine each hazard’s
CPRI, which includes weighting factors defined by MitigationPlan.com™, was:
(Probability x .45) + (Magnitude/Severity x .30) + (Warning Time x .15) + (Duration x .10) = CPRI
Neosho County
January 2009
DRAFT
3.9
Based on their CPRI scores, the hazards were separated into three categories of planning
significance: High (2.5-4.0), Moderate (2.0-2.5), and Low (1.1-1.9).
These terms relate to the level of planning analysis to be given to the particular hazard in the risk
assessment process and are not meant to suggest that a hazard would have only limited impact.
In order to focus on the most critical hazards, those assigned a level of significant or moderate
were given more extensive attention in the remainder of this analysis (e.g., quantitative analysis
or loss estimation), while those with a low planning significance were addressed in more general
or qualitative ways. Table 3.6 summarizes the results of the completed Hazard Profiles using this
methodology.
Table 3.6 Hazard Profile Summary, Neosho County
Hazard Type
Tornado
Winter Storm
Windstorm
Flood
Utility / Infrastructure
Failure
Hailstorm
Drought
Wildfire
Extreme Heat
Lightning
Expansive Soils
Soil Erosion & Dust
Earthquake
Probability
Highly Likely-4
Highly Likely-4
Highly Likely-4
Highly Likely-4
Likely-3
Likely-3
Magnitude
Critical-3
Limited-2
Limited-2
Limited-2
Critical-3
Limited-2
Warning
Time
4
2
1
2
2
4
Duration
1
3
4
2
3
3
CPRI
3.4
3.00
2.95
2.90
2.85
2.85
Planning
Significance
High
High
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Highly Likely-4
Likely-3
Likely-3
Likely-3
Likely-3
Likely-3
Occasional-2
Occasional-2
Unlikely-1
Limited-2
Critical-3
Limited-2
Negligible-1
Limited-2
Negligible-1
Negligible-1
Negligible-1
Negligible-1
2
2
1
4
1
2
1
1
4
1
1
4
2
3
1
4
4
1
2.80
2.65
2.50
2.45
2.40
2.05
1.75
1.75
1.45
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Low
Low
Low
Source: HMPC
Notes: Measures for Probability and Magnitude were determined by the Neosho County HMPC. Warning times and duration for
each hazard were obtained from the Kansas Hazard Mitigation Plan, Appendix E.
Neosho County
January 2009
DRAFT
3.10
3.2.2 Agricultural Infestation
Description
Agricultural infestation is a naturally occurring infection of crops or livestock that renders them
unfit for consumption or use. Typical causes can include insects, vermin, fungus, or diseases
transferable amongst animals. The types and severity of agricultural infestations vary based on
many factors, including cycles of heavy rains and drought. Because of the substantial importance
of the agricultural industry in Kansas, agricultural infestation poses a risk to the economy of the
entire state.
A certain level of agricultural infestation is normal for Kansas farmers and ranchers. The concern
is when the level of an infestation escalates suddenly, or a new infestation appears that
overwhelms local control efforts. The potential introduction of animal diseases, such as foot and
mouth disease and bovine spongiform encephalopathy disease is a key concern. The Kansas
Center for Community Economic Development (KCCED) reports that cattle and milk production
in Neosho County averaged $16.0 million per year from 2002-2005. The importance of this
agricultural sector makes the potential for a contagious disease outbreak in livestock a
continuing, significant threat to the economy of the County.
Field crops are also subject to various types of infestation. Wheat is susceptible to leaf rust,
wheat streak mosaic, barley yellow dwarf virus, strawbreaker, and tan spot. Significant wheat
crop losses due to these diseases are well documented in Kansas. Sorghum losses can occur
when a crop is infected with sooty stripe early in the growing season. Gray leaf spot is a growing
problem for corn crops. The KCCED reports that the average value of crop harvests in Neosho
County from 1990-2005 was $19.6 million. The significance of this agricultural sector in the
local economy makes crop infestation a serious concern.
Insect infestation can cause major losses to stored grain. The estimated damage to stored grain
from the lesser grain borer, rice weevil, red flour beetle, and rusty grain beetle in the United
States is approximately $500 million annually.
Onset of agricultural infestation can be rapid. Controlling an infestation’s spread is critical to
limiting impacts through methods including quarantine, culling, premature harvest and/or crop
destruction when necessary. Duration is largely affected by the degree to which the infestation is
aggressively controlled, but is generally more than one week. Warning time is typically more
than 24 hours. Maximizing warning time is also critical for this hazard, and is most affected by
methodical and accurate monitoring and reporting of livestock and crop health and vigor,
including both private individuals and responsible agencies.
Warning Time: Level 1—less than 6 hours
Duration: 4—more than one week
Neosho County
January 2009
DRAFT
3.11
Geographic Location
All agricultural areas of the planning area are subject to agricultural infestations, though if a
major infestation event were to occur the entire county would be affected. There is 341,000 acres
classified as farm land in Neosho County according to the 2006 Kansas Agricultural Statistics
Service. This represents 92.5 percent of total land area in the county.
On a statewide basis, annual wheat yield loss in Kansas has averaged 4.0 percent over the
previous 20 years according to the Kansas State University Department of Plant Pathology. The
western and northeastern parts of the state of Kansas were somewhat less susceptible to leaf rust
in 2007, a common disease affecting wheat crops. This geographic distribution for leaf rust
corresponds with areas of the state with somewhat lower utilization of the land for crops and
rangeland, and fewer feedlots. Figure 3.1 shows areas of moderate (yellow) and severe (red) leaf
rust disease pressure in 2007.
Figure 3.1. Leaf Rust Disease Pressure, Kansas 2007
Source: Kansas State Department of Agriculture, Kansas Cooperative Plant Disease Survey Report: Preliminary 2007 Kansas
Wheat Disease Loss Estimates, www.ksda.gov/plant_protection/content/183/cid/611
Notes: Red = High to Severe, Yellow = Moderate. Blue square indicates approximate location of Neosho County
Neosho County
January 2009
DRAFT
3.12
Other crop diseases and their primary locations include those listed in the following table:
Table 3.7. Kansas Crop Disease Regions
Disease/Fungus
Septoria leaf disease
Tan spot
Stripe rust
Powdery mildew
Scab
Primary Kansas Region
Eastern 2/3 of Kansas
Entire state
Primary Crop Affected
Wheat, produce
Wheat
Wheat
Produce, vine crops
Wheat
Source: USDA Agricultural Research Service
The USDA Agricultural Research Service notes the most serious threat to wheat and cereal crops
globally is stem rust race Ug99. This fungus is spreading across Africa, Asia, and most recently
into the Middle East and is considered a serious threat to global food security.
During the summers of 1855 and 1874, the region of Kansas that includes Neosho County
experienced extensive crop damage due to grasshopper infestations. Historical accounts of the
1874 event state: "The sky was literally darkened by the hordes of insects as they came in from
the Rocky Mountains to the west." (Barnhart, 1881).
In 2002, the state experienced a foot and mouth scare. The outbreak was ultimately determined
not to be foot and mouth, but the episode demonstrated the level of concern in the community,
the importance of accurate monitoring and rapid response. In 2003, the first confirmed domestic
case of BSE disease was reported in Washington State and required quarantines and the
destruction of several herds. According to the USDA Risk Management Agency, there were no
insured crop losses in Neosho County as a result of agricultural infestation from 2005 to 2007.
Probability of Future Occurrences
Neosho County experiences some degree of agricultural losses each year as a result of naturallyoccurring agricultural infestations.
High Likely: Event is probable within the next three years.
Magnitude/Severity
Limited— Injuries and/or illnesses do not result in permanent disability. Complete shutdown of
critical facilities for more than one week with 10–25 percent of property is severely damaged.
Hazard Summary
Calculated Priority Risk Index
2.95
Neosho County
January 2009
Planning Significance
Moderate
DRAFT
3.13
3.2.3 Dam and Levee Failure
Description
The Kansas Department of Agriculture Division of Water Resources defines a state-regulated
“dam” as any artificial barrier including appurtenant works with the ability to impound water,
wastewater, or other liquids that has a height of 25 feet or more; or has a height of six feet or
greater and also has the capacity to impound 50 or more acre feet. The height of the dam is
measured from the downstream toe to the top of the dam if a watercourse is affected or from the
lowest elevation of the outside limit of the dam to the top of the dam for barriers that do not
extend across a stream or watercourse. Dam failure can be caused by simple structural failure, or
any combination of the following factors:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
earthquake
flood conditions leading to overtopping
inadequate spillway capacity
internal erosion
improper design
improper maintenance
arson
negligent operation
failure of upstream dams
The failure of dams or levees can result in injuries, loss of life, and damage to property and the
environment. While levees are built solely for flood protection, dams often serve multiple
purposes, one of which may be flood control. Severe flooding and other storms can increase the
potential that dams and levees will be damaged and fail as a result of the physical force of the
flood waters or overtopping.
Dams and levees are usually engineered to withstand a flood with a computed risk of occurrence.
If a larger flood occurs, then that structure will likely be overtopped. If during the overtopping,
the dam fails or is washed out, the water behind is released as a flash flood. Failed dams can
create floods that are catastrophic to life and property, in part because of the tremendous energy
of the released water.
The hazard potential for dam failure is classified according to the following definitions accepted
by the Interagency Committee on Dam Safety:
•
Low Hazard Potential—Failure or misoperation results in no probable loss of human life and
low economic and/or environmental losses. Losses are principally limited to the owner’s
property.
Neosho County
January 2009
DRAFT
3.14
•
•
Significant Hazard Potential—Failure or misoperation results in no probable loss of human
life but can cause economic loss, environmental damage, disruption of lifeline facilities, or
other impacts. Significant hazard potential classification dams are often located in
predominantly rural or agricultural areas but could be located in areas with population and
significant infrastructure.
High Hazard Potential—Failure or misoperation will probably cause loss of human life.
Speed of onset depends largely on the causal factors. Dam failure can occur in as little as a few
minutes or slowly over the course of many months; warning time will vary accordingly. In the
event of a catastrophic failure of a large dam, evacuation time at locations directly downstream
would be extremely brief. Floodplain characteristics largely determine the available warning
time for locations further downstream but overall warning time is typically less than 6 hours.
Duration of high water conditions that result from dam failure depends on the capacity and stage
of the reservoir at time of breach as well as the severity of the breach, but is generally less than
one week.
The Dam Safety Program in Kansas 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 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 as required by the Act. The
Chief Engineer has the power and duty to inspect any dam. The Chief 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.
Dams and levees are usually engineered to withstand a flood with a computed risk of occurrence.
If a larger flood occurs, then that structure will likely be overtopped. If during the overtopping,
the dam fails or is washed out, the water behind is released as a flash flood. Failed dams can
create floods that are catastrophic to life and property, in part because of the tremendous energy
of the released water. The Planning Committee determined, after review of available data, the
federal and state inspection of dams and Dam Incident Notices would give adequate notice of
dam condition problems well in advance of a breach.
Warning Time: Level 2— 12 to 24 hours
Neosho County
January 2009
DRAFT
3.15
Geographic Location
According to data from the National Inventory of Dams, Neosho County has 63 state or federal
regulated dams. Of those, two are high hazard dams, one is a significant hazard dam, 58 are low
hazard dams and two are undetermined. The two high hazard dams and one significant hazard
dam are described below:
•
•
•
Lake Parsons Dam—This high hazard dam is located on Labette Creek forms Lake Parsons,
a community lake in Neosho County, which is used for drinking water purposes.
Construction of the dam was completed in 1959, and it is the property of the city of Parsons
in Labette County. The Lake is located 3 miles north on highway 59 and 4 miles west on
40th road from the city of Parsons. It holds 980 acres of water and covers 980 surface acres.
The dam is 52 feet high and is regulated by the Kansas Department of Water Resources.
Because it drains downstream into Labette County, it does not impact any structures in
Neosho County.
L.D.H., Inc. Lake Dam—This high hazard dam and the lake it forms is owned by L.D.H.
Farms, Inc. of Chanute, Kansas. The earthen dam impounds water from Turkey Creek and
was completed in 1989. It is privately owned but is regulated by the Kansas Department of
Water Resources. It is 24 feet high and is used for recreational purposes.
Marion P. Stevens Dam—This significant hazard dam impounds water on the Big Creek and
forms Stevens Lake, owned by the Stevens family. The dam is of earthen construction, is 642
feet long and 26 feet high. The dam creates a farm pond which is not state regulated.
The impoundment structure at Santa Fe Lake, located on Little Turkey Creek within the city
limits of Chanute was originally classified as a levee, but was recently re-classified as a dam
during the re-mapping effort that produced the preliminary digital flood insurance rate maps.
According to the preliminary FEMA Flood Insurance Study for the re-mapping effort, this
structure has little storage area and cannot be considered as a flood protection structure.
Figure 3.2 below shows the locations of dams in Neosho County.
Neosho County
January 2009
DRAFT
3.16
Figure 3.2. Neosho County Dams
Neosho County
January 2009
DRAFT
3.17
There are three reservoirs constructed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers outside of Neosho
County that provide flood control for communities along the Neosho River (including Erie and
Chanute in Neosho County). Construction of the Council Grove, Marion, and John Redmond
Reservoirs on the upper reaches of the Cottonwood and Neosho watersheds has served to
partially control flooding from the Neosho River to the communities in Neosho County. Since
these reservoirs re at over 80 miles upstream of major communities in Neosho County, their
effect is to reduce, not prevent flooding. These dams have been quite effective in reducing the
flood peaks in Neosho River since their completion (Neosho County Preliminary Flood
Insurance Study, 2008). Information on these reservoirs and dams is listed below:
•
•
•
Marion Reservoir is located on the Cottonwood River three miles northwest of Marion in
Marion County, Kansas. The project was placed in full flood control operation in 1968.
Maximum discharge is 132,000 cubic feet per second (cfs). The flood of record occurred in
June and July 1951 with a peak discharge of 54,000 cfs and a volume of 78,950 acre-feet
which is equivalent to 7.4 inches of runoff from the drainage area above the dam site.
Council Grove Reservoir is located on the Neosho River one and a half miles northwest of
Council Grove in Morris County, Kansas. Construction of the project began in June 1960.
The project was placed in full flood control operation in1964. Spillway capacity at maximum
pool is 49,400 cfs. Channel capacity below the dam site is 3,100 cfs. The flood of record
occurred in June and July 1951 with a peak discharge of 121,000 cfs and a volume of
184,200 acre-feet, which is equivalent to 14.0 inches of runoff from the drainage area above
the dam site
John Redmond Dam is operated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and is located in
Coffey County on the Neosho River about three miles northwest of Burlington. Construction
of the project began in June 1959. Closure of the embankment was completed in September
1963. The project was completed for full flood control operation in September 1964. All
major construction was completed in December 1965. Ultimate development was initiated 1
January 1976 and the conservation pool elevation changed from 1036.0 to 1039.0. The dam
rises to a maximum height of 86.5 feet above the streambed. The structure is 21,790 feet long
which includes the lengths of the following components: earth fill embankment, 20,740 feet;
concrete spillway including piers and abutments, 664 feet; and two concrete non-overflow
bulkhead sections, 300 feet. The spillway is gated and concrete. The net opening of the
structure is 560 feet and it is equipped with fourteen 40- by 35-foot-high retainer gates.
Spillway capacity at the maximum pool (elevation 1074.5) is 578,000 cfs and at the top of
the flood control pool (elevation 1068.0) is 428,000 cfs. Two 24-inch- diameter low-flow
pipes are located through the left non-overflow section with a discharge capacity of 130 cfs
at the spillway crest. A 30-inch-diameter water supply connection is provided for future use.
Bank-full capacity of the channel below the dam site is 12,000 cfs.
The flood of record for John Redmond Dam occurred in June and July 1951 with a peak
discharge of 408,000 cfs and a volume of 2,030,000 acre-feet, which is equivalent to 12.62
inches of runoff from the drainage area above the dam site. The failure of this dam is a
Neosho County
January 2009
DRAFT
3.18
concern to the residents of Neosho County. If this dam failed, Neosho County would be
impacted.
Levees
Levee Systems constructed along the Neosho River and along portions of Little Turkey Creek
and Chanute Drain (a.k.a. Second Street Channel) in and around Chanute serve to contain lowfrequency flooding but are not adequate for major floods. The Flood Insurance Rate Map for
Chanute dated 2001 depicted in Figure 3.3 provides the location of the levee along the Northeast
city limit boundary that provides limited protection from flooding of the Neosho River.
Figure 3.3 Chanute Flood Insurance Rate Map, 2001
source:
FEMA Map Service Center
Neosho County
January 2009
DRAFT
3.19
Levees along the Neosho River south of the City of Erie corporate limits exist to protect
agricultural land along the Neosho River. The level of protection, if any, provided to the City of
Erie by these levees, is unknown (FEMA Flood Insurance Study for the City of Erie, 1993).
There is also a levee south of Chanute along the Neosho that provides limited protection to
portions of Erie. These levees are not depicted on the Flood Insurance Rate Map from 1993 or
the Preliminary Digital Flood Insurance Rate Map as the level of protection is not known.
During the June/July 2007 flood event, the levee south of Chanute on the Neosho River broke
and water went over the top of the levee into Erie damaging businesses, churches, and several
residences. On July 2, 2007, parts of the town of Erie, Kansas were flooded with up to four feet
of water, as levees in the vicinity of Erie and Chanute, Kansas breeched in three places. About
100 people were evacuated to two shelters (FEMA National Situation Update, July 3, 2007,
http://www.fema.gov/emergency/reports/2007/nat070307.shtm
In August, 2005, a levee broke one mile east of Ash Grove Cement Plant, leaving a 45 foot hole.
This is the levee depicted on the map in figure 3.3. In the June/July 2007 event, this levee did
not fail. But, it was overtopped. According to the Flood Insurance Study, the level of protection
provided by this levee is unknown.
Information from the Kansas Department of Agriculture reveals that there have been no reported
dam failures or previous Dam Incident Reports in Neosho County. The Association of State Dam
Safety Officials (ASDSO) reports ten dam failures in the U.S. from 1990 to 2007, with none of
these events occurring in Kansas.
Based frequency of previous occurrences (levee failures in 2005 and 2007) and the definitions
set forth in the hazard profile methodology, probability of future dam or levee failure is likely.
Levee failure has a higher probability than dam failure based on the past performances of these
structures during flood events. However, because dam failure is a manmade hazard, the
methodology for calculating probability based on past occurrences does not necessarily reflect
the actual risk of future occurrence. The HMPC determined that although damages could be high
in the event of a dam failure, probability of dam failure is low. Overall probability of future
occurrence is considered occasional.
Occasional: Event is probable within the next five years
Magnitude/Severity
Most dams in Neosho County are low hazard and present small risk to the people and property.
However, additional development downstream from these dams could elevate their hazard rating.
Neosho County
January 2009
DRAFT
3.20
The HMPC reviewed data on dams in Neosho County, and determined that only two are
classified as "High Hazard." Breach of the Lake Parsons Dam would impact Labette County
rather than Neosho County. The other High Hazard dam, owned by LDH Farms, is relatively
new, and unlikely to fail. The significant hazard dam creates a rural farm pond the breach of
which would impact residents on the farm. The Kansas Water Plan -- Small Dam Safety and
Rehabilitation Policy Section that was approved by the Kansas Water Authority on November
18, 2005, establishes policies and guidelines for dam safety in Kansas.
Breach of John Redmond Reservoir Dam in nearby Coffey County would have more serious
impacts to the planning area. A breach in the dam could flood residential, commercial, and
agricultural areas downstream in the Neosho River basin, including the communities of Chanute,
Erie, and St. Paul in Neosho County. Many other adverse social and economic consequences
could occur. A 1982 document entitled "Operation and Maintenance Manual, Volume II,
Contingency Plans for Emergencies", prepared by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers includes
information on the John Redmond Reservoir. In the event of a catastrophic event, the maps
identified flood waters impacting the City of Humboldt in adjacent Allen County within
approximately 20 hours, and impacting the Town of Erie in approximately 28 hours.
The John Redmond dam, along with Marion Reservoir Dam and Council Grove Reservoir Dam
is owned and maintained by the Army Corps of Engineers, and subject to regularly scheduled
inspection and maintenance activities. Data from the Association of State Dam Safety Officials
indicates that since 1990, no dam failures had occurred involving U.S. Corps of Engineers dams.
Limited—10-25 percent of property severely damaged; shutdown of facilities for more than a
week; and/or injuries/illnesses treatable do not result in permanent disability
Hazard Summary
2.65
Moderate
3.2.4 Drought
Description
Drought is generally defined as a condition of moisture levels significantly below normal over a
large area for an extended period of time that adversely affects plants, animal life, and humans. It
can also be defined in terms of meteorology, agriculture, and hydrology. A drought period can
last for months, years, or even decades. It is rarely a direct cause of death, though the associated
heat, dust, and stress can all contribute to increased mortality. Based on information from the
National Weather Service for 2006, drought was the nation’s second most costly natural hazard,
causing $2.6 billion in property and crop damages (flooding caused $3.9 billion in damages).
Periods of drought are normal occurrences in all parts of Kansas. Drought in Kansas is caused by
severely inadequate amounts of precipitation that adversely affect farming and ranching, surface
Neosho County
January 2009
DRAFT
3.21
and ground water supplies, and uses of surface waters for navigation and recreation. Drought can
cause significant economic and environmental impacts and also create favorable conditions for
wildfires and wind erosion (see Section 3.3.x Wildfire and Section 3.3.x Soil Erosion and Dust).
Warning Time: 1—more than 24 hours
Geographic Location
As a regional phenomenon, drought can affect all areas of Neosho County with roughly the same
frequency and severity. The impacts of prolonged drought are greatest across the 92 percent of
the County that is used for agricultural purposes. Across the broader region that includes all of
Kansas and the nation as a whole, Figure 3.4 below shows that Neosho County is situated in an
area of eastern Kansas that experienced drought 10-14.9 percent of the time over the 100 year
period from 1895-1995.
Figure 3.4. United States Percent of Time in Drought, 1895–1995
Note: Light blue square indicates the region of southeastern Kansas that includes Neosho County
Drought can lead to shortages in municipal water supplies due to deficiency of the raw water
supply and greatly increased customer water demand. In other cases the raw water supply may
remain adequate, but problems can be encountered due to limited treatment or distribution
Neosho County
January 2009
DRAFT
3.22
capacity. A 2006 assessment was conducted of 800 city or rural water district drinking water
systems by the Kansas Water Office to determine drought vulnerability. According to this
assessment, Neosho County does not have any drought vulnerable public water suppliers.
However, private wells are vulnerable. Table 3.8 provides information on the water systems in
Neosho County.
Table 3.8 List of Water Systems in Neosho County
Water System Name
City of Chanute
City of Erie
City of Galesburg
City of St. Paul
City of Thayer
Coal Hollow Water Company
Neosho Co Cons RWD 1
Neosho Co RWD 12
Neosho Co RWD 2
Neosho Co RWD 3
Neosho Co RWD 4
Neosho Co RWD 4A
Neosho Co RWD 5
Neosho Co RWD 6
Neosho Co RWD 7
Neosho Co RWD 8
Neosho Co RWD 9
Population
Served
9053
1683
149
657
499
57
472
437
1275
128
1018
975
112
510
603
275
200
Source: E-FM CONSULTING Hazard Analysis, 2006
Primary Water Source Type
Surface water
Surface water
Purchased surface water
Surface water
Surface water
Water System ID
KS2013307
KS2013310
KS2013308
KS2013316
KS2013312
KS2013302
KS2013320
KS2013321
KS2013314
KS2013315
KS2013317
KS2013319
KS2013311
KS2013305
KS2013303
KS2013309
KS2013301
From 1933 to 1940, Neosho County was part of the “Dust Bowl,” a period of severe drought and
wind erosion that impacted a broad region of the Midwest. Causes included an extended period
of below average precipitation and years of land management practices that left the dry topsoil
susceptible to wind erosion. This Dust Bowl period devastated the agricultural base of the Great
Plans, including Neosho County, though the southeastern Kansas counties fared slightly better
than the rest of the state.
The planning area was also severely affected by drought conditions from 1952 to 1957. During
this period, rainfall totals were below normal and temperatures were above normal. In 1953,
Neosho County was part of the driest area of the country. During this drought, President
Eisenhower made $40 million available to 13 drought-stricken states, including Kansas.
Figure 3.5 shows the precipitation levels across the United States during the droughts in the
1930s and 1950s.
Neosho County
January 2009
DRAFT
3.23
Figure 3.5 Historical Droughts 1953 and 1937
Source: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/drought/images/temporal_spatial.jpg
Note: Light blue squares indicates approximate location of Neosho County
Recent drought impacts that affecting Neosho County are provided below. Unless otherwise
indicated, these impacts are from the National Drought Mitigation Center’s Drought Impact
Reporter:
•
•
•
2006 to 2007—As a result of drought conditions in 2006, the USDA provided $948,511 to
Kansas for the Livestock Assistance Grant Program. This program provided state block
grants to the State of Kansas Department of Agriculture to help livestock producers recover
forage production losses due to drought conditions in 2006. Eligible counties experienced
exceptional drought at Category D3 or D4 on the U.S. Drought Monitor.
1996—In response to severe drought conditions, the USDA Rural Development Program
gave $9.1 million to four states, including Kansas, to dig deeper wells and move intake
valves into deeper areas of existing reservoirs.
1989—The Kansas Farm Bureau reported that 48 percent of the state winter wheat crop was
lost, valued at $600 million. Due to a lack of water and forage, there was a 50 percent
increase in cattle sent to auction. This drought covered 36 percent of the United States at its
peak, compared to 70 percent of the country during the Dust Bowl of the 1930’s. This
drought is considered the costliest in U.S. history.
From 2005 to 2007, Neosho County was included in two USDA disaster declarations that
included drought. During the period from 2003 to 2007, Neosho County was included in one
drought watch declaration and five drought warning declarations According to the point system
Neosho County
January 2009
DRAFT
3.24
utilized by the Kansas Water Office, Neosho County received 11 points during this time frame.
(1 point for each watch declaration, 2 points for each warning and 3 points for each emergency).
The National Drought Mitigation Center developed the Drought Impact Reporter in response to
the need for a national drought impact database for the United States. Information comes from a
variety of sources: online drought-related news stories and scientific publications, members of
the public who visit the website and submit a drought-related impact for their region, members of
the media, and members of relevant government agencies. The Drought Impact Reporter
contains information on 60 drought impacts from droughts that affected Neosho County between
1989 and 2008. The list is not comprehensive. Most of the impacts (32) were classified as
“agriculture.” Other impacts include, “fire” (4), “environment” (7), “water/energy” (8), and
“other” (9). Definitions for these categories are described below:
•
•
•
•
•
Agriculture—Impacts associated with agriculture, farming, and ranching. Examples include
damage to crop quality, income loss for farmers due to reduced crop yields, reduced
productivity of cropland, insect infestation, plant disease, increased irrigation costs, cost of
new or supplemental water resource development, reduced productivity of rangeland, forced
reduction of foundation stock, closure/limitation of public lands to grazing, high
cost/unavailability of water for livestock, and range fires.
Water/Energy—Impacts associated with surface or subsurface water supplies (i.e.,
reservoirs or aquifers), stream levels or streamflow, hydropower generation, or navigation.
Examples include lower water levels in reservoirs, lakes, and ponds; reduced flow from
springs; reduced streamflow; loss of wetlands; estuarine impacts; increased groundwater
depletion, land subsidence, reduced recharge; water quality effects; revenue shortfalls and/or
windfall profits; cost of water transport or transfer; cost of new or supplemental water
resource development; and loss from impaired navigability of streams, rivers, and canals.
Environment—Impacts associated with wildlife, fisheries, forests, and other fauna.
Examples include loss of biodiversity of plants or wildlife; loss of trees from urban
landscapes, shelterbelts, wooded conservation areas; reduction and degradation of fish and
wildlife habitat; lack of feed and drinking water; greater mortality due to increased contact
with agricultural producers, as animals seek food from farms and producers are less tolerant
of the intrusion; disease; increased vulnerability to predation; migration and concentration;
and increased stress to endangered species.
Fire—Impacts associated with forest and range fires that occur during drought events. The
relationship between fires and droughts is very complex. Not all fires are caused by droughts
and serious fires can result when droughts are not taking place.
Other—Drought impacts that do not easily fit into any of the above categories.
According to the USDA Risk Management Agency, Insured crop losses in Neosho County as a
result of drought conditions from 2005 to 2007 totaled $1,767,040. Table 3.9 provides additional
details regarding the affected crops and amounts per year.
Neosho County
January 2009
DRAFT
3.25
Table 3.9 Claims Paid in Neosho County for Crop Loss as a Result of Drought
Year
2005
2005
2005
2006
2006
2006
2006
2007
2007
Total
Crop
Corn
Grain Sorghum
Soybeans
Wheat
Corn
Grain Sorghum
Soybeans
Corn
Soybeans
Hazard
Drought
Drought
Drought
Drought
Drought
Drought
Drought
Drought
Drought
Claims Paid ($)
$9,511
$13,476
$121,558
$25,064
$362,190
$33,407
$1,128,985
$9,421
$63,428
$1,767,040
Source: USDA Risk Management Agency, 2008
According to the Palmer Drought Severity Index 1895-1995, Neosho County, Kansas
experienced severe and extreme drought 10-14.9 percent of the time during that 100-year period,
which equates to an occasional probability of occurrence. As a result of drought conditions that
have occurred during the most recent decade, the HMPC determined that this hazard should
receive a probability ranking of “likely”
Likely: Event is probable within the next three years
Magnitude/Severity
Drought impacts are wide-reaching and may be economic, environmental, and/or societal. The
most significant impacts associated with drought in Kansas are those related to agriculture. As
discussed in the profile on Agricultural Infestation, the agricultural industry provides the
economic base for Neosho County. A prolonged drought could have severe economic impacts.
Drought conditions can also cause soil to compact and not absorb water well, potentially making
an area more susceptible to flooding. An ongoing drought may also leave an area more prone to
wildfires. Water supply can also be of concern during periods of prolonged drought. However, as
previously mentioned, Neosho does not have any public water suppliers considered to be drought
vulnerable by the Kansas Water Office. Drought impacts increase with the length of a drought.
Hazard Summary
2.05
Neosho County
January 2009
Moderate
DRAFT
3.26
3.2.5 Earthquake
Description
An earthquake is sudden motion or trembling of the ground caused by shifting tectonic plates.
Earthquakes are potentially catastrophic, capable of causing multiple fatalities and major
structural and infrastructure damage including disruption of utilities, communications, and
transportation systems. Secondary affects can include landslides, seiches, liquefaction, fires, and
dam failure. Earthquakes occur very abruptly with little or no warning. However, seismic
monitoring in certain cases can detect increases in the geologic and seismic activity that precedes
an earthquake event. Duration typically ranges from a few seconds to a minute or two, but
aftershocks can occur during the hours and weeks after the quake, usually with diminishing
frequency and intensity.
Warning Time: 4—less than six hours
Duration: 1—less than six hours.
Geographic Location
Overall, Neosho County is in an area of relatively low seismic activity. The closest series of
faults called the Humboldt Fault Zone runs through Riley and Pottawatomie counties and
extends south along the Nemaha Ridge also known as the Nemaha Uplift.
Figure 3.6 below shows the locations of minor earthquakes recorded by the Kansas Geological
Survey between August 1977 and August 1989. The locations of earthquakes are indicated by
blue points size coded by local magnitude. Locations of faults are indicated by green lines. The
largest event had a magnitude of 4.0 and the smallest had a magnitude of 0.8 on the Richter
scale. No seismic events were recorded in or near Neosho County.
Neosho County
January 2009
DRAFT
3.27
Figure 3.6. Locations of Faults and Historic Micro-Earthquakes in Kansas
Source: Kansas Geological Survey, http://www.kgs.ku.edu/Publications/pic3/pic3_4.html
Note: Light blue square indicates approximate location of Neosho County
The New Madrid Seismic Zone follows the Mississippi River valley from southeastern Missouri
to northwestern Mississippi, roughly 180 miles southeast of Neosho County. While it is unlikely
that Neosho County would receive extensive damage from a large New Madrid Seismic Zone
event, it is possible that ground shaking would be noticed.
Based on the location of Neosho County relative to seismically active areas, earthquake risk is
similar across the entire planning area, including all participating jurisdictions.
At least 25 earthquakes were recorded by the Kansas Geological Survey between August 1876
and 1976 (Figure 3.7), but none are recorded in Neosho County. Kansas experiences small
earthquakes on a routine basis, but few are of a magnitude that causes damage to buildings or the
infrastructure. According to a 2001 FEMA report, Kansas ranks 45th among the states in the
amount of damage caused by earthquakes in an average year.
Neosho County
January 2009
DRAFT
3.28
Figure 3.7. Historical Earthquakes in Kansas Prior to 1977
Source: US Geologic Survey (USGS), http://earthquake.usgs.gov/regional/states/kansas/hazards.php
Note: Light blue square indicates location of Neosho County
Figure 3.8. below indicates the probability of an magnitude 4.5+ earthquake in Neosho County
over a 100 year time period, estimated to be 1.0 to 1.5 percent. This probability equates roughly
to a 6,700-10,000 year recurrence interval. Based on these estimates the probability of a
significant earthquake in any given year is unlikely.
Unlikely: History of events is less than or equal to 10 percent likely per year.
Neosho County
January 2009
DRAFT
3.29
Figure 3.8. Earthquake Probability: Magnitude 4.75 within 50 Kilometers in 100 Years
Source: U.S. Geological Survey, http://eqint.cr.usgs.gov/eqprob/2002/index.php
Note: Black square indicates approximate location of Neosho County
Magnitude/Severity
The amount of energy released during an earthquake is most commonly expressed on the
moment magnitude scale and is measured directly from energy released from the fault or
epicenter as recorded on seismographs. Another measure of earthquake magnitude is intensity.
Intensity is an expression of the amount of shaking at any given location on the surface as felt by
humans and defined by the Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale. It is typically the greatest cause of
losses to structures during earthquakes and is determined by many factors including distance
from epicenter and soil types. Table 3.10 features abbreviated descriptions of the 12 levels of
intensity.
Neosho County
January 2009
DRAFT
3.30
Table 3.10. Modified Mercalli Intensity (MMI) Scale
MMI
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
VII
VIII
IX
X
XI
XII
Felt Intensity
Not felt except by a very few people under special conditions. Detected mostly by instruments.
Felt by a few people, especially those on upper floors of buildings. Suspended objects may swing.
Felt noticeably indoors. Standing automobiles may rock slightly.
Felt by many people indoors, by a few outdoors. At night, some people are awakened. Dishes, windows, and
doors rattle.
Felt by nearly everyone. Many people are awakened. Some dishes and windows are broken. Unstable
objects are overturned.
Felt by everyone. Many people become frightened and run outdoors. Some heavy furniture is moved. Some
plaster falls.
Most people are alarmed and run outside. Damage is negligible in buildings of good construction,
considerable in buildings of poor construction.
Damage is slight in specially designed structures, considerable in ordinary buildings, great in poorly built
structures. Heavy furniture is overturned.
Damage is considerable in specially designed buildings. Buildings shift from their foundations and partly
collapse. Underground pipes are broken.
Some well-built wooden structures are destroyed. Most masonry structures are destroyed. The ground is
badly cracked. Considerable landslides occur on steep slopes.
Few, if any, masonry structures remain standing. Rails are bent. Broad fissures appear in the ground.
Virtually total destruction. Waves are seen on the ground surface. Objects are thrown in the air.
Source: Multi-Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment, FEMA 1997
Figure 3.9 below indicates that there is a 2.0 percent probability of an earthquake exceeding a
peak acceleration of 4.0 percent gravity in the next 50 years in Neosho County. Typically,
significant earthquake damage occurs when accelerations are greater than 30 percent of gravity.
Figure 3.9. Kansas Seismic Hazard Map—Peak Acceleration (%g) with 2.0 Percent
Probability of Exceedance in 50 Years
Source: U.S. Geological Survey, http://earthquake.usgs.gov/regional/states/kansas/hazards.php
Neosho County
January 2009
DRAFT
3.31
Negligible: Less than 10 percent of property severely damaged, shutdown of facilities and
services for less than 24 hours; and/or injuries/illnesses treatable with first aid.
Hazard Summary
1.45
Low
3.2.6 Expansive Soils
Description
A relatively widespread geologic hazard for Kansas is the presence of soils that expand and
shrink in relation to their water content. Expansive soils can cause physical damage to building
foundations, roadways, and other components of the infrastructure when clay soils swell and
shrink due to changes in moisture content. For Kansas, the vulnerability to this hazard most
frequently is associated with soils shrinking during periods of drought.
Warning Time: 1—less than 24 hours
Geographic Location
Figure 3.10 shows a map of the swelling potential of soils in Kansas. All of Neosho County is
located in an area where part of the soil unit (generally less than 50 percent) consists of clay
having slight to moderate swelling potential. More detailed data on how these soils vary within
the Neosho County planning area was not available. Therefore, for the purposes of this plan, the
hazard is considered to affect all participating jurisdictions.
Neosho County
January 2009
DRAFT
3.32
Figure 3.10 Swelling Soils Map of Kansas
MAP LEGEND
Unit contains abundant clay having high swelling potential
Part of unit (generally less than 50%) consists of clay having high swelling potential
Unit contains abundant clay having slight to moderate swelling potential
Part of unit (generally less than 50%) consists of clay having slight to moderate swelling potential
Unit contains little or no swelling clay
Data insufficient to indicate clay content of unit and/or swelling potential of clay
Source: U.S. Geological Survey, http://arcvoid.com/surevoid_web/soil_maps/ks.html
Streets and parking lots throughout the county are damaged every year by the effects of
expansive soils. The frequency of damage from expansive soils can be associated with the cycles
of drought and heavy rainfall, which reflect changes in moisture content. The effects of shrinkswell cycles in expansive soils are cumulative, and in most cases are associated with accelerated
wear and tear on roads, sidewalks and building foundations. There is no data regarding incidents
of damages resulting from expansive soils. These damages are largely isolated incidents and
affected property owners make any necessary repairs.
Although there will continue to be some damage to paved areas and foundations in Neosho
County due to swelling soils, it is unlikely that these damages will become greater in the future
Neosho County
January 2009
DRAFT
3.33
unless new development occurs in areas where the hazard is more severe. Certain buildings and
construction practices could be put in place to lessen these impacts. The HMPC determined that
significant damage to assets in the planning area is occasional in any given year.
Magnitude/Severity
The HMPC determined that the impacts to the planning area from expansive soils are, for the
most part, minor in damage and handled by individual property owners.
services for less than 24 hours; and/or injuries/illnesses treatable with first aid
Hazard Summary
1.75
Low
3.2.7 Extreme Heat
Description
Extreme temperature events, both hot and cold, can have severe impacts on human health and
mortality, natural ecosystems, agriculture, and other economic sectors. According to information
provided by FEMA, extreme heat is defined as temperatures that hover 10 degrees or more above
the average high temperature for the region and last for several weeks. Ambient air temperature
is one component of heat conditions, with relative humidity being the other. The relationship of
these factors creates what is known as the apparent temperature. The Heat Index chart shown in
Figure 3.11. uses both of these factors to produce a guide for the apparent temperature or relative
intensity of heat conditions.
Neosho County
January 2009
DRAFT
3.34
Figure 3.11 Heat Index (HI) Chart
Source: National Weather Service (NWS)
Note: Exposure to direct sun can increase Heat Index values by as much as 15°F. Note on the HI chart the shaded zone above
105°F. This corresponds to a level of HI that may cause increasingly severe heat disorders with continued exposure and/or
physical activity.
From 1995-2006, there were 230 fatalities in the U.S. attributed to are summer heat. According
to the National Weather Service, among natural hazards, no other natural disaster—not lightning,
hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, or earthquakes—takes a greater toll. Table 3.11 below shows
number of heat related fatalities per year form 1995-2006.
Neosho County
January 2009
DRAFT
3.35
Table 3.11 Extreme Heat Fatalities, U.S. 1995-2006
Year
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
Total
Annual Avg. (1995-2006)
Heat Related Fatalities
1,021
36
81
173
502
158
166
167
36
6
158
253
2757
230
Source: National Weather Service, http://www.weather.gov/os/hazstats/images/67-years.pdf
Those at greatest risk for heat-related illness include infants and children up to four years of age,
people 65 years of age and older, people who are overweight, and people who are ill or on
certain medications. However, even young and healthy individuals are susceptible if they
participate in strenuous physical activities during hot weather. In agricultural areas, the exposure
of farm workers, as well as livestock, to extreme temperatures is a major concern.
Table 3.12 lists typical symptoms and health impacts of exposure to extreme heat.
Table 3.12.Typical Health Impacts of Extreme Heat
Heat Index (HI)
80-90° F (HI)
90-105° F (HI)
105-130° F (HI)
Disorder
Fatigue possible with prolonged exposure and/or physical activity
Sunstroke, heat cramps, and heat exhaustion possible with prolonged exposure
and/or physical activity
Heatstroke/sunstroke highly likely with continued exposure
Source: National Weather Service Heat Index Program, www.weather.gov/os/heat/index.shtml
The National Weather Service has a system in place to initiate alert procedures (advisories or
warnings) when the Heat Index is expected to have a significant impact on public safety. The
expected severity of the heat determines whether advisories or warnings are issued. A common
guideline for issuing excessive heat alerts is when the maximum daytime Heat Index is expected
to equal or exceed 105 degrees Fahrenheit (°F) and the night time minimum Heat Index is 80°F
or above for two or more consecutive days.
Neosho County
January 2009
DRAFT
3.36
Geographic Location
The entire planning area is subject to extreme heat events and all participating jurisdictions can
be affected.
During the period from 1960-2005, the NCDC database lists one incident of extreme heat in
Neosho County in July 2006. From July 16-20, 2006 a deadly heat wave gripped much of
central, south-central and southeast Kansas, and temperatures peaked in the 105-110 °F degree
range, with afternoon heat indices about the same. The cover of darkness provided little in the
way of relief, as overnight temperatures were slow to fall off, reaching only the upper 70s by
sunrise for some locations. The prolonged heat claimed five lives across south-central and
southeast Kansas, most of them elderly men. Three occurred in Wichita, one in Iola, and another
in Coffeyville. There were three additional fatalities unofficially attributed to the heat wave of
2006, two in Wichita and one in Coffeyville. Additionally, dozens of individuals across central,
south-central and southeast Kansas were treated for heat-related illnesses.
During 2005-2007, Neosho County received USDA emergency designations three times for
excessive heat, twice in 2006, and once in 2007.
Figure 3.12 graphs the record temperatures by month from 1948 to 2007.
Figure 3.12 Daily Temperature Averages and Extremes, Chanute 1948-2007
- Extreme Max. is the maximum of all daily maximum temperatures recorded for the day of the year.
- Ave. Max. is the average of all daily maximum temperatures recorded for the day of the year.
- Ave. Min. is the average of all daily minimum temperatures recorded for the day of the year.
- Extreme Min. is the minimum of all daily minimum temperatures recorded for the day of the year.
Source: High Plains Regional Climate Center,
http://www.hprcc.unl.edu/data/historical/index.php?state=ks&action=select_state&submit=Select+State
Neosho County
January 2009
DRAFT
3.37
As shown in table 3.13 below, during the period from 1948-2007, the National Weather Service
Station at Chanute, KS recorded an annual average of 51.1 days over 90 degrees Fahrenheit and
an average of 3 days below zero degrees Fahrenheit.
Table 3.13 Temperature Maximum and Minimum Chanute, KS, 1948-2007
Month
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
Annual
# Days >= 90° F
# Days <= 32° F
Daily High Temperature
0
8.3
0
4.2
0
1
0.1
0
0.9
0
7.4
0
18.5
0
17.2
0
6.3
0
0.6
0
0
0.8
0
4.8
51.1
19.1
High Plains Regional Climate Center Table updated on Sep 19, 2007
# Days <= 32° F
# Days <= 0° F
Daily Low Temperature
27.2
1.6
21
0.7
14
0
2.9
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.8
0
13.3
0
24.3
0.7
104.5
3
Based in information from the USDA Risk Management Agency, insured crop losses in Neosho
County as a result of extreme heat conditions from 2005 to 2007 totaled $4,443. Details are
Table 3.14 Claims Paid in Neosho County for Crop Loss as a Result of Extreme Heat
Year
Crop
2006
2006
Total
Corn
Soybeans
Claims Paid ($)
Source: USDA Risk Management Agency
$2,961
$1,482
$4,443
Although periods of extreme heat generally occur on an annual basis, events that cause
significant health impacts occur less frequently. Based on patterns of previous occurrences,
probability of future occurrence is considered likely.
Likely: Event is probable within the next three years.
Magnitude/Severity
The HMPC notes that instability of the electrical grid has been an issue during periods of
extreme heat. Specific dates of occurrence were not available. The resulting intermittent power
Neosho County
January 2009
DRAFT
3.38
outages increased the effects of extreme heat as some residents were not able to seek relief in air
conditioned homes and buildings.
Due to the potential for fatalities and the possibility for the loss of electric power, periods of
extreme heat can severely affect the planning area. In addition, accompanying drought may
compound the problem exacerbating agricultural and economic losses.
2.4
Moderate
3.2.8 Flood
Description
There are several different types of potential flood events in Neosho County including riverine,
flash flooding, and urban stormwater. Riverine flooding is defined as when a watercourse
exceeds its “bank-full” capacity and is the most common type of flood event. Riverine flooding
generally occurs as a result of prolonged rainfall, or rainfall that is combined with soils already
saturated from previous rain events. The area adjacent to a river channel is its floodplain. In its
common usage, “floodplain” most often refers to that area that is inundated by the 100-year
flood, the flood that has a 1 percent chance in any given year of being equaled or exceeded. The
1 percent annual flood is the national standard to which communities regulate their floodplains
through the National Flood Insurance Program.
Factors that directly affect the amount of flood runoff include precipitation, intensity and
distribution, the amount of soil moisture, seasonal variation in vegetation, and water-resistance
of the surface areas due to urbanization. The term "flash flood" describes localized floods of
great volume and short duration. In contrast to riverine flooding, this type of flood usually results
from a heavy rainfall on a relatively small drainage area. Precipitation of this sort usually occurs
in the spring and summer. Urban flood events result as land loses its ability to absorb rainfall as
it is converted from fields or woodlands to roads, buildings, and parking lots. Urbanization
increases runoff two to six times over what would occur on undeveloped terrain.
The onset of flooding varies depending on the cause and type. Flash flooding and dam/levee
failure inundation typically occur with little or no warning, whereas flooding caused by long
periods of excessive rainfall tends to have longer duration but more gradual onset. Overall
warning time is usually 6-12 hours. The duration of flood conditions is generally less than one
week, but in exceptional cases can extend for much longer periods.
Warning Time: 2—12-24 hours
Neosho County
January 2009
DRAFT
3.39
Duration: 3—less than one week
Geographic Location
Of the eight jurisdictions participating in this plan, four are currently participating in the National
Flood Insurance Program: Neosho County, Chanute, Erie, and St. Paul all participate in the
National Flood Insurance Program and have Flood Insurance Rate Maps designating the 100year flood hazard. Flooding in Neosho County has recently been re-studied and FEMA has
issued preliminary Digital Flood Insurance Rate Maps. These new maps will become effective
in June 2009 and are provided in this document for planning purposes only.
Earlton, Galesburg, Stark, and Thayer are not currently in the NFIP. Thayer is in the process of
completing the paperwork necessary for participation.
The primary large-scale flood threat to communities in Neosho County is the Neosho River
which has a drainage area of over 4100 square miles upstream of the northern county boundary.
Although the preliminary Digital Flood Insurance Rate Maps (DFIRM) are now available, the
best available data for flooding in Neosho County during the vulnerability analysis phase of this
planning effort was HAZUS-MH MR3, FEMA’s software program for estimating potential
losses from disasters. HAZUS was used to generate a one percent annual flood, or 100-year
flood, event for major rivers and creeks in the County. The software produces a flood polygon
and flood depth grid that represent the 100-year flood. While not as accurate as official flood
maps these floodplain boundaries are for use in GIS-based loss estimation. Figure 3.13 is a map
of Neosho County’s 100-year floodplain as generated by HAZUS-MH MR3 with an overlay of
the preliminary DFIRM. As the map displays, the 100-year floodplain boundaries created by the
HAZUS flood model are fairly consistent with the preliminary DFIRM floodplain boundaries.
Figures 3.14 through 3.20 on the following pages provide this same comparison for the
individual cities within the planning area.
Neosho County
January 2009
DRAFT
3.40
Figure 3.13. Neosho County Preliminary DFIRM and HAZUS 100-year Floodplain
Neosho County
January 2009
DRAFT
3.41
Chanute
Chanute lies within the watershed of the Neosho River which flows in a southerly direction
approximately one mile east of the city. Three tributaries of the Neosho River provide drainage
for the city. Village Creek, located just outside the northern city limits drains the northern and
western portions of the city. Runoff from the central portion of the city flows to Chanute Drain
and the southernmost areas of the city are served by Little Turkey Creek. The primary large-scale
flood threat to Chanute and the surrounding area is the Neosho River. Short-term local flooding
may occur along Little Turkey Creek and Chanute Drain. Intense rainfall from thunderstorms
may produce flash flooding on the tributaries, whereas floods on the Neosho River are generally
caused by less intense rainfall of several days’ duration over a large area. (FEMA Flood
Insurance Study for Chanute, 2001). The map in Figure 3.14 displays the 100-year floodplain as
generated by HAZUS-MH MR3 with an overlay of the preliminary DFIRM for the City of
Chanute.
Neosho County
January 2009
DRAFT
3.42
Figure 3.14 Chanute Preliminary DFIRM and HAZUS 100-year Floodplain
Neosho County
January 2009
DRAFT
3.43
Erie
The Neosho River rises in the Flint Hills region in Morris County, Kansas and flows in a
southeasterly direction past Erie approximately one mile to the south. Puckets Run Creek is a
small tributary to the Neosho River, which flows in a southerly direction through the east-central
portion of the community. The drainage area contributing to Puckets Run Creek is about 3.4
square miles above the southern corporate limits. The floodplain for Puckets Run Creek is
relatively narrow and will range from about 400 to 1,200 feet wide through the city with the
higher value influenced by the backwater effect of the Neosho River. The tributary of Puckets
Run Creek flows in a southwesterly direction, draining an area of about 1.0 square mile. The
Neosho River floodplain in the vicinity of Erie is relatively undeveloped, with the exception of a
few small houses, the city’s sewage disposal ponds, and some roads and railroad tracks.
Development in the floodplains of Puckets Run Creek and its tributary consists of several
residences, a few small businesses, a church, gas and electric utilities, the city’s fire station,
several roads, and two railroad tracks (Erie Flood Insurance Study, FEMA, 1993).
The greatest potential for flooding in the Erie vicinity is due to the Neosho River. The city’s
location about one mile from the river and the gradual upward slope places most of the
community above the 100-year flood level. However, backwater from the river will flood the low
lying land along Puckets Run Creek extending into the southeastern portion of the city. Major
floods on the Neosho River have extended to the area within the present corporate limits several
times in past years (Erie Flood Insurance Study, FEMA, 1993). The map in Figure 3.15 displays
the 100-year floodplain as generated by HAZUS-MH MR3 with an overlay of the preliminary
DFIRM for the City of Erie.
Neosho County
January 2009
DRAFT
3.44
Figure 3.15. Erie Preliminary DFIRM and HAZUS 100-year Floodplain
Neosho County
January 2009
DRAFT
3.45
St. Paul
The map in Figure 3.16 displays the 100-year floodplain as generated by HAZUS-MH MR3 with
an overlay of the preliminary DFIRM for the City of St. Paul. As show in the map, the
southwest portion of the city lies in the floodplain of the Neosho River
Figure 3.16 St. Paul Preliminary DFIRM and HAZUS 100-Year Floodplain
Neosho County
January 2009
DRAFT
3.46
Thayer
The original flood hazard boundary map created for the City of Thayer did not indicate a
floodplain in city limits and the map was later rescinded by FEMA. However, with the
annexation of the land to the southwest of the original city limits around the Thayer Lake,
floodplain now exists within current city limits. At this time, this area is not very developed.
The map in Figure 3.17 displays the 100-year floodplain as generated by HAZUS-MH MR3 with
an overlay of the preliminary DFIRM for the City of Thayer.
Figure 3.17 Thayer Preliminary DFIRM and HAZUS 100-year Floodplain
Neosho County
January 2009
DRAFT
3.47
Although the Cities of Earlton, Galesburg, and Stark are not officially participating jurisdictions
in this current planning effort, maps are provided to show the locations of the 100-year
floodplain. The maps in Figures 3.18 through 3.20 display the 100-year floodplain as generated
by HAZUS-MH MR3 with an overlay of the preliminary DFIRM for the Cities of Earlton,
Galesburg, and Stark.
Figure 3.18 Earlton Preliminary DFIRM and HAZUS 100-year Floodplain
Neosho County
January 2009
DRAFT
3.48
Figure 3.19 Galesburg Preliminary DFIRM and HAZUS 100-year Floodplain
Neosho County
January 2009
DRAFT
3.49
Figure 3.20 Stark Preliminary DFIRM and HAZUS 100-year Floodplain
Neosho County
January 2009
DRAFT
3.50
There have been 17 recorded flood events in Neosho County between 1951 and 2007, including
seven federal disaster declarations. Flooding impacts are described below for events where
information is available. Descriptions of the nine flood events from 1993 to 2008 that did not
result in disaster declarations were obtained from the NCDC database. Information on the flood
of 1951 and prior events was obtained from the U.S. Geological Survey, FEMA Flood Insurance
Studies, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
FEMA-1711-DR: Severe Storms and Flooding—July 2, 2007. Extremely heavy rainfall
from the end of June into early July caused flooding and flash flooding throughout Neosho
County. The flash flooding and the ensuing river flooding in Chanute resulted in roughly 100
homes being destroyed and another 50 sustaining major damage. Approximately 500 citizens
were displaced by the flood and some areas of the city were cut off from gas and electric
service (Chanute Tribute, 7/2/2007). This event resulted in at least $10.5 million dollars in
damages. An additional $1.5 million dollars in damage was reported to public infrastructure.
The levy north of Chanute on the Neosho River broke and water went over the top of the
levee into the northern part of Erie along Puckets Run and south to the River. The only
grocery store in was destroyed. Several businesses, churches, and 11 residences in Erie were
affected. Only three of the residences affected had flood insurance. The only road open to
Erie was from the north. All other access roads into town were flooded (City of Erie, 2008).
During this event, the Neosho River reached a record crest of 40.6 feet on the morning of
July 2nd. This was 11.6 feet above flood stage. Major flooding was seen on the Neosho at
Chanute when a crest of 36.82 feet was recorded on the morning of July 1st. The Neosho
inundated the city of Chanute with some areas under as much as 7 to 8 feet of water. The
river remained above flood stage at Chanute until July 4th and at Erie until July 5th. The most
extreme measured rainfall reports from June 28th - 30th were 18.29 inches at Fredonia, 12.47
inches at Independence, 11.70 inches at Iola, 9.18 inches at Chanute, 8.63 inches at Erie and
8.40 inches at Coffeyville.
June 12, 2007, Flash Flood. Numerous roads were closed in the northeast portion of the
county including Piatt Road near Odense and US Highway 59 west of Stark. A reported
$70,000 in damages occurred.
August 25, 2005, Flash Flood. Many roads and highways in Chanute were barricaded in
and around town, including Highways 39 and 57. A levee broke one mile east of Ash Grove
Cement Plant, leaving a 45 foot hole.
May 13, 2004, Flash Flood. Coon Creek and other local streams overflowed their banks.
June 12, 2002, Flash Flood. Highway 169 flooded six to eight inches deep one mile south of
Earlton.
May 24, 2002, Flash Flood. Walnut Street in Erie flooded with one foot of water.
May 8, 2002, flash Flood. Numerous roads across the county were covered with water.
May 7, 2002, Flash Flood. Numerous roads across Thayer were covered by water.
Neosho County
January 2009
DRAFT
3.51
•
•
•
•
FEMA-1258-DR: Severe Storms and Flooding—November 15, 1998. In Neosho County,
$500,000 damage occurred mainly due to partial failure of a levy in Chanute
June 9, 1995, Flash Flood. Numerous Streets were under water and many county roads were
closed.
April 24, 1994, Flood. Ten inches of rain in 24 hours caused the Neosho River to rise above
flood stage. Extensive flooding occurred across southeast Kansas. The flooding closed many
schools and roads. In Chanute, the river crested 9.5 feet above flood stage.
July 10-13, 1951, Flood. According to the Chanute Flood Insurance Study (FEMA, 2001),
the greatest flood of record at Chanute occurred in July 1951 when the Neosho River stage
reached 38..6 feet (over 18 feet above flood stage). Discharge was most likely in excess of
400,000 cubic feet per second (cfs), considerably greater than that of a 100-year frequency
flood. The 1951 flood was the result of abnormal precipitation throughout the state during the
months of May and June followed by heavy rainfall in the basin from July 9 to July 13, 1951.
Sever damage to crops and structures occurred as a result of this flood. Neosho County
reported that 435 homes and over 1,000 farms or other buildings were damaged or destroyed.
One person was killed and 22 persons injured during the flood (U.S. Department of the
Army, Corps of Engineers, Tulsa District, Floodplain Information, Neosho and Cottonwood
Rivers, Kansas, June 1965).
Other major floods have occurred on the Neosho River in 1926, 1927, 1928, 1943, 1944, 1945,
1948, and 1961. The July 1948 flood was of approximately 100-year magnitude. There are also
accounts of a great flood in 1844 that may have been greater than the 1951 flood. (Chanute Flood
Insurance Study, FEMA, 2001; Erie Flood Insurance Study, FEMA, 1993).
From 2005 to 2007, Neosho County received three USDA declarations that involved excessive
moisture. According to the USDA Risk Management Agency, Insured crop losses in Neosho
County as a result of flood conditions and excessive moisture from 2005 to 2007 totaled
$4,539,373. Details are provided in Table 3.15.
Neosho County
January 2009
DRAFT
3.52
Table 3.15 Claims Paid in Neosho County for Crop Loss as a Result of Flood and
Excessive Moisture
Year
2005
2005
2005
2005
2006
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2005
2005
2005
2007
2007
2007
2007
Total
Crop
Wheat
Corn
Grain Sorghum
Soybeans
Soybeans
Wheat
Oats
Corn
Grain Sorghum
Soybeans
Corn
Grain Sorghum
Soybeans
Wheat
Corn
Grain Sorghum
Soybeans
Hazard
Excess Moisture/Precip/Rain
Flood
Flood
Flood
Flood
Flood
Flood
Flood
Claims Paid
$287,875
$8,766
$6,992
$114,236
$12,371
$778,833
$2,193
$627,241
69,138
$1,047,438
$27,063
$129
$132,223
$114,968
$876,432
$27,323
$406,152
$4,539,373
Source: USDA’s Risk Management Agency, April, 2008
Records for the period 1993 to 2007 indicate that there were 16 flood events in 14 years, an
average of more than one per year. Minor flooding occurs on an annual basis, damaging floods
occur roughly once every three years. Based on this level of frequency, probability of future
flooding with significant impacts in Neosho County are considered likely.
Magnitude/Severity
Past flood events in Neosho County have caused significant damage to property and agriculture,
endangered lives, and shut down critical facilities and infrastructure.
Critical: 25-50 percent of property severely damaged; shutdown of facilities for at least two
weeks; and/or injuries and/or illnesses result in permanent disability
Hazard Summary
2.85
Neosho County
January 2009
Moderate
DRAFT
3.53
3.2.9 Hailstorm
Description
Hailstorms in Kansas cause damage to property, crops, and the environment, and harm livestock.
Because of the large agricultural industry in Kansas, crop damage and livestock losses due to hail
are of great concern to the state. Even relatively small hail can cause serious damage to crops and
trees. Vehicles, roofs of buildings and homes, and landscaping are the other things most
commonly damaged by hail. Hail has been known to cause injury and the occasional fatality to
humans, often associated with traffic accidents.
Hail is associated with thunderstorms that can also bring powerful winds and tornadoes. A
hailstorm forms when updrafts carry raindrops into extremely cold areas of the atmosphere
where they condense and freeze. Hail falls when it becomes heavy enough to overcome the
strength of the updraft and is pulled by gravity towards the earth. The onset of hailstorms is
generally rapid. Duration is less than 6 hours and warning time is generally less than 6 hours.
Based on information provided by the Tornado and Storm Research Organization, Table 3.16
below describes typical damage impacts of the various sizes of hail.
Neosho County
January 2009
DRAFT
3.54
Table 3.16. Tornado and Storm Research Organization Hailstorm Intensity Scale
Intensity
Category
Hard Hail
Diameter
(mm)
Diameter
(inches)
Size
Description
Typical Damage Impacts
5-9
0.2-0.4
Pea
No damage
Potentially
Damaging
10-15
0.4-0.6
Mothball
Slight general damage to plants, crops
Significant
16-20
0.6-0.8
Marble, grape
Significant damage to fruit, crops,
vegetation
Severe
21-30
0.8-1.2
Walnut
Severe damage to fruit and crops, damage
to glass and plastic structures, paint and
wood scored
Severe
31-40
1.2-1.6
Pigeon'
s egg >
squash ball
Widespread glass damage, vehicle
bodywork damage
Destructive
41-50
1.6-2.0
Golf ball >
Pullet'
s egg
Wholesale destruction of glass, damage to
tiled roofs, significant risk of injuries
Destructive
51-60
2.0-2.4
Hen'
s egg
Bodywork of grounded aircraft dented,
brick walls pitted
Destructive
61-75
2.4-3.0
Tennis ball >
cricket ball
Severe roof damage, risk of serious injuries
Destructive
76-90
3.0-3.5
Large orange >
Soft ball
Severe damage to aircraft bodywork
Super
Hailstorms
91-100
3.6-3.9
Grapefruit
Extensive structural damage. Risk of
severe or even fatal injuries to persons
caught in the open
Super
Hailstorms
>100
4.0+
Melon
Extensive structural damage. Risk of
severe or even fatal injuries to persons
caught in the open
Source: Tornado and Storm Research Organisation (TORRO), Department of Geography, Oxford Brookes University
Notes: In addition to hail diameter, factors including number and density of hailstones, hail fall speed and surface wind speeds
affect severity.
Duration: Level 1—less than 6 hours
Geographic Location
The entire planning area, including all participating jurisdictions, is at risk to hailstorms.
The NCDC reports 113 hail events in Neosho County between 1955 and February 2008. Table
3.17 below shows the number of hail events by the size of the hail. These events caused a
reported $1.06 million in property damages and $41,000 in crop damages.
Neosho County
January 2009
DRAFT
3.55
Table 3.17. Neosho County Hail Events, 1960-2008
Hail Size
(inches)
0.75
0.88
1.00
1.25
1.50
1.75
2.00
2.50
2.75
3.00
4.50
Number of Events
1960 to 2008
38
6
23
5
1
30
2
2
4
1
1
Source National Climatic Data Center Storm Events Database
Notable event details provided by the NCDC are summarized below:
•
•
August 9, 1998. Tennis ball to softball-sized hail pelted a one square mile section on the
south side of Lake Parsons, inflicting extensive damage to boats, tents, campers, vehicles,
buildings and crops.
April 12, 1993. A thunderstorm dropped hail as large as two inches in diameter in Chanute
and across northern Neosho County. The hail covered the ground in Chanute and north of
Erie accumulating to several inches in depth west of Shaw. More than 200 vehicles were
damaged.
Based on NCDC data, there were 123 hail events in Neosho County from 1955-2008, an average
of 2.3 each year. Hail events producing hail 1.75 inches and larger occurred 43 times over the
same 53 year period. Based on the frequency of previous occurrences of storms producing hail
1.75 inches and larger, the probability of such an event in any given year is roughly 80 percent.
There were two events during this period of hail over three inches. The probability of a hail event
of this magnitude is four percent in any given year.
Regarding probability based on time of year, Figure 3.21 shows the daily probability of a
hailstorm occurrence for Neosho County. Probability is highest in the spring months and overall
probability is highest in the most recent reporting period.
Neosho County
January 2009
DRAFT
3.56
Figure 3.21. Daily Hailstorm Probability, 2” Diameter or Larger, Neosho County 1980-1994
Source: National Severe Storms Laboratory, http://www.nssl.noaa.gov/hazard/hazardmap.html
Figure 3.22 is based on hailstorm data from 1980-1994. It shows the probability of hailstorm
occurrence (2” diameter or larger) based on number of days per year within a 12.5 mile radius of
a given point on the map.
Neosho County
January 2009
DRAFT
3.57
Figure 322. Annual Hailstorm Probability (2’’ diameter or larger), United States 1980-1994
Source: NSSL, http://www.nssl.noaa.gov/users/brooks/public_html/bighail.gif
Note: Black rectangle indicates approximate location of Allen County
Highly Likely: History of events is greater than 33% likely per year.
Magnitude/Severity
In addition to concerns for public safety, assets that are vulnerable to hail damage include crops
and built structures. Of these, crop damage from hailstorms is the most common and costly.
Large hail can devastate crops that are at vulnerable stages in the plant/harvest cycle, and it is
possible for a great percentage of crop yields to be lost as a result of even a single hail event.
Structure damage due to hail is usually covered under private insurance. The NCDC reports that
$1.1 million in property and crop damage occurred from 1993-1998. Information on specific
structural damage costs in the planning area as a result of hail damage was not available.
Limited: 10-25 percent of property severely damaged; shutdown of facilities for more than a
Hazard Summary
2.8
Neosho County
January 2009
Moderate
DRAFT
3.58
3.2.10 Lightning
Description
Severe thunderstorms strike Kansas on a regular basis with high winds, heavy rains, and the
occasional subsequent flooding, often accompanied by lightning. Lightning is an electrical
discharge between positive and negative regions of a thunderstorm. It is sudden, extremely
destructive and potentially deadly. The National Weather Service reports that lightning caused
48 fatalities and 246 injuries nationwide in 2006 and causes 73 fatalities and 300 injuries in an
average year.
The National Lightning Safety Institute reports that lightning causes more than 26,000 fires in
the United States each year. The institute estimates that the total cost for direct and indirect
impacts of lightning including property damage, increased operating costs, production delays,
and lost revenue to be in excess of $6 billion per year.
Due to its nature as a powerful electrical phenomenon, lightning causes extensive damage to
electronic systems that it contacts. A particular concern in Kansas is the protection of facilities
and communications systems that are critical for maintaining emergency response systems,
protecting public health, and maintaining the state’s economy.
Average duration of each lightning stroke is 30 microseconds and duration of lightning storm
events is usually less than six hours. Thunderstorm forecasting and warning time for lightning
occurrence is generally less than six hours.
Duration: 1—less than six hours
Geographic Location
Lightning affects broad regions including any portion of the planning area. Neosho County is
located in an area of eastern Kansas with the highest frequency of thunderstorms and lightning
flashes in the state. Figures 3.23 and 3.24 below show the region that includes Neosho County
averages 50-70 days with thunderstorms per year per 10,000 square miles and four to eight
lightning strikes per square kilometer per year.
Neosho County
January 2009
DRAFT
3.59
Figure 3.23. Distribution and Frequency of Thunderstorms
Source: Oklahoma Climatological Survey
Note: Black square indicates approximate location of Allen County
Figure 3.24. Annual Frequency of Lightning in Kansas, 1996-2000
Source: National Weather Service, www.lightningsafety.noaa.gov/lightning_map.htm
Note: Black square indicates approximate location of Allen County
The NCDC database has record of four damaging lightning events in Neosho County from 1993
to February 2008.
Neosho County
January 2009
DRAFT
3.60
•
•
•
•
April 23, 1993. Lightning struck a home in St. Paul and damaged all the electrical wiring and
appliances. There was no fire, but the fire department doused a few "hot spots" in the attic
insulation. Televisions and telephones were also damaged at several other nearby homes.
October 13, 1994. Lightning struck a tree and started a house fire.
May 13, 2004. Van struck in parking lot of Chanute SRS Office. Concussion of resultant
thunderclap of sufficient magnitude to shatter 10 large windows and an unspecified number
of smaller windows. The lightning strike also produced two craters in the pavement beneath
the vehicle'
s right tires, the right rear tire being deflated (Chanute Tribune, May 2004).
June 1, 2007. Lightning struck a residence in the city of Chanute the evening of June 1st.
(Chanute Tribune, June 2007).
With a population of 16,529, Neosho County is among the more sparsely populated counties of
the state. As a result, some number of lightning events may go unreported because they do not
cause identifiable damage or were not witnessed.
According to National Weather Service data, Allen County receives four to eight lightning
strikes per square kilometer per year. Most of these lightning strikes do not result in damages.
The HMPC classifies probability of future occurrence as likely in any given year.
Magnitude/Severity
Although the frequency of lightning events is high, the magnitude is negligible. Generally
damages are limited to single buildings and in most cases, personal hazard insurance covers any
losses. The major concern identified by the HMPC is that communication towers and facilities
are vulnerable to lightning strikes.
services for less than 24 hours; and/or injuries/illnesses treatable with first aid.
Hazard Summary
2.05
Moderate
3.2.11 Soil Erosion and Dust
Description
Soil erosion and dust are both ongoing problems for Kansas. Both can cause significant loss of
valuable agricultural soils, damage crops, harm environmental resources, and have adverse
economic impacts. Soil erosion in Kansas is largely associated with periods of drought (wind
Neosho County
January 2009
DRAFT
3.61
erosion) and flooding (streambank erosion). Improper agricultural and grazing practices can also
contribute to soil erosion.
The United States is losing soil 10 times faster than the natural replenishment rate, and related
production losses cost the nation $37.6 billion each year. Wind erosion is responsible for about
40 percent of this loss and can increase markedly in drought years. Wind erosion physically
removes the lighter, less dense soil constituents such as organic matter, clays and silts. Thus it
removes the most fertile part of the soil and lowers soil productivity, which can result in lower
crop yields or poorer grade pastures and increase economic costs.
Streambank erosion, which can remove agricultural land and damage transportation systems and
utility lines, occurs each year, particularly in the spring. A large proportion of all soil eroded
ends up in rivers, streams, and lakes, which makes waterways more prone to flooding and
contamination. One type of streambank erosion occurs after heavy rains when water is released
from reservoirs causing water levels to rise in rivers and streams. The dry soil at the top of
embankments becomes saturated. When reservoir gates are closed and flows return to normal,
water levels suddenly drop and the heavy wet soil at the top of the embankments falls into the
rivers and streams below.
Erosion increases the amount of dust carried by wind. Dust can also threaten agriculture and
have economic impacts by reducing seedling survival and growth, increasing the susceptibility of
plants to certain stressors, and damaging property and equipment (e.g., clogging machinery
parts). It is also a threat to health and safety. It acts as an abrasive and air pollutant and carries
about 20 human infectious disease organisms (including anthrax and tuberculosis). There is
evidence that there is an association between dust and asthma. Some studies indicate that as
much as 20 percent of the incidence of asthma is related to dust. Blowing dust can be severe
enough to necessitate highway closures because of low visibility, which can cause vehicle
accidents.
Erosion also creates a problem by filling in reservoirs with silt, negatively impacting storage
capacity and water quality. Because of differing climatic conditions, land uses, and physical
attributes in the various watersheds, sedimentation rates vary among the reservoirs. In 2001, the
Kansas Water Office completed a report that projected the effect of sedimentation on Stateowned storage in federal reservoirs. By the year 2040, sedimentation was projected to reduce the
total amount of State-owned storage from 1.2 million acre-feet to roughly 857,000 acre-feet, a
rate of loss of 6,260 acre-feet per year.
Neosho County
January 2009
DRAFT
3.62
Geographic Location
Figure 3.25 shows areas of excessive erosion of farmland in Kansas based on a 1997 analysis.
Each red dot represents 5,000 acres of highly erodible land, and each yellow dot represents 5,000
acres with erosion above a tolerable rate. Allen County and the southeast portion of Kansas have
less highly erodible land but soil loss is occurring above a tolerable rate.
Figure 3.25. Locations of Excessive Erosion of Farmland, 1997
Source: Kansas Hazard Mitigation Plan, November 2007
Considering a broader geographic scale, Figure 3.26 below shows the region of southeastern
Kansas that includes Neosho County is outside of an area identified as having the worst wind
erosion problems.
Neosho County
January 2009
DRAFT
3.63
Figure 3.26. United States Wind Erosion Areas
Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture Agricultural Research Service Wind Erosion Research Unit, www.weru.ksu.edu/
Note: Blue square indicates approximate location of Neosho County
There are no dust storm events listed in the NCDC database. Previous occurrences of notable soil
erosion in the planning area have occurred during flood events. These impacts are discussed in
the flood hazard profile.
While soil erosion and dust occur annually as part of natural processes, the adverse effects of
erosion are only fully realized as a cumulative function. Therefore, the probability of notable
effects from soil erosion and dust events is considered occasional; meaning the cumulative effect
of annual events reaches a notable level on the average of every five years.
Magnitude/Severity
Hazard Summary
1.75
Neosho County
January 2009
Low
DRAFT
3.64
3.2.12 Tornado
Description
The National Weather Service defines a tornado as a “violently rotating column of air extending
from a thunderstorm to the ground.” Tornadoes are the most violent of all atmospheric storms
and are capable of tremendous destruction. Wind speeds can exceed 250 mph, and damage paths
can be more than one mile wide and 50 miles long. In an average year, more than 900 tornadoes
are reported in the United States, resulting in approximately 80 deaths and more than 1500
injuries. High winds not associated with tornadoes are profiled separately in this document in
Section 3.2.13 Windstorm.
Although tornadoes have been documented on every continent, they occur most frequently in the
United States east of the Rocky Mountains. Kansas is situated in an area that is generally known
as “Tornado Alley.” Climatological conditions are such that warm and cold air masses meet in
the center of the country to create conditions of great instability and fast moving air at high
pressure that can ultimately result in formation of tornado funnels.
In Kansas, most tornadoes and tornado-related deaths and injuries occur during the months of
April, May, and June. However, tornadoes have struck in every month. Similarly, while most
tornadoes occur between 3:00 and 9:00 p.m., a tornado can strike at any time.
Prior to February 1, 2007, tornado intensity was measured by the Fujita (F) scale. This scale was
revised and is now the Enhanced Fujita scale. Both scales are sets of wind estimates (not
measurements) based on damage. The new scale provides more damage indicators (28) and
associated degrees of damage, allowing for more detailed analysis, better correlation between
damage and wind speed. It is also more precise because it takes into account the materials
affected and the construction of structures damaged by a tornado.
Table 3.18 shows the wind speeds associated with the original Fujita scale ratings and the
damage that could result at different levels of intensity. Table 3.19 shows the wind speeds
associated with the Enhanced Fujita Scale ratings. The Enhanced Fujita Scale’s damage
indicators and degrees of damage can be found online at www.spc.noaa.gov/efscale/efscale.html.
Neosho County
January 2009
DRAFT
3.65
Table 3.18. Original Fujita Scale
Fujita (F) Scale
F0
Fujita Scale
Wind Estimate (mph)
< 73
F1
73-112
F2
113-157
F3
158-206
F4
207-260
F5
261-318
Typical Damage
Light damage. Some damage to chimneys; branches
broken off trees; shallow-rooted trees pushed over; sign
boards damaged.
Moderate damage. Peels surface off roofs; mobile homes
pushed off foundations or overturned; moving autos blown
off roads.
Considerable damage. Roofs torn off frame houses; mobile
homes demolished; boxcars overturned; large trees
snapped or uprooted; light-object missiles generated; cars
lifted off ground.
Severe damage. Roofs and some walls torn off wellconstructed houses; trains overturned; most trees in forest
uprooted; heavy cars lifted off the ground and thrown.
Devastating damage. Well-constructed houses leveled;
structures with weak foundations blown away some
distance; cars thrown and large missiles generated.
Incredible damage. Strong frame houses leveled off
foundations and swept away; automobile-sized missiles fly
through the air in excess of 100 meters (109 yards); trees
debarked; incredible phenomena will occur.
Source: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Storm Prediction Center, www.spc.noaa.gov/faq/tornado/f-scale.html
Table 3.19. Enhanced Fujita Scale
Enhanced Fujita
(EF) Scale
Enhanced Fujita Scale Wind
Estimate (mph)
EF0
EF1
EF2
EF3
EF4
EF5
65-85
86-110
111-135
136-165
166-200
Over 200
Source: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Storm
Prediction Center, www.spc.noaa.gov/faq/tornado/ef-scale.html
Warning Time: 4—typical warning time is less than six hours
Duration: 1—typical duration is less than six hours
Geographic Location
While tornadoes can occur in all areas of the State of Kansas, historically, some areas of the state
have been more susceptible to this type of damaging storm. Figure 3.26 illustrates the number of
F3, F4, and F5 tornadoes recorded in the United States per 3,700 square miles between 1950 and
Neosho County
January 2009
DRAFT
3.66
1998. Neosho County is in the section shaded dark orange, indicating 16-25 tornadoes of this
magnitude during this 48-year period.
Figure 3.26. Tornado Activity in the United States
According to the NCDC database, there were 28 tornadoes in Neosho County between 1954 and
May 2008. There were no reported deaths and four injuries. Reported property damages totaled
over $3.5 million. Of these 28 events, seven were rated F2 and one was rated F3. Table 3.20
summarizes these events.
Table 3.20. Recorded Tornadoes in Neosho County, 1954-2008
Location or County
Neosho County
Neosho County
Neosho County
Neosho County
Neosho County
Neosho County
Neosho County
Neosho County
Neosho County
January 2009
Date
May 31, 1954
May 31, 1954
July 23, 1955
October 4, 1959
April 29, 1960
May 19, 1960
April 26, 1964
March 8, 1973
Time
3:30 PM
3:30 PM
4:30 PM
1:50 PM
3:07 PM
7:40 PM
10:20 AM
7:50 PM
DRAFT
Magnitude
F2
F2
F0
F1
F1
F1
F0
F2
Injuries
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
Estimated
Damages ($)
25,000
25,000
0
0
3,000
0
0
250,000
3.67
Location or County
Neosho County
Neosho County
Neosho County
Neosho County
Neosho County
Neosho County
Neosho County
Neosho County
Neosho County
Erie
South Mound
South Mound
St Paul
Galesburg
South Mound
Chanute
Thayer
Erie
Johnson Airport
Earlton
TOTALS:
Date
March 8, 1973
May 1, 1973
May 11, 1973
May 20, 1982
May 30, 1982
June 3, 1983
April 7, 1986
November 15, 1988
November 15, 1988
April 19, 2000
April 19, 2000
June 4, 2000
May 4, 2003
April 21, 2005
April 21, 2005
June 30, 2005
September 13, 2005
November 27, 2005
May 1, 2008
May 1, 2008
Time
8:15 PM
-6:00 AM
4:23 PM
4:18 PM
2:15 AM
6:55 PM
2:05 PM
2:15 PM
7:20 PM
8:00 PM
5:50 PM
3:37 PM
4:54 PM
5:19 PM
7:04 PM
5:22 PM
4:06 PM
8:14 PM
8:44 PM
Magnitude
F2
F1
F2
F1
F0
F1
F0
F1
F2
F2
F0
F0
F0
F3
F1
F0
F0
F1
F0
F0
Injuries
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
Estimated
Damages ($)
250,000
25,000
250,000
250,000
0
250,000
0
25,000
25,000
1,800,000
25,000
0
15,000
200,000
15,000
0
0
120,000
0
0
3,553,000
Source: National Climatic Data Center (NCDC), http://www4.ncdc.noaa.gov/cgi-win/wwcgi.dll?wwevent~storms
Note: Zero (0) values may indicate missing data
The NCDC provided descriptions of damages from the following tornado events:
•
•
•
•
April 19, 2000. FEMA-1327-DR: Forming at 1920 CST 6 miles southwest of Erie, the
tornado moved northeast around 35 mph passing just south of Erie at 1931 CST. F2 intensity
for much of its track, the tornado injured 3 people on the southern periphery of Erie as it
destroyed or heavily damaged 12 homes, several mobile homes, as well as a few trees. This
tornado then crossed into Crawford County.
May 6, 2003. FEMA-1462-DR: Unspecified damage to two homes, trees, and power lines
six miles south of St. Paul.
April 21, 2005. One frame house was partially unroofed and one barn destroyed. Tornado
crossed the Neosho/Crawford county line, 5 miles southeast of St. Paul. The tornado lifted
one mile east of the Neosho/Crawford county line. Damage summary: Two miles south of
Galesburg: One barn damaged & two out-buildings destroyed. Three miles southeast of
Galesburg: Two mobile homes destroyed, one frame house dislodged from its foundation &
two barns destroyed. Four miles east-southeast of Galesburg: Frame house unroofed with two
exterior walls collapsed. A garage and one shed were destroyed. Tree damage occurred at
each of these locations.
November 27, 2005. Shortly after touchdown approximately 2 miles northeast of Erie, the
tornado produced F1 damage to homes, outbuildings and trees. Thereafter, the tornado lost
some of its intensity, and subsequent damage was rated F0.
Neosho County
January 2009
DRAFT
3.68
Based on records of 28 tornado events in Neosho County over the 54 year period from 19542008, there is a 51.9 percent probability of a tornado occurring in Neosho County in a given
year. This, along with the location of Neosho County in Wind Zone IV, makes the probability of
a tornado in any given year highly likely.
Highly Likely: History of events is greater than 33% likely per year. Event is probable within
the calendar year.
The National Severe Storms Laboratory calculated probability of violent tornadoes based on time
of year for the period 1921-1995. Figure 3.27 below shows the probability of a F2 or larger
tornado occurring on any given day at a location within a 25 mile radius of the center of Allen
County. For example, a y-axis value of 2.0 would indicate a two percent chance of receiving the
chosen type of severe weather on the date indicated by the x-axis value. The 1966-1981 period
was the peak in probability based on data from previous occurrences, with the most recent
reporting period (1981-1995) showing a significantly lower probability of occurrence than the
overall average. For both significant (F2 or larger) and violent (F4 and larger) tornadoes there is
a pronounced peak in probability during the spring months.
Figure 3.27. Daily Significant Tornado Probability, F2 or Larger, Neosho County 19211995
Neosho County
January 2009
DRAFT
3.69
Based on the same methodology described for the previous graph, Figures 3.28 and 3.29 below
show the probability of an F4 or larger tornado occurring on any given day at a location within a
25 mile radius of the center of Allen County, and the frequency of F2 or larger tornadoes based
on location in the U.S., respectively.
Figure 3.28. Daily Violent Tornado Probability, F4 or Larger, Neosho County 1921-1995
Neosho County
January 2009
DRAFT
3.70
Figure 3.29. Frequency of F2 or Larger Tornadoes, 1980-1994
Source: NSSL, http://www.nssl.noaa.gov/users/brooks/public_html/sigt2195.gif
Note: Black rectangle indicates approximate location of Neosho County
Magnitude/Severity
Critical: 25-50 percent of property severely damaged; shutdown of facilities for at least two
weeks; and/or injuries and/or illnesses result in permanent disability
Hazard Summary
3.4
High
3.2.13 Utility/Infrastructure Failure
Description
Critical infrastructure involves several different types of facilities and systems: transportation,
power systems, natural gas and oil pipelines, water and sewer systems, storage networks, and
telecommunications facilities. State and locally designated critical facilities, such as hospitals,
government centers, etc., are also considered critical infrastructure. Failure of utilities or other
components of the infrastructure in the planning area could seriously impact public health, the
functioning of communities, and the economy. Disruption of any of these services could result as
a secondary impact from drought, flood, tornado, windstorm, winter storm, lightning, and
extreme heat (water systems are particularly vulnerable to drought).
Neosho County
January 2009
DRAFT
3.71
Also of concern are solar storms. The next 11-year cycle of solar storms will most likely start in
March 2008 and peak in late 2011 or mid-2012. These storms can potentially affect power and
communication systems.
The largest electric utilities in Neosho County are Heartland Electric Cooperative, Radiant
Electric Cooperative, and Twin Valley Electric Cooperative. 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.
Geographic Location
Utility lines and critical infrastructure are located throughout Neosho County, concentrated in the
county’s population centers and on lines connecting them. Figures 3.44 and 3.46 in Section 3.3.3
show the location of utilities and critical infrastructure in relation to flood risk areas of Neosho
County.
The cities of Chanute and Erie provide their own power. Chanute has owned and operated an
electric utility since 1916. In 2007 Chanute had three power plants and 100 miles of electric
lines with a peak operating load of 38.7 mega watts per year. Additional electric providers
include Radiant Electric, Twin Valley Electric, Westar, Kansas Gas and Electric, and Kansas
Power and Light.
The City of Chanute Sewer Utility has 69 miles of collection lines and seven lift stations. The
present wastewater treatment plant began operation in 1983 and treats approximately 4.2 million
gallons of water per day from approximately 3,700 residential, 460 commercial and 40 industrial
customers.
With the exception of Earlton, which utilizes a septic tank system, the remainder of Neosho
County utilizes sewage lagoons for the treatment of wastewater, with permitted discharge into
local bodies of surface water.
Telephone, television, and internet service providers include Southwestern Bell, Sprint, CrawKan Telephone, Cox Cable, Cable One, and Cable TV of St. Paul.
Disruptions to utility services result annually as a secondary impact to drought, flood, tornado,
windstorm, winter storm, lightning, and extreme heat.
Neosho County
January 2009
DRAFT
3.72
Based on a level of frequency that includes occurrences of utility failure on an annual basis, this
hazard’s CPRI probability for significant events is “likely” (event is probable within the next
three years).
Magnitude/Severity
Hazard Summary
2.85
Moderate
3.2.14 Wildfire
Description
Wildfires in Kansas typically originate in pasture or prairie areas following the ignition of dry
grasses (by natural or human sources). About 75 percent of Kansas wildfires start during spring
due to dry weather conditions. Since protecting people and structures takes priority, a wildfire’s
cost to natural resources, crops, and pastured livestock can be ecologically and economically
devastating. In addition to the health and safety impacts to those directly affected by fires, the
state is also concerned about the health affects of smoke emissions to surrounding areas.
Wildfires in Kansas are frequently associated with lightning and drought conditions, as dry
conditions make vegetation more flammable. As new development encroaches into the wildlandurban interface (areas where development occurs within or immediately adjacent to wildlands,
near fire-prone trees, brush, and/or other vegetation), more and more structures and people are at
risk. On occasion, ranchers and farmers intentionally ignite vegetation to restore soil nutrients or
alter the existing vegetation growth. These fires have the potential to erupt into wildfires.
Duration: 2—less than one day
Geographic Location
The entire planning area is subject to incidents of wild fire. There is an increased risk in
agricultural areas where Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) land is burned and in rural areas
Neosho County
January 2009
DRAFT
3.73
where individuals burn trash or debris. During high wind conditions, these small fires can get out
of control and spread to dry vegetation such as native grasses, shrubs, and Eastern Cedar trees.
In April 2007, the Kansas Forest Service prepared a Community Wildfire Hazard Assessment
Report. This report details the conclusions of the status of Wildland Urban Interface (WUI)
issues that might have an impact on the safety of persons and/or property in Neosho County
Kansas. To complete the assessment, Forest Service personnel obtained baseline data on the
Wildland Urban Interface boundaries from the USGS website Geo Mac (www.geomac.gov).
This data was then confirmed with a “windshield” survey. The assessment concludes the
following:
St. Paul, Earlton, Urbana, Kimball, Thayer, Shaw, Galesburg, Chanute and Erie were all
determined to be low risk areas for wildfire. Stark, South Mound, and Morehead were
determined to have a moderate risk for wildfire. This moderate rating was assigned as a result of
the heavy fuel loads of hardwood timber, grass and eastern red cedar mix that have little or no
break in the fuel continuity between the communities and the surrounding vegetation fuels. There
is also an “intermix” WUI condition in some parts of these communities. Intermix WUI occurs
when vegetation in vacant lots within the community could carry a vegetation fire that could
spread to surrounding buildings.
Figure 3.30 shows the wildland urban interface boundaries in the planning area.
Neosho County
January 2009
DRAFT
3.74
Figure 3.30 GeoMac Wildland Urban Interface Boundaries, Neosho, Kansas
source: USGS www.goemac.gov
Although the wildfire assessment for Thayer was determined to be low, the planning committee
reported a specific risk of wildfire in the City as a result of sparks from the railroad igniting
nearby vegetation. So, the overall risk for wildfire in Thayer is considered to be moderate.
According to the Special Kansas Fire Loss Summary-2006 Kansas State University Wildland
Report, there were 148 fires in Neosho County impacting a total of 2,544 acres in 2006. No
fatalities or injuries resulted from these wildfires but they did cause an estimated $123,400 in
property losses.
The Kansas Incident Fire Reporting System reports that from 2003-2006, Neosho County lost
4,396 acres to wild fires. The acreage burned in Neosho County ranks 27 highest out of 105
counties in Kansas during this time frame.
Neosho County
January 2009
DRAFT
3.75
Although they are generally small, wildfires occur in Neosho County on an annual basis. Future
occurrence of this hazard and degree of impacts is likely to increase if development in wildlandurban interface areas increases.
Magnitude/Severity
Wildfires occur on an annual basis; however, most do not result in significant threat to life or
property. An average of 1,099 acres per year were impacted by wildfires from 2003-2006,
representing 0.3 percent of the total planning area on an annual basis.
Negligible—Less than 10 percent of property severely damaged, shutdown of facilities and
Hazard Summary
2.45
Moderate
3.2.15 Windstorm
Description
Straight-line winds are generally any thunderstorm wind that is not associated with rotation (i.e.,
not a tornado). These winds, which can exceed 100 mph, represent the most common type of
severe weather and are the most common cause of thunderstorm damage. Since thunderstorms do
not have a narrow track like a tornado, associated wind damage can be extensive and affect
broad regions including and multiple counties. Objects like trees, barns, outbuildings, highprofile vehicles, and power lines/poles can be toppled or destroyed, and roofs, windows, and
homes can be damaged as wind speeds increase. One type of straight-line wind is the downburst,
which can cause damage equivalent to a strong tornado and can be extremely dangerous to
aviation.
Thunderstorms over Kansas typically happen between late April and early September, but, given
the right conditions, they can develop as early as March. They are usually produced by super cell
thunderstorms or a line of thunderstorms that typically develop on hot and humid days.
Warning Time: 2—less than one day
Duration: 2—less than one day
Neosho County
January 2009
DRAFT
3.76
Geographic Location
All of Neosho County is susceptible to high wind events. The County is located in Wind Zone
IV, which is susceptible to winds up to 250 mph. Figure 3.31 below shows the wind zones of the
United States based on maximum wind speeds; Kansas is located within wind zones III and IV,
the highest inland categories. All of Neosho County is in Zone IV.
Figure 3.31. Wind Zones in the United States
Source: FEMA; http://www.fema.gov/plan/prevent/saferoom/tsfs02_wind_zones.shtm
Neosho County was included in two presidential disaster declarations involving impacts from
high winds. In 2005 and again in 2007, USDA disaster declarations were issued that included
high winds as a primary cause.
According to the NCDC database, there are 82 separate reports of wind events in Neosho County
between 1955 and June 2008 (multiple events during the same day were counted as one event).
During this time period there were no reported deaths or injuries as a result of windstorm events.
Total property damage for events from 1994-2008 is estimated at $4.18 million. Table 3.21
below lists windstorm events in Neosho County from 1994-2008.
Neosho County
January 2009
DRAFT
3.77
Table 3.21 Windstorm Events, Neosho County 1994-2008
Location or County
Chanute
Erie
Erie
Erie
Erie
Thayer
Thayer
Erie
Chanute
Thayer
Chanute
Erie
St Paul
Thayer
Erie
St Paul
St Paul
Chanute
Erie
Thayer
Chanute
Multi-County region
Morehead
Chanute
Chanute
Chanute Airport
Erie
Chanute
Stark
Chanute Airport
Thayer
Shaw
Earlton
St Paul
Chanute
Chanute
Thayer
Erie
St Paul
Chanute
St Paul
Erie
Erie
Stark
Chanute
Neosho County
January 2009
Date
July 7, 1994
April 17, 1995
June 9, 1995
July 4, 1995
July 23, 1995
April 28, 1996
April 28, 1996
July 8, 1996
June 29, 1997
June 8, 1998
June 29, 1998
June 29, 1998
August 9, 1998
September 29, 1998
October 4, 1998
October 4, 1998
October 17, 1998
November 9, 1998
May 17, 1999
June 28, 1999
February 25, 2000
March 8, 2000
April 19, 2000
May 27, 2000
May 27, 2000
May 27, 2000
April 14, 2001
June 3, 2001
July 25, 2001
September 7, 2001
September 7, 2001
September 7, 2001
March 8, 2002
August 23, 2002
September 18, 2002
April 16, 2003
April 16, 2003
April 16, 2003
April 16, 2003
April 19, 2003
June 25, 2003
July 9, 2003
July 9, 2003
July 9, 2003
August 5, 2003
Magnitude
52 kts.
52 kts.
0 kts.
0 kts.
60 kts.
70 kts.
65 kts.
0 kts.
56 kts.
52 kts.
61 kts.
61 kts.
52 kts.
52 kts.
52 kts.
52 kts.
65 kts.
52 kts.
52 kts.
56 kts.
52 kts.
61 kts.
52 kts.
56 kts.
56 kts.
57 kts.
52 kts.
52 kts.
52 kts.
58 kts.
52 kts.
52 kts.
56 kts.
56 kts.
61 kts.
65 kts.
52 kts.
61 kts.
61 kts.
61 kts.
52 kts.
78 kts.
54 kts.
52 kts.
61 kts.
DRAFT
Estimated Damages
5,000
0
16,000
16,000
0
0
15,000
0
0
0
90,000
1,000,000
25,000
0
0
0
50,000
0
3,000
0
75,000
50,000
0
100,000
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
10,000
25,000
0
35,000
0
0
0
0
0
50,000
0
0
10,000
3.78
Location or County
St Paul
Erie
Thayer
Earlton
Stark
Chanute
Galesburg
Erie
Chanute
Erie
St Paul
Chanute
Chanute
Erie
Erie
St Paul
Thayer
Thayer
Chanute
Thayer
Chanute
Erie
Erie
Thayer
Stark
Thayer
Chanute
Chanute
Galesburg
Chanute
Chanute
Erie
Erie
St Paul
St Paul
Johnson Airport
TOTALS:
Date
August 5, 2003
August 22, 2003
March 4, 2004
April 23, 2004
May 26, 2004
July 5, 2004
July 5, 2004
July 5, 2004
June 30, 2005
June 30, 2005
June 30, 2005
June 30, 2005
June 30, 2005
June 30, 2005
June 30, 2005
June 30, 2005
August 24, 2005
August 24, 2005
August 24, 2005
September 13, 2005
July 28, 2006
August 6, 2006
August 6, 2006
October 17, 2007
October 17, 2007
October 17, 2007
May 23, 2008
May 26, 2008
June 3, 2008
June 3, 2008
June 3, 2008
June 3, 2008
June 3, 2008
June 3, 2008
June 3, 2008
June 8, 2008
Magnitude
61 kts.
52 kts.
52 kts.
52 kts.
60 kts.
61 kts.
61 kts.
61 kts.
78 kts.
78 kts.
78 kts.
52 kts.
53 kts.
61 kts.
61 kts.
87 kts.
52 kts.
52 kts.
50 kts.
52 kts.
52 kts.
60 kts.
65 kts.
52 kts.
52 kts.
52 kts.
50 kts.
53 kts.
52 kts.
52 kts.
56 kts.
52 kts.
61 kts.
61 kts.
52 kts.
59 kts.
Estimated Damages
50,000
0
0
0
0
5,000
10,000
0
1,000,000
500,000
500,000
0
0
25,000
0
400,000
0
0
0
0
3,000
15,000
35,000
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
18,000
0
20,000
25,000
0
0
4,181,000
Source: National Climatic Data Center (NCDC), http://www4.ncdc.noaa.gov/cgi-win/wwcgi.dll?wwevent~storms
Note: Zero (0) values may indicate missing data
Summaries of selected windstorm events are listed below (source: NCDC):
•
June 3, 2008. An unsecured trailer house was blown over on its side by this high wind event
that also blew down several power lines and tree limbs.
Neosho County
January 2009
DRAFT
3.79
•
•
•
August 6, 2006. The roof was blown off of the highland dairy cooler one mile north or Erie
causing an estimated $35,000 in damages. Two large trees were blown over and fell on top of
two houses causing an estimated $15,000 in damages.
July 28, 2006. A utility pole was downed near the intersection of 230th Road and Brown
Road causing an estimated $3,000 in damages.
June 30, 2005 This severe wind storm affected Neosho, Crawford, and Cherokee Counties
causing damage to power poles, conductor and electrical equipment resulting in widespread
power outages. Store front windows were blown out and a camper was blown across a street.
Numerous trees were blown over damaging homes and automobiles. In St. Paul, the school
was damaged as well as the steeple on the St. Francis Catholic Church (Figure 3.32). St. Paul
Elementary lost its entire roof and sheet metal littered the school grounds. The high school
lost several windows and part of its roof as well. Total damages were estimated at $2.5
million. (Chanute Tribune, July 1, 2005).
Figure 3.32 St. Francis Catholic Church Steeple Damage (watermark shows original
steeple)
source: St. Paul, Kansas Website, http://www.stpaulks.us/History.html
Neosho County
January 2009
DRAFT
3.80
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
July 5, 2004. A storage shed the size of a 3-car garage was destroyed with parts of the shed
thrown onto the elementary school grounds nearly one block away. An aluminum boat stored
inside the shed was also thrown, with the boat blown into the windshield of a vehicle owned
by the school. This storm also caused downed power lines.
August 5, 2003. One residence three miles from St. Paul was extensively damaged when the
east-facing garage door was ripped from its supports causing the roof to collapse onto the
three vehicles parked inside. A barn approximately 1 mile west of the property was unroofed
with the dislodged roof and sections of tin scattered 1/4 mile across an adjacent field.
Damage was estimated at $50,000 (Chanute Tribune).
July 9, 2003. A pole barn roof collapsed. Damages were estimated at $50,000.
April 16, 2003. A roof was blown off of a storage building and the top 40 feet of a wireless
transmitter tower was destroyed causing an estimated $35,000 in damages.
August 23, 2002. Part of the roof was blown off the old city hall building in St. Paul.
Damages were estimated at $25,000.
May 27, 2000. Two large trees were uprooted by strong winds in Chanute. The trees'roots
lifted one side of a house from its foundation. Both trees toppled onto a next-door neighbor'
s
house causing damage to its roof. Damage estimates were $100,000.
February 25, 2000. A storage building under construction collapsed causing an estimated
$75,000 in damages.
October 17, 1998. A vehicle was blown into the front window of a building in St. Paul.
Numerous power poles were blown down and the roofs of three buildings were blown off
causing an estimated $50,000 in damages.
June 29, 1998. The roofs of two stores were destroyed and two mobile homes were heavily
damaged in Erie. This storm also downed numerous trees and power lines. Total damages
were estimated to be $1 million.
April 28, 1996. A roof was blown off a building in Thayer causing an estimated $15,000 in
damages.
July 4, 1995. A mobile home was blown off of its foundation three miles west of Erie
causing approximately $16,000 in damages.
June 9, 1995. The roof was blown off of a store two blocks east of Highway 59 in Erie
causing an estimated $16,000 in damages.
June 7, 1994. Strong winds damaged roofs and trees in the north part of town in Erie causing
an estimated $50,000.
According to the USDA Risk Management Agency, in 2006, excess wind caused damage to the
corn crop. $1,240 in crop insurance was paid as a result.
According to NCDC, there were 159 reports of high wind events in Neosho County between
1958 and June 2008 (57 years). For some events, more than one impact report was issued. There
Neosho County
January 2009
DRAFT
3.81
was an average of 2.8 wind impact reports per year for this period. Based on the frequency of
previous occurrences, probability of future occurrence is considered highly likely.
Highly Likely—History of events is greater than 33 percent likely per year
The National Severe Storms Laboratory calculated probability of windstorms based on time of
year for the period 1980-1999. Figure 3.33 below shows the probability of a windstorm 50 knots
or greater occurring on any given day at a location within a 25 mile radius of the center of
Neosho County. For example, a y-axis value of 2.0 would indicate a two percent chance of
receiving the chosen type of severe weather on the date indicated by the x-axis value. The most
recent reporting period had the highest probability based on data from previous occurrences,
while overall probability was highest during the spring months across all reporting periods.
Figure 3.33. Daily Windstorm Probability, 50 Knots or Higher, Neosho County 1980-1999
Based on a similar methodology described for the previous graph, Figure 3.34 below shows the
probability of a windstorm (65 knots or greater) occurring on any given day at a location within a
25 mile radius of the center of Neosho County.
Neosho County
January 2009
DRAFT
3.82
Figure 3.34. Annual Windstorm Probability (65+ knots), United States 1980-1994
Source: NSSL, http://www.nssl.noaa.gov/users/brooks/public_html/bigwind.gif
Note: Black rectangle indicates approximate location of Neosho County
Magnitude/Severity
Hazard Summary
2.9
Moderate
3.2.16 Winter Storm
Description
Winter storms in Kansas typically involve snow, extreme cold, and/or freezing rain (ice storms).
These conditions pose a serious threat to public safety, disrupt commerce and transportation, and
can damage utilities and communications infrastructure. Winter storms can also disrupt
emergency and medical services, hamper the flow of supplies, and isolate homes and farms.
Neosho County
January 2009
DRAFT
3.83
Heavy snow can collapse roofs and down trees onto power lines. Extreme cold conditions can
stress or kill unprotected livestock and freeze water sources. Direct and indirect economic
impacts of winter storms include cost of snow removal, damage repair, increased heating bills,
business and crop losses, power failures and frozen or burst water lines.
For humans, extreme cold can cause hypothermia (an extreme lowering of the body’s
temperature) and permanent loss of limbs due to frostbite. Infants and the elderly are particularly
at risk, but anyone can be affected. According to the National Center for Health Statistics,
approximately 600 adults die from hypothermia each year, with the isolated elderly being most at
risk. Also at risk are those without shelter or live in a home that is poorly insulated or without
heat. Other potential health and safety threats include toxic fumes from emergency heaters,
household fires caused by fireplaces or emergency heaters, and driving in treacherous conditions.
The National Weather Service describes different types of winter storm conditions as follows:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Blizzard—Winds of 35 mph or more with snow and blowing snow reducing visibility to less
than 1/4 mile for at least three hours.
Blowing Snow—Wind-driven snow that reduces visibility. Blowing snow may be falling
snow and/or snow on the ground picked up by the wind.
Snow Squalls—Brief, intense snow showers accompanied by strong, gusty winds.
Accumulation may be significant.
Snow Showers—Snow falling at varying intensities for brief periods of time. Some
accumulation is possible.
Freezing Rain—Measurable rain that falls onto a surface whose temperature is below
freezing. This causes the rain to freeze on surfaces, such as trees, cars, and roads, forming a
coating or glaze of ice. Most freezing-rain events are short lived and occur near sunrise
between the months of December and March.
Sleet—Rain drops that freeze into ice pellets before reaching the ground. Sleet usually
bounces when hitting a surface and does not stick to objects.
Wind can greatly amplify the impact of cold ambient air temperatures and thus the severity of
winter storms. Provided by the National Weather Service, Figure 3.35 shows the relationship of
wind speed to apparent temperature and typical time periods for the onset of frostbite.
Neosho County
January 2009
DRAFT
3.84
Figure 3.35. Wind Chill Chart
Source: NOAA, National Weather Service, http://www.weather.gov/om/windchill/
Duration of the most severe impacts of winter storms is generally less than one week, though
dangerous cold, snow, and ice conditions can remain present for longer periods in certain cases.
Weather forecasts are commonly predict the most severe winter storms at least 24 hours in
advance, leaving adequate time to warn the public.
Warning Time: 2—12-24 hours
Geographic Location
The entire State of Kansas is vulnerable to heavy snow and freezing rain. Figure 3.36 below
shows average annual snowfall for the state of Kansas. Northwestern Kansas receives the
greatest average annual snowfall with upwards of 40 inches per year. The southeastern region of
Kansas that includes Neosho County, receives the least snowfall in the state, averaging 4.6 to 9.4
inches per year.
Neosho County
January 2009
DRAFT
3.85
Figure 3.36. Kansas, Average Annual Snowfall
Source: Kansas State University Weather Data Library, www.oznet.ksu.edu/wdl/Maps/Climatic/AnnualFreezeMap.asp
Note: Black square indicates Neosho County
The area of southeastern Kansas that includes Neosho County receives more hours of freezing
rain than any other region in Kansas. Figure 3.37 below shows that Neosho County falls in a
zone that receives 9-12 hours of freezing rain per year.
Figure 3.37. Average Number of Hours per Year with Freezing Rain in the United States
Source: American Meteorological Society. “Freezing Rain Events in the United States.”
http://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/71872.pdf.
Neosho County
January 2009
DRAFT
3.86
Neosho County has received one presidential declaration, one state declaration and two USDA
declarations for this hazard, listed below in Table 3.22.
Table 3.3.22 Disaster Declarations in Neosho County Involving Winter Storm
Declaration Date
April 4, 2007
November 30, 2006
January 4, 2005
February 6, 2002
Description
Excessive Heat, Winter Storms
Winter Storm
Winter Storms and Excessive
Moisture
Ice Storm
Declaration Type
USDA
State
USDA
Disaster Number
S2525
-M1579
Presidential—Major
Disaster Declaration
1402
Summaries of selected winter storm events are listed below (source: NCDC):
•
•
•
January 31, 2008. Snow accumulated 8 to 10 inches across the county. A powerful storm
system moved across the central and southern plains on January 31st. This resulted in a
relatively narrow swath of heavy snow across south-central and southeast Kansas. The snow
started falling after midnight on the 31st, and ended by mid-afternoon across south-central
Kansas, and early evening across southeast Kansas. The snow was particularly heavy during
the morning hours, when snowfall rates exceeded one inch per hour for several hours,
especially across southeast Kansas. Additionally, gusty northerly winds up to 35 miles per
hour resulted in reduced visibilities and at times significant drifting snow.
December 9, 2007. Approximately one inch of ice and sleet accumulated across Neosho
County. The ice storm knocked power out to much of the county. It is unknown how much
damage was caused. Neosho County Community College reported damages to roofs, gutters,
vent-hoods, as well as severe tree damage
November 30, 2006. A massive winter storm produced record breaking snowfall, along with
areas of freezing rain and sleet, across much of south-central and southeast Kansas. Southeast
Kansas was hardest hit, where several locations were buried under 12 or more inches of
snow, and up to one-half inch of ice. Transportation was brought to a stand-still; schools,
businesses, and organizations were closed for several days; and numerous traffic accidents
occurred. The weight of the snow caused sporadic structural damage.
Figure 3.38 below shows snow accumulation depths for the November 30, 2006 storm. Most
areas of Neosho County received at least one foot of snow from this storm.
Neosho County
January 2009
DRAFT
3.87
Figure 3.38 Southeast Kansas Snow Accumulation Map, November 30, 2006
Source: National Weather Service, 2007 Kansas Severe Weather Awareness Week Information Packet
Note: Black square indicates Neosho County
•
•
•
•
December 13, 2003. The same winter storm that produced 7-10 inch accumulations across
South-Central Kansas, produced comparable accumulations across Southeast Kansas in the
morning. The greater accumulations occurred along the Oklahoma border. Law enforcement,
emergency management, and trained spotters all provided timely reports throughout this
event.
February 23, 2003. A winter storm moving southeast from the Rockies across Oklahoma
produced snowfalls of ranging from 6-15 inches across most of south-central and southeast
Kansas.
December 4, 2002. A powerful early season winter storm crossing the Southern Plains
spread snow across southern Kansas from Tuesday evening, Dec. 3rd, thru Wednesday
afternoon, Dec. 4th. The resulting accumulations reached 6-10 inches, with the greater
amounts, 8-10 inches, along the Oklahoma border. Across Southeast Kansas, freezing drizzle
preceded the heavy snow, with numerous highways no doubt slick and dangerous.
March 1, 2002. Low pressure developed rapidly over New Mexico during the morning. As
the low moved east into West Texas, it deepened considerably, allowing rich gulf moisture to
surge north across East Texas and Oklahoma and into Kansas. An upper-level impulse lifting
northeast across the Southern Plains induced sufficient lift to produce bands of snow across
Central Kansas late in the afternoon. By evening, the snow increased in both coverage and
Neosho County
January 2009
DRAFT
3.88
•
•
•
•
•
intensity, and between 10 PM and midnight, moderate to heavy snow occurred across that
part of Central Kansas generally along, and southeast, of a line from Hutchinson to
McPherson. By midnight, the snow had overspread South-Central and most of Southeast
Kansas. Accumulations were 3-6 inches, with the greater amounts occurring across Southeast
Kansas where the snow was occasionally convective. However, northerly winds of 30-40
mph whipped across the region resulting in widespread blowing and drifting snow that
frequently reduced visibilities to around 1/4 mile.
January 29, 2002 FEMA-1402-DR, Ice Storm. Beginning on January 29, a three-day
severe winter storm hit 35 Kansas counties in the southeast corner of the state with freezing
rain, drizzle, sleet, and snow. With one to two inches of ice accumulation, utility poles and
power lines snapped, transportation was treacherous, and fallen trees damaged many
structures. The resulting power outages affected nearly the entire region and lasted nearly a
week in some areas. Loss of power was particularly problematic for many nursing homes.
There were seven casualties, and property damage approximated $32 million in the entire
affected region. Neosho County received over $1.4 Million in FEMA Public Assistance
funds as a result of this disaster. Schools and businesses across Neosho County were closed
as a result of the power outages. The city shop building in Thayer was damaged when the
roof collapsed. According to information from Radiant Electric Cooperative, ice
accumulation resulted in pole damage and destruction of service wires. Ninety-five percent
of the 5,383 meters served were without power. By 8:00 pm on January 30th, all
communities within a thirty mile radius were without power. Emergency restoration efforts
continued through February 8th at which time all service had been restored to residences and
most businesses. Emergency restoration damage consisted of replacement of 620 poles, 158
cross-arms, 38,869 feet of conductor and 85 transformers. Permanent restoration consisted of
150 miles of single phase and ten miles of three phase lines. In all, damages to Radiant
Electric exceeded $8.0 Million. FEMA paid 75 percent of this cost and the State of Kansas
paid 10 percent. Radiant Electric was responsible for the remaining 15 percent (Radiant
Electric Cooperative, 2008). Heartland Rural Electric Cooperative also reported widespread
loss of poles, conductor, and electrical equipment.
February 9, 2001. Widespread rain changed to a mixture of sleet and freezing rain early on
the morning of the 9th. By the time the freezing rain and sleet had changed to snow, 1/4-1/2
inches of ice had accumulated across most of southeast Kansas. North winds of 20-30 mph
compounded matters, causing spotty power outages across the region.
December 13, 2000. A potent winter storm crossing Oklahoma and Arkansas buried nearly
all of southeast Kansas with 6 to 14 inches of snow.
March 10, 2000. A late season winter storm produced a narrow swath of 6 to 8 inch
snowfalls across extreme southeast Kansas. The heavy wet snow caused widespread damage
to trees, power lines, and about 30 power poles. Approximately 2,600 to 2,700 people
experienced power outages lasting the duration of the weekend.
January 27, 2000. A slow-moving winter storm produced widespread 6-8 inch snowfalls
across most of central, south-central and southeast Kansas from the morning of the 27th thru
Neosho County
January 2009
DRAFT
3.89
•
•
midday on the 28th. Reports were also received from amateur radio operators, law
enforcement and emergency managers.
March 12, 1999. A late season winter storm moving from northern New Mexico into
northeast Texas spread heavy snow across much of central, south-central and southeast
Kansas resulting in accumulations ranging from 6-11 inches. South-central Kansas bore the
brunt of the storm where 8-11 inches buried much of this region. The greatest accumulations
reported were in Kingman County (11 inches), Harper County (8-10 inches), Southwest
Sedgwick County (9 inches) and Sumner County (8 inches). Possessing a high water
equivalent, the weight of the snow caused a roof to collapse at a shop in Harper (Northcentral Harper County) causing an estimated $5,000 damage. In Attica (West-central Harper
County) snow inflicted damage to car awnings and tree limbs.
November 20, 1994. Heavy snow blanketed portions of West Central Kansas on this Sunday.
The snow was accompanied by thunder at times between 0800-1200 MST. Snowfall amounts
included 6 inches at Sharon Springs and Wallace and 7 inches just south of Goodland.
According to the USDA Risk Management Agency, Insured crop losses in Neosho County as a
result of freeze and cold winter conditions from 2005 to 2007 totaled $1,102,092. Details are
Table 3.23 Claims Paid in Neosho County for Crop Loss as a Result of Freeze Conditions
Year
2005
2005
2005
2006
2007
2007
2007
2006
Total
Crop
Wheat
Corn
Soybeans
Soybeans
Wheat
Oats
Corn
Wheat
Hazard
Freeze
Freeze
Freeze
Freeze
Freeze
Freeze
Freeze
Cold Winter
Claims
Paid ($)
$680
$504
$140
$1,817
$1,069,660
$664
$26,423
$2,204
$1,102,092
Source: USDA’s Risk Management Agency, April, 2008
During the 14-year period from 1993 to 2007, there were 20 recorded winter storm events in
Neosho County. The recurrence interval for winter storms for this period is 9 months. Based on
this recurrence interval the probability of future occurrence rating for winter storms is highly
likely.
Highly Likely—History of events is greater than 33 percent likely per year
Neosho County
January 2009
DRAFT
3.90
Magnitude/Severity
Hazard Summary
3.0
High
3.2.17 Hazard Profiles Summary
Table 3.24 summarizes the results of the hazard profiles and how each hazard varies by
jurisdiction. Of moderate and high ranked hazards, dam and levee failure, flood hazard, and
wildfire hazard vary uniquely across the planning area. This assessment was used by the HMPC
to prioritize those hazards of greatest significance to the planning area, enabling the County to
focus resources where they are most needed. Those hazards that occur infrequently, or have little
or no impact on the planning area, were determined to be of low significance. Those hazards
determined to be of high significance were characterized as priority hazards that required further
evaluation in Section 3.3, Vulnerability Assessment.
Table 3.24. Planning Significance of Identified Hazard by Jurisdiction
Hazard
Drought
Earthquake
Expansive Soils
Extreme Heat
Flood
Hailstorm
Lightning
Utility/Infrastructure
Failure
Tornado
Wildfire
Windstorm
Winter Storm
Neosho
County
M
M
M
L
L
M
H
M
M
L
M
Chanute
M
M
M
L
L
M
H
M
M
L
M
Erie
M
M
M
L
L
M
H
M
M
L
M
St.
Paul
M
L
M
L
L
M
L
M
M
L
M
Thayer
M
L
M
L
L
M
L
M
M
L
M
H
M
M
H
H
L
M
H
H
L
M
H
H
L
M
H
H
M
M
H
Source: HMPC
Note: H = High, M = Moderate, L = Low
Neosho County
January 2009
DRAFT
3.91
3.3 Vulnerability Assessment
Requirement §201.6(c)(2)(ii) :[The risk assessment shall include a] description of the jurisdiction’s
vulnerability to the hazards described in paragraph (c)(2)(i) of this section. This description shall
include an overall summary of each hazard and its impact on the community.
Requirement §201.6(c)(2)(ii)(A) :The plan should describe vulnerability in terms of the types and
numbers of existing and future buildings, infrastructure, and critical facilities located in the
identified hazard areas.
Requirement §201.6(c)(2)(ii)(B) :[The plan should describe vulnerability in terms of an] estimate of
the potential dollar losses to vulnerable structures identified in paragraph (c)(2)(i)(A) of this
section and a description of the methodology used to prepare the estimate.
Requirement §201.6(c)(2)(ii)(C): [The plan should describe vulnerability in terms of] providing a
general description of land uses and development trends within the community so that mitigation
options can be considered in future land use decisions.
Requirement §201.6(c)(2)(ii): (As of October 1, 2008) [The risk assessment] must also address
National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) insured structures that have been repetitively damaged
floods.
3.3.1 Methodology
The vulnerability assessment further defines and quantifies populations, buildings, critical
facilities, and other community assets at risk to natural hazards. The vulnerability assessment for
this plan followed the methodology described in the FEMA publication Understanding Your
Risks—Identifying Hazards and Estimating Losses (2002).
The vulnerability assessment was conducted based on the best available data and the significance
of the hazard. Data to support the vulnerability assessment was collected from the following
sources:
•
•
•
•
•
•
County and jurisdictional GIS data (hazards, base layers, and assessor’s data)
Statewide GIS datasets compiled by state and federal agencies
FEMA’s HAZUS-MH loss estimation software
Written descriptions of assets and risks provided by participating jurisdictions
Existing plans and reports
Personal interviews with HMPC members and other stakeholders
Neosho County
January 2009
DRAFT
3.92
The Vulnerability Assessment is divided into four parts:
•
•
•
•
Section 3.3.2 Community Assets first describes the assets at risk in Neosho County,
including the total exposure of people and property; critical facilities and infrastructure;
natural, cultural, and historic resources; and economic assets.
Section 3.3.3 Vulnerability by Hazard describes the vulnerability to each hazard identified
in section 3.1 and profiled in section 3.2. This vulnerability analysis includes a vulnerability
overview for each hazard. For hazards of high and moderate significance, where available,
the vulnerability analysis includes evaluation of vulnerable buildings, infrastructure, and
critical facilities; estimated losses and a discussion of the methodology used to estimate
losses; and discusses future development in relation to hazard-prone areas.
Section 3.3.4 Future Land Use and Development discusses development trends, including
population growth, housing demand, and future projects.
Section 3.3.4 Summary of Key Issues summarizes the key issues and conclusions identified
in the risk assessment process.
3.3.2 Community Assets
This section assesses the population, structures, critical facilities and infrastructure, and other
important assets in Neosho County that may be at risk to natural hazards.
Total Exposure of Population and Structures
Table 3.25 shows the total population, number of structures, and estimated value of
improvements to parcels by jurisdiction. Land values have been purposely excluded because land
remains following disasters, and subsequent market devaluations are frequently short term and
difficult to quantify. Additionally, state and federal disaster assistance programs generally do not
address loss of land or its associated value (other than loss of crops through USDA). In general,
exposure of people and property is concentrated in the City of Chanute.
Table 3.25. Population and Building Exposure by Jurisdiction
City
Chanute
Earlton
Erie
Galesburg
St Paul
Stark
Thayer
Unincorporated
Total
Population
9,411
80
1,211
150
646
106
500
4,893
16,997
Building
Count
5,321
61
867
90
360
62
279
3,104
10,144
Building Contents
($)
709,365,000
4,557,000
77,358,000
19,576,000
51,979,000
5,316,000
33,295,000
279,473,000
1,180,919,000
Contents Exposure
($)
507,698,000
2,807,000
53,394,000
20,545,000
38,988,000
3,404,000
22,726,000
172,194,000
821,756,000
Total Exposure
($)
1,217,063,000
7,364,000
130,752,000
40,121,000
90,967,000
8,720,000
56,021,000
451,667,000
2,002,675,000
Sources: Kansas Division of the Budget (population); HAZUS-MH (MR 3) (structures)
Neosho County
January 2009
DRAFT
3.93
Critical Facilities and Infrastructure
A critical facility may be defined as one that provides essential public safety or mitigation
functions during response or recovery operations. Table 3.26 below gives examples of critical
facilities, high potential loss facilities and transportation and lifelines as they are defined for the
purposes of this analysis.
Table 3.26 Critical Facilities, Definitions and Examples
Essential Facilities
Hospitals and other medical facilities
Police stations
Fire stations
Emergency operations centers
High Potential Loss
Facilities
Power plants
Dams and levees
Military installations
Hazardous material sites
Schools
Shelters
Day care centers
Nursing homes
Main government buildings
Transportation and Lifelines
Highways, bridges, and tunnels
Railroads and facilities
Airports
Water treatment facilities
Natural gas, facilities and pipelines
Communications facilities
Source: FEMA HAZUS-MH MR3
Table 3.27 is an inventory of critical facilities and infrastructure (based on available data from
the State of Kansas) in Neosho County.
Table 3.27. Inventory of Critical Facilities and Infrastructure by Jurisdiction
Facility
Airport
Chanute
1
Earlton
--
Erie
--
Galesburg
--
St. Paul
--
Stark
--
Thayer
--
Total
1
Bridges
9
--
5
--
--
--
--
14
Dams
2
--
--
--
--
--
--
2
Elder Care Facility/
Long Term Care
Facility
Health Care Facility
Power Plant
5
--
1
--
1
--
--
7
6
3
---
1
2
---
1
--
---
---
8
5
Fire Stations
EMS Stations
1
1
1
--
1
1
1
--
1
--
1
--
1
--
7
2
Schools
6
--
2
1
1
--
1
11
Wastewater Facilities
Total
1
35
-1
1
14
1
3
1
5
1
2
1
3
6
63
Sources: HAZUS-MH (MR 3)
Table 3.28 provides specific information on the Elder Care Facilities and Long Term Care
Facilities in Neosho County. Citizens that reside in these facilities are considered special needs
and may require additional assistance in the event of a natural hazard or emergency event. In
Neosho County
January 2009
DRAFT
3.94
addition to these facilities, there is one hospital, Neosho Memorial Regional Medical Center
located in Chanute.
Table 3.28 Elder Care/Long Term Care Facilities in Neosho County
Elder Care Facility Name
Chanute Health Care Center
Heritage Health Care Center
Prairie Mission Retirement Village
Guest Home Estates II
Guest Home Estates III
Guest Home Estates VIII
Applewood Rehabilitation, Inc
Location
Chanute
Chanute
St. Paul
Chanute
Chanute
Erie
Canute
# of Beds
77
53
68
34
25
23
46
Figure 3.39 shows locations of bridges in the planning area.
Neosho County
January 2009
DRAFT
3.95
Figure 3.39. Neosho County Bridges
Neosho County
January 2009
DRAFT
3.96
Other Assets
Assessing the vulnerability of Neosho County to disaster also involves an inventory of natural,
historic, cultural, and economic assets located in the planning area. This is important for the
following reasons:
•
•
•
•
•
The county may decide that these types of resources warrant a greater degree of protection
due to their unique and irreplaceable nature and contribution to the overall economy.
If these resources are impacted by a disaster, knowing about them ahead of time allows for
more prudent care in the immediate aftermath, when the potential for additional impacts is
higher.
The rules for reconstruction, restoration, rehabilitation, and/or replacement are often different
for these types of designated resources.
Natural resources can have beneficial functions that reduce the impacts of natural hazards,
such as wetlands and riparian habitat, which help absorb and attenuate floodwaters.
Losses to economic assets (e.g., major employers or primary economic sectors) could have
severe impacts on a community and its ability to recover from disaster.
In Neosho County, specific assets include the following:
•
•
•
•
Endangered, threatened, special status species: The two species endemic to Neosho County
listed by the U.S, Fish and Wildlife Department (USFW) as threatened are: Mead’s
milkweed (plant) and Neosho madtom (fish). Also, populations of the Neoshow mucket
(clam) are closely monitored as a candidate species for potential future listing.
Cultural Resources: Santa Fe Depot/Safari museum in Chanute, Osage Mission Museum in
St. Paul, public libraries are located in Erie, Chanute, St. Paul, and Thayer, and numerous
churches are located throughout the county
Economic Resources/Major Employers: Erie—USD 101, City of Erie, Beachner Grain;
Chanute—Ash Grove, Quest, City of Chanute; Thayer—Beachner Grain, W&G Fertilizer,
Acorn Valley Cabinetry; St. Paul—Beachner Grain, Westhoff Interiors
Natural Resources: The Neosho Wildlife Area, located in southeast Neosho County is a
man-made marsh developed by the Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks as a migratory
waterfowl resting and feeding place and public hunting area. The Wildlife Area is located on
the flat floodplain below the junction of Flat Rock Creek and the Neosho River, and contains
approximately 3,426 acres, of which 1,748 acres are water contained in 15 man-made pools.
The Wetlands Reserve Program is a voluntary program offering landowners the opportunity
to protect, restore, and enhance wetlands on their property. The USDA Natural Resources
Conservation Service (NRCS) provides technical and financial support to help landowners
with their wetland restoration efforts. The NRCS goal is to achieve the greatest wetland
functions and values, along with optimum wildlife habitat, on every acre enrolled in the
program. This program offers landowners an opportunity to establish long-term conservation
and wildlife practices and protection. The photos in figures 3.40 and 3.41 are of a Neosho
Neosho County
January 2009
DRAFT
3.97
County wetland restored through this program. This 200 acre wetland was restored utilizing
a perpetual easement and with the assistance of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Figures 3.40 and 3.41. Restored Wetland in Neosho County
source: Natural Resources Conservation Service, http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/wrp/photo_gallery/photo_ks.html
•
Historic resources: There are 9 Neosho County properties on the National Register of
Historic Places. These properties are identified in Table 3.29.
Table 3.29. Neosho County Properties on the National Register of Historic Places
National/State
Register/Date Listed
State Register
Property Name
Atchison Topeka, and
Santa Fe Depot
Austin Bridge
Address
111 North Lincoln
Location
Chanute
4 miles southeast of Chanute
Chanute
Chanute Public
(Carnegie) Library
Cut-Off Bridge
102 South Lincoln
Chanute
National Register
9/15/1977
State Register
St. Paul Vicinity
State Register
St. Paul
National Register
7/2/1985
St. Paul
National Register
9/6/2005
National Register
7/2/1985
State Register
11/8/2003
National Register
2/23/1990
Maxwell’s Slough
Bridge
Osage Mission
Infirmary
State Street Bridge
6.3 miles south and 1.7 miles east
of St. Paul
0.5 miles west and 1 mile south of
St. Paul
St. Paul (Neosho County)
325 Main Street
Thayer State Bank
State Street over Neosho River
Tributary
201 Neosho Avenue
Tioga Inn
12 East main
Erie
Thayer
Chanute
Source: Kansas State Historical Society, www.kshs.org/resource/national_register/index.php
Neosho County
January 2009
DRAFT
3.98
Community Assets by Jurisdiction
Table 3.30 below provides community assets by jurisdiction. These are specific assets identified
by the planning committee as those structures and facilities that should receive priority
consideration in efforts to minimize risk.
Table 3.30. Specific Community Assets in Neosho County
Name of Asset
Unincorporated County
Ashley Clinics
Labette Health Clinics
NMRMC Hospital
Law Enforcement Offices (3)
Fire Departments (6)
Power Plants (2)
Dams/Levees
Day Cares (numerous)
Nursing Homes (numerous)
Government Buildings (6)
Numerous highways and bridges
Communications Center/Back-up
Utility Pipelines
Water Treatment Facilities (3)
Chanute
Hospital
Police (Memorial Building)
Fire (Memorial Building)
Emergency Operations Center
(Memorial Building)
Power Plants
Water Plant
Waste Water Plant
Airport
Erie
Fire Station
Electric Power Plant
Courthouse
Nursing Home
Water Treatment Plant
St. Paul
Fire Station
Clinic
City Hall
Nursing Home
Corrections
Water Plant
Neosho County
January 2009
Replacement Value ($)
Occupancy/ Capacity #
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
N/A
N/A
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
N/A
N/A
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
7,501,231
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
48,339,516
2,961,474
5,941,040
2,057,122
N/A
N/A
N/A
Not provided
1,500,000
4,933,557
Not provided
Not provided
2,635,933
Not provided
N/A
Not provided
Not provided
N/A
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
N/A
DRAFT
3.99
Name of Asset
Post Office
Water Treatment
Sewer Treatment
Church
Museum
Beachner Grain
Westhoff Interiors
Thayer
Thayer Fire Station Building
Thayer Fire Station Equipment
City Hall
Thayer lake #1 Dam
Thayer Lake #2 Dam
Thayer Christian Preschool
Rehmert Day Care
Gindelsberger Day Care
Sanitary Sewer Lift Stations
Water Treatment Plant
Radio Communications
City Lagoons (2 cells)
Generators
Thayer Museum
City Park Band Shell
Beachner Grain
W&G Fertilizer
Acorn Valley Cabinetry
USD 101
Erie Elementary School
Galesburg Elementary School
Erie High School
Bus Barn
Central Office
USD 413
Chanute Elementary School
Chanute High School
Royster Middle School
Lincoln Early Learning Center
District Administration Office
Maintenance/Transportation Building
USD 447
Thayer Schools
USD 505
Chetopa Campus
St. Paul Campus (elem., middle,
high)
Vehicle Fleet
Neosho County
January 2009
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not Provided
Not Provided
Not provided
N/A
N/A
Not provided
Not provided
Not Provided
Not Provided
282,591
275,000
same bldg. as fire station
1,500,000
1,500,000
85,000
90,000
90,000
125,434
1,500,000
15,000
Not provided
60,000
123,123
22,181
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
50
N/A
100
N/A
N/A
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
15
Not provided
5,095,968
2,479,721
6,928,695
201,000
710,629
350
120
230
30
10
16,000,000
25,000,000
20,000,000
3,000,000
450,000
850,000
850
850
600
100
50
25
3,454,014
350
12,000,000
8,000,000
362
330
1,600,000
N/A
DRAFT
3.100
Name of Asset
Neosho County Community
College
Neosho County Community College
Campus
28,000,000
250-263 residents
730-2000 students,
faculty, staff, patrons
2,000,000
13,960,000
N/A
N/A
675,270
N/A
Heartland Electric Cooperative
Urbana Substation
400 miles of electric distribution
system
Radiant Electric Cooperative
Electric distribution system serving
rural areas; consisting of 1,126 poles
and 64 miles of line, serving 336
meters
3.3.3 Vulnerability by Hazard
This section describes overall vulnerability and estimates potential losses for buildings,
infrastructure, and critical facilities located in identified hazard areas. This vulnerability
assessment was limited to the hazards that received moderate or high in planning significance
scores based on HMPC input and results of the CPRI index.
Detailed vulnerability assessment is not provided for those hazards with low planning
significance scores. Only a vulnerability overview is provided for those low-ranked hazards
listed below:
•
•
•
Earthquake
Expansive Soils
Vulnerability assessment for hazards receiving high or moderate planning significance scores is
limited by the data available and methods of analysis vary by hazard type. Many of the identified
hazards, particularly weather related hazards, affect the entire planning area, and specific hazard
areas cannot be mapped geographically. For these hazards, which include drought, extreme heat,
hailstorm, lightning, tornado, windstorm, and winter storm, vulnerability is mainly discussed in
qualitative terms because data on potential losses to structures is not available.
Of the high and moderate significance hazards, flood is the primary hazard that varies between
jurisdictions and has identified hazard areas. It is discussed first and the remaining hazards are
presented in alphabetical order.
Neosho County
January 2009
DRAFT
3.101
Flood Vulnerability
Overview
Planning Significance: Moderate. Overall vulnerability to flooding is highest in developed areas
of the floodplains of the Neosho River and its tributaries. According to the vulnerability analysis
and the loss estimates provided below in Table 3.31, the unincorporated areas of the county
would be hit the hardest by a 100-year flood followed by the City of Erie and then the City of
Chanute.
Methodology
A geographic information system approach (GIS) was used to quantify how flood risk varies
across the planning area. During the vulnerability analysis process of this planning effort, the
best available flood data for Neosho County was generated by HAZUS-MH MR3, FEMA’s
software program for estimating potential losses from disasters. Although the preliminary
Digital Flood Insurance Rate Maps are now available, they were not available during the
vulnerability analysis phase of this process and they are not yet officially effective (effective date
is June 2009).
HAZUS-MH was used to generate a 100-year floodplain for major rivers and creeks in the
County (those with a minimum drainage area of 1.0 square mile). The software produces a flood
polygon and flood-depth grid that represents the base flood. While not as accurate as official
flood maps, these floodplain boundaries are useful in GIS-based loss estimation. Once the
floodplain was generated, the software’s census-block level population and building inventory
data was used to estimate numbers of residents potentially displaced by flooding and potential
structural damages.
Flood Vulnerability: Estimated Potential Losses to Existing Development
HAZUS provides reports on the number of buildings impacted, building repair costs, and the
associated loss of building contents and business inventory. Building damage can cause
additional losses to a community as a whole by restricting the building’s ability to function
properly. Income loss data accounts for business interruption and rental income losses as well as
the resources associated with damage repair and job and housing losses. These losses are
calculated by HAZUS using a methodology based on the building damage estimates. Flood
damage is directly related to the depth of flooding. For example, a two-foot flood generally
results in about 20 percent damage to the structure (which translates to 20 percent of the
structure’s replacement value). HAZUS uses depth-damage curves to estimate building losses as
the flood depth varies across the inundation area.
Default HAZUS-MH data was used to develop the loss estimates. Thus, the potential losses
derived from HAZUS-MH, the best available data, may contain some inaccuracies. The building
valuations used in HAZUS-MH MR3 are updated to R.S. Means 2006 and commercial data is
updated to Dun & Bradstreet 2006. There could be errors and inadequacies associated with the
Neosho County
January 2009
DRAFT
3.102
hydrologic and hydraulic modeling of the HAZUS-MH model. However, as depicted in the
floodplain maps in the flood hazard profile section (Section 3.2.8), the HAZUS generated
floodplain is very close to the floodplain presented in the preliminary digital flood insurance rate
maps. The damaged building counts generated by HAZUS-MH are susceptible to rounding
errors and are likely the weakest output of the model due to the use of census blocks for analysis.
After running the HAZUS analysis for a 100-year flood event, the building inventory loss
estimates (which are linked to census block geography) were sorted by jurisdiction to illustrate
how the potential for loss varies across the planning area. Table 3.31 shows estimated potential
building losses by jurisdiction.
Table 3.31. Estimated Flood Losses by Jurisdiction
Jurisdiction
Chanute
Earlton
Erie
Galesburg
St. Paul
Stark
Building
Damage
($)
1,231,000
Contents
Damage
($)
2,218,000
Inventor
y Loss
($)
103,000
35,000
77,000
11,000
0
0
0
1,000
124,000
0%
1,714,000
2,440,000
55,000
2,000
4,000
2,000
4,341,000
15%
-
-
245,000
1%
Relocatio
n Loss ($)
4,000
Capital
Related
Loss ($)
8,000
Rental
Income
Loss ($)
3,000
Wage
Loss
($)
23,000
-
-
-
-
-
-
124,00
0
-
94,000
142,000
7,000
0
0
0
2
Total
Loss ($)
3,590,000
% of
Total
13%
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Thayer
2,000
2,000
0
0
0
0
0
4,000
0%
Uninc.
10,564,000
8,874,000
399,000
7,000
27,000
2,000
43,000
71%
Total
13,640,000
13,753,00
0
575,000
13,000
39,000
7,000
191,00
2
19,916,00
0
28,220,00
0
Source: HAZUS-MH MR3
100
%
Unincorporated areas of the County are at most risk to flood losses according to this analysis,
accounting for 71 percent of the potential loss, with the City of Erie accounting for 15 percent
and the City of Chanute accounting for 13 percent.
Figure 3.42 below shows estimated potential building losses by area.
Neosho County
January 2009
DRAFT
3.103
Figure 3.42. Estimated Potential Losses from 100-Year Flood in Neosho County
Neosho County
January 2009
DRAFT
3.104
Flood Vulnerability: Potential Population Displaced
HAZUS estimates for the population displaced during a 100-year flood event using U.S. Census
data and flood depths. This analysis is shown in Table 3.32 the software estimates that 478
people from unincorporated areas of the County could be displaced and need sheltering as the
result of a 100-year flood event with 179 displaced in Erie and 84 displaced in Chanute.
Table 3.32. Estimated Displaced Persons in Floodplain Neosho County
Jurisdiction
Chanute
Earlton
Erie
Galesburg
St. Paul
Stark
Thayer
Unincorporated
Total
Displaced
Population
84
4
179
5
0
478
750
Short Term
Needs
34
0
57
0
0
83
174
Source: HAZUS MH MR3
Figure 3.43 below classifies areas of Neosho County by number of residents potentially
displaced by a flood with an estimated one percent chance of occurrence in any given year (100year flood event). As shown by the darker shaded areas on the map, Specific areas of risk
include northeast portions of Chanute as well as the extreme west central section along the
tributary to the Neosho and those areas in the floodplain of Little Turkey Creek. In Erie, the
eastern portions of along Pucketts Run would be impacted. In St. Paul, the vulnerable areas are
in the southwest portion of city limits. The areas of the unincorporated county that are at greatest
risk can be seen all along the Neosho River and its tributaries. For the other incorporated cities
of Neosho County there is little risk to people and property from flood damage.
Neosho County
January 2009
DRAFT
3.105
Figure 3.43. Potential Population Displaced by 100-Year Flood in Neosho County
Neosho County
January 2009
DRAFT
3.106
Flood Vulnerability: Critical Facilities, Pipelines, and Electric Lines
Critical facilities data from the State of Kansas, the National Bridge Inventory, and the National
Inventory of Dams (the latter two from HAZUS-MH) was used along with the floodplain
generated by HAZUS-MH to identify critical facilities in the floodplain.
Based on this analysis, the six critical facilities in the Neosho County floodplain are four scourcritical bridges, a waste water treatment facility in Erie, and a waste water treatment facility in
Galesburg. Galesburg did not participate in this planning process. As a result, this data has not
been validated. Table 3.33 and Figure 3.44 below show the results of this analysis.
Table 3.33.Critical Facilities in the 100-Year Floodplain in Neosho County
Flooded Critical
Facility
Scour Critical Bridge
Waste Water Treatment
Waste Water Treatment
Name
K39 Hwy
K57 Hwy
US 59, K57 Hwy
US 169 Hwy
City of Erie Waste Water Treatment
Plant
Galesburg
Near City
Stark
St Paul
Erie
Chanute
Erie
Flood Depth
(ft)
7.51
9.06
4.24
5.82
4.86
Galesburg
2.13
Source: HAZUS MH MR3
Neosho County
January 2009
DRAFT
3.107
Figure 3.44.Neosho County Critical Facilities in the 100-Year Floodplain
Neosho County
January 2009
DRAFT
3.108
A scour index is used to quantify the vulnerability of a bridge to structural damage during a flood
due to undermining or displacement of bridge supports during increased river flow volumes.
Bridges with a scour index between 1 and 3 are considered scour critical, which means their
foundation elements are unstable for the observed or evaluated scour condition.
There are nine scour critical bridges in Neosho County, all located on main highways. One is
located north of Chanute off of Highway 169 almost on the Neosho/Allen County boundary;
another is located south of Chanute approaching Earlton on Highway 169. Four scour critical
bridges are located east of Chanute on Highway 39 toward Stark. Two are on Highway 59, one
to the north and one to the south of Erie. One scour critical bridge is located on Highway 47
between St Paul and its intersection of Highway 59. The location of these bridges is shown in
Figure 3.45 below.
Neosho County
January 2009
DRAFT
3.109
Figure 3.45.Neosho County Bridges
Neosho County
January 2009
DRAFT
3.110
Figure 3.46 below maps locations of pipelines and powerlines in relation to the 100-year
floodplain. Pipeline and powerline intersections with the floodplain are concentrated in
northwestern portion of the County north of Chanute, potentially complicating repair of these
facilities if damage were to occur during a flood event.
Neosho County
January 2009
DRAFT
3.111
Figure 3.46. Neosho County Pipelines and Utilities in Relation to the 100-Year Floodplain
Neosho County
January 2009
DRAFT
3.112
Flood Vulnerability: Critical Facility Locations by City
Figures 3.48 through 3.54 below map the locations of critical facilities in relation to the 100-year
floodplain for the incorporated cities of Neosho County.
Figure 3.48. Critical Facilities in Relation to 100-Year Floodplain: Chanute
Neosho County
January 2009
DRAFT
3.113
Figure 3.49. Critical Facilities in Relation to 100-Year Floodplain: Earlton
Neosho County
January 2009
DRAFT
3.114
Figure 3.50. Critical Facilities in Relation to 100-Year Floodplain: Erie
Neosho County
January 2009
DRAFT
3.115
Figure 3.51. Critical Facilities in Relation to 100-Year Floodplain: Galesburg
Neosho County
January 2009
DRAFT
3.116
Figure 3.52. Critical Facilities in Relation to 100-Year Floodplain: Stark
Neosho County
January 2009
DRAFT
3.117
Figure 3.53. Critical Facilities in Relation to 100-Year Floodplain: St. Paul
Neosho County
January 2009
DRAFT
3.118
Figure 3.54. Critical Facilities: Thayer
Neosho County
January 2009
DRAFT
3.119
National Flood Insurance Program and Repetitive Flood Loss Properties
Of the five jurisdictions participating in this plan, four are currently participating in the National
Flood Insurance Program: Neosho County, Chanute, Erie, and St. Paul all participate in the
National Flood Insurance Program and have Flood Insurance Rate Maps designating the 100year flood hazard. Thayer is in the process of completing the paperwork necessary for
participation. The city has annexed a large piece of ground to the southwest. Streets included in
the annexed area are Lake View, Prairie, and Timber Streets. There is a sizeable floodplain in the
annexed area. The original flood map was rescinded but these annexations will require that the
city adopt a floodplain management ordinance. Earlton, Galesburg, and Stark are not currently
in the NFIP. These three jurisdictions did not participate in this plan. There are no repetitive loss
properties in Neosho County. Table 3.34 below outlines NFIP participation status for Neosho
County communities.
Table 3.34 Community Participation in the National Flood Insurance Program in Neosho
County
Jurisdiction
Neosho
County
Chanute
Erie
St. Paul
Date Joined
2/61995-Emergency Program
2/1/2005-Regular Program Entry
5/13/1975-Emergency Program
1/13/1979 Regular Program Entry
Effective FIRM
Date
2/1/2005
(study underway)
7/5/2001
(study underway)
12/3/1993
(study underway)
9/5/1990
(study underway)
Policies
in
Force
31
Insurance
in Force
($)
3,540,000
Number
of
Claims
14
Claims
Totals
($)
417,072
63
3,813,600
24
500,375
27
1881000
7
5
503,500
2
145,295
.33
49,445
Source: National Flood Insurance Program: SFHA=Special Flood Hazard Area
Agricultural Infestation Vulnerability
Overview
Planning Significance: Moderate. Of the 368,400 land acres (576 square miles) in Neosho
County, 341,000 acres (92.5 percent) are classified as farm land. In 2006, the value of crops
harvested in Neosho County was $21,851,100 and the value of cattle and milk production was
$16,036,000 ($37,887,100 combined total). A widespread infestation of agricultural products
could seriously impact the economic base of the planning area.
Potential Losses to Existing Development
Buildings, infrastructure, and critical facilities are not vulnerable to this hazard. Its impacts are
primarily economic and environmental, rather than structural affects. Rough estimates of
potential direct losses fall in a range of 1-50 percent of annual crop receipts for the County
and/or a 1-75 percent of livestock receipts. Based on a worst case scenario where 50 percent of
crop production and 75 percent of livestock is lost in a given year due to agricultural infestations,
the total direct costs could be nearly $23 million. Indirect costs are not estimated in this analysis.
Neosho County
January 2009
DRAFT
3.120
Future Development
Future development is not expected to impact Neosho County’s vulnerability to this hazard.
Dam and Levee Failure Vulnerability
Overview
Planning Significance: Moderate. Dam or levee failure is typically an additional or secondary
impact of another disaster such as flooding or earthquake. The impacts to the County and its
municipalities from a dam failure would be similar in some cases to those associated with flood
events (see the flood hazard vulnerability analysis and discussion). The biggest difference is that
a catastrophic dam failure has the potential to result in a much greater loss of life and destruction
to property and infrastructure due to the potential speed of onset and greater depth, extent, and
velocity of flooding. Another difference is that dam failures could flood areas outside of mapped
According to the National Inventory of Dams, Neosho County has 63 total state or federal
regulated dams. Of those, two are high hazard dams and one is a significant hazard dam.
Detailed descriptions are provided in section 3.2.3
•
Lake Parsons Dam—This high hazard dam is located on Labette Creek forms Lake Parsons,
a community lake in Neosho County, which is used for drinking water purposes. Because it
drains downstream into Labette County, it does not impact any structures in Neosho County.
•
L.D.H., Inc. Lake Dam—This high hazard dam and the lake it forms is owned by L.D.H.
Farms, Inc. of Chanute, Kansas. The earthen dam impounds water from Turkey Creek and
was completed in 1989. It is privately owned but is regulated by the Kansas Department of
Water Resources. It is 24 feet high and is used for recreational purposes.
•
Marion P. Stevens Dam—This significant hazard dam impounds water on the Big Creek and
forms Stevens Lake, owned by the Stevens family. The dam is of earthen construction, is 642
feet long and 26 feet high. The dam creates a farm pond which is not state regulated.
The flood control structure at Santa Fe Lake in the City of Chanute was previously listed as a
levee structure. However, during the re-mapping effort to provide digital flood insurance
rate maps for the county, this structure was re-categorized as a dam. The hazard significance
of this dam is unknown at this time.
•
There are several levees in and around Chanute and Erie. However, many of these serve to
contain low-frequency flooding and agricultural land and are overtopped during significant
events. In some instances, these levee systems may provide a false sense of protection. It should
be noted that the HAZUS flood analysis for the 100-year flood scenario does not take into
account any protection provided by these levees. So, the vulnerability analysis for flood shows
the areas that would be impacted if and when the limited protection ability of the levees is
surpassed.
Neosho County
January 2009
DRAFT
3.121
Dams
Losses from a dam failure will vary based on the dam involved, warning time, and time of day,
but the potential exists for property losses into the millions and multiple deaths and injuries.
Impacts to critical facilities would be similar to those identified in the flood vulnerability
analysis.
The Kansas Division of Water Resources, Water Structures Program was contacted to obtain
dam inundation maps and Emergency Action Plans (EAPs) for the high hazard dams. The
inundation maps and Emergency Action Plans are not available for any of the high hazard dams
in Neosho County that are regulated by the State. However, general descriptions of those areas
that might be impacted by breach or failure are provided below. This information is provided for
planning purposes only and is not intended to make inundation determinations that would be
provided in an Emergency Action Plan.
•
•
•
•
Lake Parsons Dam would not impact structures in Neosho County because it drains
downstream into Labette County.
LDH, Inc. Lake Dam—impacts of breach or failure are unknown at this time.
Marion P. Stevens Dam—According to the draft mitigationplan.com draft plan, one
residence would be affected by breach or failure of this dam.
Santa Fe Lake Dam--According to the City of Chanute, if the Santa Fe Lake Dam breached
or failed, 7-10 businesses could be impacted
Breach of John Redmond Reservoir Dam, Marion Reservoir, or Council Grove Reservoir in
counties upstream could have more serious impacts to the planning area. A breach in these dams
could flood residential, commercial, and agricultural areas downstream in the Neosho River
basin, including the communities of Chanute, Erie, and St. Paul in Neosho County. Impacts
would be similar to those listed under flood impacts. Many other adverse social and economic
consequences could occur. A 1982 document entitled "Operation and Maintenance Manual,
Volume II, Contingency Plans for Emergencies", prepared by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
includes information on the John Redmond Reservoir. In the event of a catastrophic event, the
maps identified flood waters impacting the City of Humboldt in adjacent Allen County within
approximately 20 hours, and impacting the Town of Erie in approximately 28 hours.
Emergency Action Plans associated with the USACE-regulated dams upstream of Neosho
County are on file with USACE. Specific information on downstream impacts is considered
sensitive due to Homeland Security concerns, and is not presented in this public document
Although the capability to compute specific potential losses specific to dam and levee failure is
not currently available, the HMPC estimated to be in the range of 1-50 percent of total potential
losses from flooding. Considering a worst case scenario, this could total $6.8 million in direct
losses.
Neosho County
January 2009
DRAFT
3.122
Levees
The loss estimates generated from HAZUS in the flood vulnerability section can be considered
inclusive of levee failure losses, as HAZUS did not account for levee protection at Chanute or
Erie or other areas of the County. In addition, the levees present in Neosho County provide
limited protection and are not considered to provide protection from the 100-year flood.
Future Development
Future development located in downstream from dams in floodplains or inundation zones would
negatively impact Neosho County’s vulnerability to this hazard. The three cities with population
growth for the 1990-2007 period are each located at safe distances from floodplains, but future
development in unincorporated areas could be vulnerable to dam failure impacts.
Drought Vulnerability
Overview
Planning Significance: Moderate. Negative impacts of drought are primarily economic and
environmental. With over ninety two percent of the land area of Neosho County used for
agricultural purposes, the planning area has significant exposure to this hazard. In addition to
potential economic impacts, water supplies for local communities can also be threatened and soil
erosion, dust, and wildfire hazard can all be exacerbated by drought conditions.
Drought normally does not impact structures and it can be difficult to identify specific hazard
areas. According to the three-year period for which data is available from USDA’s Risk
Management Agency, (see previous occurrences section under drought profile in section 3.2.4)
the average amount of annual claims paid for crop damage as a result of drought in Neosho
County was $589,013. The HMPC realizes that USDA claims only represent a small portion of
the actual damages. Aside from agricultural impacts, other losses related to drought include
increased costs of fire suppression and damage to roads and structural foundations due to the
shrink dynamic of expansive soils during excessively dry conditions.
The planning committee reviewed previous drought events in Neosho County and in Kansas, and
made the following findings concerning a future drought event in Neosho county: (1) that 75%
of the land area could be impacted; (2) that few injuries and few illnesses would result; (3) that
few properties would be destroyed; (4) that there would be high direct costs and low indirect
costs; (5) that 15 percent of the population would be at risk; and (6) that structures would not be
at risk.
Neosho County
January 2009
DRAFT
3.123
Future Development
As population grows, demand for water increases for household, commercial, industrial,
recreational, and agricultural uses. Population has declined in Neosho County over previous few
decades and currently new development is limited in scale. Future development is unlikely to
exacerbate drought conditions in the short term.
Earthquake Vulnerability
Overview
Planning Significance: Low. As discussed under the magnitude section of the profile for this
hazard (Section 3.2.5), there is only a 2 percent probability of an earthquake exceeding a peak
acceleration of 4 percent gravity in the next 50 years in the Neosho County planning area.
Typically, significant earthquake damage occurs when accelerations are greater than 30 percent
of gravity. With this in mind, the HMPC has determined that the planning area is not vulnerable
to significant earthquake damage.
Expansive Soils Vulnerability
Overview
Planning Significance: Low. The HMPC has determined that while the entire planning area is
vulnerable to some structure damage as a result of shrinking and expanding soils, there is no data
available to determine damage estimates for this hazard. In most cases, individual property
owners pay for repairs to damages caused by this hazard. The HMPC felt that underground water
pipes may be at risk to damages associated with expansive soils. However, there is no data to
support damages and costs associated with this hazard at this time.
Extreme Heat Vulnerability
Overview
The population that is most vulnerable to extreme heat impacts are persons over age 65.
Individuals below the federal poverty level also may also be at increased risk to extreme heat in
cases where air conditioning is not affordable. Based on information from the 2000 U.S. Census,
Table 3.35 below compares the percentage of persons over age 65 and the percentage of persons
below the federal poverty level in the incorporated participating jurisdictions to state and
national averages.
Neosho County
January 2009
DRAFT
3.124
3.35. Selected Demographic and Economic Characteristics, Neosho County 2000
Population
2000
Age 65 and Over (%)
Individuals Below
Poverty Level (%)
281,421,906
12.4
12.4
2,688,418
13.3
9.9
Neosho County
16,997
17.5
13.0
Chanute
9,411
18.9
15.0
80
18.8
7.0
1,211
19.9
14.9
Galesburg
150
18.7
13.8
Stark
106
11.3
17.2
St. Paul
646
22.8
10.7
Thayer
500
12.2
9.9
Community
United States
Kansas
Earlton
Erie
Source: 2000 Census, U.S. Census Bureau
Note: The Census Bureau defines the poverty level using a set of money income thresholds that vary by family size and composition
The HMPC identified the power distribution infrastructure as vulnerable to brownouts or
blackouts during periods of extreme heat when the use of air conditioning puts a strain on power
generation and transmission.
Extreme heat normally does not impact structures and it is difficult to identify specific hazard
areas. Heavy trucking can increase wear and tear on roadways during periods of extreme heat
though the cost of these impacts is difficult to quantify. Stress on livestock and minor to
moderate reductions in crop yields due to are also typical impacts of extended periods of high
temperatures.
Nursing homes and elder care facilities are especially vulnerable to extreme heat events. These
facilities are provided in Table 3.28 in Section 3.3.2. The power infrastructure is known to be at
risk, but at this time, there is no data available to estimate potential dollar losses as a result of
power failure during extreme heat events.
Future Development
A growing population increases the number of people vulnerable to extreme heat events; new
development increases the strain on the power grid during extreme heat periods. In general,
population and development trends in Neosho County are declining and unlikely to increase
vulnerability to extreme heat in the short term.
Neosho County
January 2009
DRAFT
3.125
Hailstorm Vulnerability
Overview
Planning Significance: Moderate. In general, assets in the planning area that are vulnerable to
hail damage include crops and built structures. Of these, damages to crops as a result of hail can
be the most devastating. If hail size is large in diameter and crops are at a vulnerable stage in the
plant/harvest cycle, it is possible for a great percentage of crop yields to be lost as a result of
even a single hail event.
Structure damage, such as roof damage, damages to siding and windows occurs frequently with
hail damage and is usually covered under private insurance. Specific structural damages in the
planning area as a result of hail damage are not available.
Personal injury can also occur as a result of very large hail if individuals are outdoors during a
hail event.
The NCDC reports that $1.1 million in property and crop damage occurred from 1993-1998.
Information on the percentage of this total attributed to structural damage is not available.
According to the USDA Risk Management Agency, insured crop losses in Neosho County as a
result of hail in 2005 totaled $560,357, outlined in Table 3.36 below. No claims were reported in
2006 and 2007. Based on information from this three year period, the average annual crop loss as
a result of hail is in excess of $186,000. The HMPC realizes that this estimate is low as many
losses are either not insured or a claim is not filed for compensation.
Table 3.36 Crop Loss Claims Paid as a Result of Hail, Neosho County 2005
Year
2005
2005
2005
Total
Crop
Corn
Grain Sorghum
Soybeans
Hazard
Hail
Hail
Hail
Claims Paid ($)
$254,290
$18,530
$287,537
$560,357
Source: USDA’s Risk Management Agency, April 2008
Future Development
Development trends are unlikely to increase vulnerability to hailstorms.
Lightning Vulnerability
Overview
Planning Significance: Moderate. The NCDC reports no injuries or fatalities resulting from
lightning strikes from 1993-2007, but it is nonetheless a significant public safety hazard.
National Weather Service data indicates that Neosho County is in a region that receives four to
Neosho County
January 2009
DRAFT
3.126
eight lightning strikes per square kilometer per year. Most of these lightning strikes do not result
in damages, but electronic equipment located inside buildings is vulnerable. Communications
equipment and warning transmitters and receivers could be knocked out by lightning strikes.
Structures in exposed locations at high elevation relative to its surroundings is the most
vulnerable existing development. Estimates of damage and potential losses at these facilities are
not currently available.
Future Development
Future development is unlikely to increase vulnerability to lightning.
Soil Erosion
Vulnerability Overview
Planning Significance: Low. The assets that are most vulnerable to soil erosion in the planning
area are agricultural land, bridges, roads, and water supplies that can fill with sediment. The
vulnerability of bridges and roads to erosion is discussed under the flood hazard since the main
cause of damaging erosion to these structures is flood waters rushing past and washing out the
soil.
Tornado Vulnerability
Overview
Planning Significance: High. Neosho County is located in a region of the U.S. with very high
frequency of dangerous and destructive tornadoes. On at least two occasions tornadoes have
resulted injuries to residents of Neosho County and there have been six occurrences with tornado
related damages topping $250,000.
Warning time for tornadoes is relatively short. Children, the elderly and disabled persons are
particularly vulnerable to such hazards with rapid onset. There is an identified need for
additional storm shelters in Neosho County that can withstand the force of a major tornado and
to protect the safety of residents. The HMPC notes that many homes in the planning area are old
with declining structural integrity and thus susceptible to impacts from even minor tornadoes.
To estimate vulnerability to tornadoes, the HMPC considered the impacts of the EF5 tornado that
hit Greensburg, Kansas in May of 2007. Although the EF5 magnitude event is not a common
occurrence, this event was used for comparative analysis due to the lack of specific damages
information for events of a lesser magnitude as well as the desire to consider a worst-case
scenario for this hazard with high planning significance in Neosho County. There are many
variables that come in to consideration when attempting to estimate vulnerability to tornadoes
Neosho County
January 2009
DRAFT
3.127
such as wind speed, time on the ground, affected population density, affected building density,
width of ground swath, and time of day. Therefore, the HMPC chose to consider a worst-case
scenario for planning purposes. This is consistent with the methodology applied by FEMA in
design and construction of tornado saferoom structures, which are designed to withstand an EF5,
or worst-case scenario event.
Greensburg is approximately 20 miles west of Erie. The tornado was 1.7 miles in width and
traveled 22 miles. It directly impacted the city, destroying 95 percent of all structures and
severely damaging the remaining 5 percent. Greensburg at the time had a population of
approximately 1,500 across a 1.5 square mile area. By comparison, Erie is similar with a
population in 2006 of 1,276 people and is 0.9 square miles in size.
If a tornado event similar to that of Greensburg occurred in the populated sections of the
planning area, it is conceivable that a similar level of destruction could occur. Table 3.37
estimates potential losses for an EF5 event by calculating a 95 percent loss of structure value in
the damaged area of each. Damaged area was calculated by dividing the impacted area of
Greensburg (1.5 square miles) by the area of each jurisdiction. For cities with areas less than or
equal to the City of Greensburg, impact to 100 percent of the city area was assumed. This
analysis indicates that a scenario similar to that of Greensburg in any one of the participating
jurisdictions could result in damages totaling in the millions for even the smallest communities.
Table 3.37 Potential Property Loss from EF5 Tornado by Jurisdiction
Community
Chanute
Earlton
Erie
Galesburg
Stark
St. Paul
Thayer
City Area
6.2
0.1
0.9
0.2
0.2
1.1
0.7
Number of
Structures
5,321
61
867
90
360
62
279
Total Structure
Value ($)
709,365,000
4,557,000
77,358,000
19,576,000
51,979,000
5,316,000
33,295,000
City Area Damaged
by EF5* (%)
24.2
100
100
100
100
100
100
95% Structural Value Loss
in Damaged Area ($)
163,083,014
4,329,150
73,490,100
18,597,200
49,380,050
5,050,200
31,630,250
The Kansas Hazard Mitigation Plan lists data from the NCDC on total property losses and
annualized losses due to tornados from 1950-2006, analyzed by county. In Neosho County, the
estimate for past damage in 2008 dollars is $8,184,641 and annualized property damage is
$143,590.
Future Development
Future development projects should consider tornado hazards at the planning, engineering and
architectural design stage. In particular, school construction projects should consider the
incorporation of tornado safe rooms as this is one of the priority uses determined by the State of
Kansas Division of Emergency Management for FEMA mitigation grant funds.
Neosho County
January 2009
DRAFT
3.128
Utility/Infrastructure Failure Vulnerability
Overview
Planning Significance: Moderate. Utilities and infrastructure are vulnerable to damage by many
natural hazards. Typically the events that cause the most damages are flood, winter storm, and
wind storm. However, even buried infrastructure is at risk to damage from expansive soils and
manmade causes whether intentional or unintentional. The electrical grid is vulnerable in periods
of extreme heat when air conditioning use peaks. Public health and safety and the economy are
the primary concerns with this hazard.
By definition, this hazard includes all infrastructure and critical facilities that could be impacted
by one or more hazard events. Electrical blackouts and power surges can damage high tech
equipment but generally causes no structural damage.
Future Development
Future development can increase vulnerability to this hazard by placing additional strains on
existing infrastructure and by increasing the size and thus the exposure of infrastructure
networks.
Wildfire Vulnerability
Overview
Planning Significance: Moderate. According to the HMPC, the areas that are most vulnerable to
wildfire are agricultural areas where CRP land is burned, rural areas where trash and debris are
burned, and the wildland-urban interface areas. According to the Kansas Incident Fire Reporting
System, from 2003-2006, Neosho County lost an average of 1,465 (a total of 4,396 over a three
year period) acres per year to wildland fires.
In April 2007, the Kansas Forest Service prepared a Community Wildfire Hazard Assessment
Report. The assessment concluded the following: St. Paul, Earlton, Urbana, Kimball, Thayer,
Shaw, Galesburg, Chanute and Erie were all determined to be low risk areas for wildfire. Stark,
South Mound, and Morehead were determined to have a moderate risk for wildfire. This
moderate rating was assigned as a result of the heavy fuel loads of hardwood timber, grass and
eastern red cedar mix that have little or no break in the fuel continuity between the communities
and the surrounding vegetation fuels. There is also an “intermix” WUI condition in some parts of
these communities. Intermix WUI occurs when vegetation in vacant lots within the community
could carry a vegetation fire that could spread to surrounding buildings.
Homes built in rural areas are more vulnerable since they are in closer proximity to CRP land
that is burned and homeowners are more likely to burn trash and debris in rural locations. The
Neosho County
January 2009
DRAFT
3.129
vulnerability of structures in rural areas is exacerbated due to the lack of hydrants in these areas
for firefighting and the distance required for firefighting vehicles and personnel to travel to
respond.
Future Development
Future development in the wildland-urban interface would increase vulnerability to this hazard.
Windstorm Vulnerability
Overview
Planning Significance: High. Damaging windstorms are a common occurrence in the planning
area. Damages frequently occur to structures and power lines. Debris flying from high wind
events can shatter windows in structures and vehicles and can harm people that are not
adequately sheltered.
Campers, mobile homes, barns, and sheds and their occupants are particularly vulnerable as
windstorm events in Neosho County can be sufficient in magnitude to overturn these lighter
structures. Overhead power lines and infrastructure are also vulnerable.
Future Development
Future development projects should consider windstorm hazards at the planning, engineering and
architectural design stage.
Winter Storm Vulnerability
Overview
Planning Significance: High. The entire planning area is vulnerable to the effects of winter
storm. During periods of heavy snow fall, transportation can be treacherous. The most significant
damage during winter storm events occurs when freezing rain and drizzle accumulate on utility
poles and power lines causing widespread power outages. Since the power outages associated
with winter storm occur during cold weather, the population is at risk to cold temperature
exposure. As with extreme heat events, the elderly populations are considered to be more
vulnerable. See the vulnerability section for Extreme Heat for a discussion of the vulnerability of
the elderly population.
Buildings that have tree limbs hanging over the structure are more vulnerable to damage by
falling tree limbs. The power poles and power lines are the critical facilities that are most
vulnerable. Roads and bridges become covered with snow and ice making travel treacherous.
This can impact the response of emergency vehicles. Businesses experience loss of income as a
result of closure during power outages.
Neosho County
January 2009
DRAFT
3.130
In the most recent Presidential Disaster Declaration for a winter storm event, Neosho County
received over $1.4 Million in FEMA Public Assistance. It is anticipated that in a similar event,
this level of damages would occur. It should be noted that this amount does not take in to
consideration damages incurred by private businesses or other expenses non-reimbursable by
FEMA or other damages that may have been covered by private insurance.
Future Development
Future development could potentially increase vulnerability to this hazard by increasing demand
on the utilities and increasing the exposure of infrastructure networks.
3.3.4 Future Land Use and Development
For the most part, Neosho County is not experiencing population growth. Table 3.38 provides
information on changes in population and housing units in the planning area. Despite the overall
lack of population growth, development is occurring at certain location in the county. Three of
Neosho County’s smaller communities are experiencing population growth, Earlton, Stark and
Thayer. New development should be monitored to ensure that it does not take place in hazardprone areas, specifically in the floodplains, dam inundation areas and the wildland-urban
interface.
Table 3.38. Change in Population and Housing Units
Location
Neosho
County
Chanute
Earlton
Erie
Galesburg
Stark
St. Paul
Thayer
Unincorporated
1990
Population
17,035
2007
Population
16,228
Percent Change
1990-2007
-4.7
1990 Housing
Units
7,726
2000 Housing
Units
7,461
Percent Change
1990-2000
-3.4
9,488
69
1276
160
79
687
435
4,841
8,854
78
1,150
146
103
655
448
4,754
-6.7
13.0
-9.9
-8.8
30.4
-4.7
3.0
-1.8
4,426
29
568
77
42
251
218
2,115
4,262
32
545
72
47
241
203
2,059
-3.7
10.3
-4.0
-6.5
11.9
-4.0
-6.9
-2.7
Source: US Census; Kansas Department of the Budget, http://budget.ks.gov/files/FY2010/KS_Certified_Population_July2008.xls
Planned Development/Expansion Activities
In Erie, the city has determined that future expansion will be slated towards non-hazard areas. A
new nursing home and a new school are planned for construction on the north end of Erie where
land has been annexed. Plans include infrastructure expansion and new housing additions in that
area as well. Figure 3.50 shows the approximate location of the annexed area and planned
construction area.
Neosho County
January 2009
DRAFT
3.131
In Chanute, the South Santa Fe growth area will receive street improvements. This area is not in
a floodplain. A new school with an FEMA tornado safe room is planned for construction in the
area near 35th and Plummer. This area is not in the floodplain. A new housing development,
hospital expansion project, and Oil Patch Oil Field Supply Store are planned for the area at 7th
and Plummer. A new school with a FEMA safe room is planned for construction at this location
as well. Current land use in Chanute is 60% residential, 30% commercial, and 10% other.
St. Paul is considering construction of a new water tower and a new water plant. Details on the
locations have not yet been determined. Current land use in St. Paul is 85% residential and 15%
commercial.
In Thayer, a new Community Building is planned for construction at the Thayer City Park. This
building will be used for community events, fund raisers, private parties, and other community
events. In addition, the city has annexed a large piece of ground to the southwest (refer to the
map in figure 3.x). Streets in the annexed area are Lake View, Prairie, and Timber Streets. There
is a sizeable floodplain in the annexed area. The original flood map was rescinded but these
annexations will require that the city adopt a floodplain management ordinance. If development
occurs in this area, the city’s vulnerability to flood hazard could increase.
Unified School District 101 is in the process of constructing a new high school in Erie. This
school will have a FEMA-approved safe room funded in part by a FEMA Hazard Mitigation
Grant Program Grant. Erie Elementary and Galesburg Elementary are both slated to undergo
remodeling to include new FEMA-approved saferooms, also funded in part by FEMA Hazard
Mitigation Grant Program funds.
Unified School District 505 is in the process of constructing a new high school in St. Paul. This
will be complete by July 1, 2009 and will house two FEMA safe rooms.
Neosho County Community College reports that new regulations under the Higher Education
Reauthorization Act and Americans with Disabilities Amendment Act may potentially
significantly increase the number of intellectually-disabled individuals seeking educational
opportunities on the NCCC campus. An increase in the number of these types of students could
impact the ability to handle certain emergency operations such as emergency evacuations in the
event of fire, or emergency shelter in the event of severe weather.
For the entire seven-county distribution area, Radiant Electric Cooperative is planning $363,000
in system expansion/improvements. Of this amount, $108,000 will go toward new metering
infrastructure, $90,000 in new services, $85,000 in new tie lines, $80,000 in service uprates and
pole changeouts.
Neosho County
January 2009
DRAFT
3.132
3.3.5 Summary of Key Issues
Table 3.39 shows the results of the Hazard Ranking in order of High to Low Planning
Significance based on the methodology described in section 3.1.
Table 3.39 Neosho County Hazard Ranking-High to Low Planning Significance
Hazard Type
Tornado
Winter Storm
Agricultural
Infestation
Windstorm
Flood
Utility / Infrastructure
Failure
Hailstorm
Dam and Levee
Failure
Drought
Wildfire
Extreme Heat
Lightning
Expansive Soils
Soil Erosion & Dust
Earthquake
Probability
4
4
Magnitude
3
2
4
4
3
Warning
Time
Planning
Significance
High
High
4
2
Duration
1
3
CPRI
3.4
3
2
2
3
1
2
2
4
2
3
2.95
2.9
2.85
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
3
4
2
2
4
2
3
1
2.85
2.8
Moderate
Moderate
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
1
3
2
1
2
1
1
1
1
2
1
4
1
2
1
1
4
1
4
2
3
1
4
4
1
2.65
2.5
2.45
2.4
2.05
1.75
1.75
1.45
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Low
Low
Low
The HMPC will focus efforts for the mitigation strategy on those hazards with a moderate and
high planning significance. The following section summarizes key issues brought out by the risk
assessment.
Tornado
•
•
•
•
Not all schools/public buildings have saferooms.
Public may not be aware of existing shelter locations
Need new/updated indoor and outdoor warning systems
Mobile homes are specifically vulnerable
Winter Storm
•
•
•
•
Snow load on roofs can cause structure damage
Ice accumulation damages power lines and power infrastructure causing prolonged power
outages
Roads become hazardous for motorists
Schools and businesses close as a result of power outages and treacherous road conditions
Neosho County
January 2009
DRAFT
3.133
•
Freeze conditions can cause losses to crop yield. Over $1 million in crop insurance claims as
a result of freeze conditions from 2005-2007.
•
•
Crops are vulnerable to Septoria leaf disease, tan spot, stripe rust, powdery mildew, and scab
Grasshopper infestation has occurred
Windstorm
•
•
•
•
•
Frequent wind events cause damage to power lines
Unsecured mobile homes, campers, barns, and sheds and their occupants are specifically
vulnerable
Trees and tree limb debris damage power lines, power infrastructure, structures, and
automobiles
Storefront windows are vulnerable to damage from high-winds
Roofs are frequently damaged
Utility / Infrastructure Failure
•
Can be a secondary impact of other hazard events such as flood, tornado, windstorm, winter
storm, lightning or extreme heat
Flood
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Earlton, Galesburg, Stark, are not currently in the National Flood Insurance Program
Thayer is not currently in the National Flood Insurance Program. But they are in the process
of completing the necessary paperwork
Homes and businesses throughout the county were impacted by June/July 2007 flood event
North and northeast portions of Chanute were inundated
Some areas of Chanute were cut off from gas and electric service
The northern part of Erie along Puckets Run flooded as a result of the levee breach
Many homes that flooded did not have flood insurance
HAZUS loss-estimation indicates the potential for over $28 million in damages in the
planning area.
The Erie Wastewater treatment plant is the floodplain
There are nine scour critical bridges in the planning area
Low-lying roads become covered with water in flash flooding and riverine flooding
Crop insurance claims a result of flooding and excess moisture totaled over $4.5 million from
2005-2007.
Hailstorm
•
•
113 hail events in a 53-year period
Crops and roofs are damaged by large hail events
•
•
63 state or federal regulated dams; two are high hazard dams, one is a significant hazard dam
Three upstream U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Reservoirs: Marion Reservoir, Council
Grove Reservoir, and John Redmond Dam
Neosho County
January 2009
DRAFT
3.134
•
•
•
•
Levee systems in and around Chanute and Erie provide protection from low-frequency
flooding only
During Summer 2007 flood event, the levee south of Chanute on the Neosho River broke
and water went over the top of the levee into Erie damaging businesses, churches, and
several residences
In August, 2005, a levee broke one mile east of Ash Grove Cement Plant in Chanute, leaving
a 45-foot hole.
Inundation maps and emergency action plans are not available for either of the two stateregulated high hazard dams in the planning area
Drought
•
•
Private wells are vulnerable to water shortage
Agricultural production can be severely impacted
Wildfire
•
•
•
St. Paul, Earlton, Urbana, Kimball, Thayer, Shaw, Galesburg, Chanute and Erie were all
determined to be low risk areas for wildfire.
In Thayer, wildfires can be ignited when sparks from the railroad ignite nearby vegetation
Stark, south Mound, and Morehead were determined to have a moderate risk for wildfire as a
result of heavy loads of hardwood timber, grass and eastern red cedar mix that have little or
no break in the fuel continuity between the communities and the surrounding vegetation
fuels.
Extreme Heat
•
•
•
Instability of the electrical grid has been an issue during periods of extreme heat.
Identification and notification of cooling centers is needed
Elderly populations are at increased risk. Neosho County has a high percent of elderly
citizens.
Lightning
•
•
•
Communications towers and facilities are vulnerable to lightning strikes
Lightning damages electronics equipment
Lightning can cause structure fires
Expansive Soils
•
•
Streets and parking lots throughout the county are damaged every year by the effects of
expansive soils.
Roads, bridges, waterlines, and wells are damaged by expansive soils
Neosho County
January 2009
DRAFT
3.135

3 risk assessment

Transcription

Similar documents

Weekly Newsletter 07072014

Are Risk MAP Products Really on Our Mind?

project profile - Bowden Contracting Co.

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

Scholarship for School Programs At Mahaffie Stagecoach Stop

What you have told us

PDF - City of Terrell Hills

NEW MARKETS - Central Bank of Kansas City

English - monitor ii

1900 W. 50th Street - Single Property Websites