DOCSLIB.ORG

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Hazard Mitigation Actions in Relation to State Hazard Mitigation Plans Kansas and Missouri - 2013

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Hazard Mitigation Actions in Relation to State Hazard Mitigation Plans Kansas and Missouri - 2013 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Hazard Mitigation Actions in Relation to State Hazard Mitigation Plans Kansas and Missouri - 2013 INTRODUCTION The overlapping responsibilities for many natural hazards that are shared by multiple state and federal agencies, especially flooding, can be challenging to clearly understand. Complicating this, many agencies have different divisions, districts, communities of practice and stovepipes that could interact better. The stovepipes make us blind. Federal agencies can better communicate their actions aimed at reducing risks from natural hazards. This document seeks to meet this aim. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) has districts, usually setup by watershed boundaries (see figure below), and this is completely different than the states and FEMA regions. In addition, the NOAA National Weather Service and U.S. Geological Survey all have areas of responsibility that differ. The counties and local hazard mitigation plans also need help understanding how the broader efforts of federal agencies may translate down to the local level. Figure 1. The states, counties, and USACE districts in and surrounding Kansas and Missouri. The USACE Kansas City District is charged with leading coordination for USACE in Kansas and Missouri. Under the USACE Silver Jackets Program, the district has prepared the summary paragraphs herein that will strongly enhance the state hazard mitigation plan (SHMP) section on flooding, including sections on levees and dams, drought, and some other hazards. The development and delivery has been coordinated by the Kansas City District Silver Jackets Coordinator, the lead for Kansas and Missouri. This coordination was done internally with the various districts’ programs to better inform the states’ • Risk assessments and • Actions supporting hazard mitigation. Many Agencies, One Solution: Be Risk Aware 1 Strategic and Cost Effective Hazard Mitigation. The USACE has a real opportunity to contribute to the states’ efforts in developing the most effective use of mitigation dollars. This new communication process is possible as a direct result of the USACE National Flood Risk Management Program. USACE brings this product to the state through USACE Silver Jacket funding. Other federal agencies should consider providing similar data and leveraging Silver Jackets and state hazard mitigation teams’ interagency coordination. The states’ hazard mitigation efforts can only be as good as the available information is. State budgets are very tight. The best strategies and cost effective approaches that the state may take depend on federal agencies following suit, not just for the SHMP, but also to inform state budgeting priorities and decisions. History of this Endeavor. The most notable items that are synonymous with hazard mitigation actions at USACE are the interim risk reduction measures (IRRMs) related to the USACE Dam and Levee Safety Programs. These IRRMs are the USACE equivalent to the state’s hazard mitigation actions. The Dam Safety Program developed and released dam safety action classifications (DSACs) between 2006 and 2009. In May of 2012, the Levee Safety Program began a similar effort with the state hazard mitigation teams. Silver Jackets Coordinators and Levee Safety Program Managers are establishing the revised Levee Safety path forward with state teams and plan specific actions through new processes, such as this very document. Tools such as fact sheets and Strong Points [USACE news bulletin] on topics including risk assessment, risk-informed decision-making, and IRRMs specifically developed for communicating flood risk associated with levee systems are available through a USACE Silver Jackets Coordinator. Clearly the opportunity for risk communication comes up as the SHMPs look at state-wide risk assessments. The USACE understands that more than 15 other natural hazards, besides flooding, exist, which the states’ must also address. Flooding remains the highest priority risk, although USACE can also acknowledge some of the other natural hazards in this document. Leading the Local Plans. The state plan is the best place where the county or local HMPs can find more and better understand the roles of people at other agencies who have more information, such as the USACE Dam and Levee Safety Project Managers. The state plan is a resource about many agencies, and it attracts users. Being easily available off the state web pages makes the SHMP a fine place to also help the communities in the states better understand who, what, when, where, and how USACE is addressing hazard mitigation. This information allows these communities to improve local emergency action plans, as well. The shared responsibilities of risk management can only be shared when understood. Therefore, USACE is providing this basic text within this document to enable situational awareness. Introduction to Silver Jackets Activities and State Hazard Mitigation Efforts Several relevant USACE Civil Works programs overlap with the Kansas Hazard Mitigation Team, or KHMT, in Kansas and the State Risk Management Team, or SRMT, in Missouri. Silver Jackets. This is the USACE Civil Works program enabling participation in the states hazard mitigation teams, including the KHMT and the SRMT. Some of the states use the name Silver Jackets, however, many of the teams have existed longer than the inception of Silver Jackets around 2009. The Lead Silver Jackets Coordinator for Kansas and Missouri directly participates on the KHMT and the SRMT, representing all the USACE districts within the state at the team's regular meetings. Each district also has a Silver Jacket Coordinator, whom is encouraged to attend. The lead coordinator provides regular status updates, available on request. The status updates provide detail information on active USACE Civil Works projects and programs, including specific project information that is useful during the FEMA Risk MAP Discovery Phases. The Silver Jackets Coordinators will participate in the FEMA Risk MAP Resiliency Meeting. Many Agencies, One Solution: Be Risk Aware 2 Regional State Risk Management Team. This is the hazard mitigation teams in the four state region of Kansas, Iowa, Missouri, and Nebraska, with a focus on the Missouri River. The team is primarily composed of the state agency officials directing those state teams and representatives from the local USACE Districts. The SRMT co-leads are one of the four states leading this broader team. Levee Safety Program. The KHMT and the SRMT get periodic updates on this USACE Civil Works program. Note the USACE is not responsible for all levees in the Nation. The USACE Levee Safety Program activities have complemented both the KHMT and the SRMT work and have included establishing a National Levee Database, inspecting levees, communicating risks, taking steps to reduce risks, and establishing a levee safety portfolio internally at USACE for prioritizing levee work. Dam Safety Program. This USACE program complements the KHMT and the SRMT work with the two states’ dams. The focus is USACE owned and operated dams. The USACE Dam Safety Program focuses on the large reservoirs, many of which are multipurpose. Reservoirs act together with levees and other infrastructure to reduce impacts of floods, and the reservoirs may also maintain flows for navigation downstream. The program is a little older than the USACE program on levee safety and also has a risk portfolio for prioritizing dam work. Emergency Management. This USACE Civil Works program addresses flood fighting and the rehabilitation of damaged infrastructure, such as levees or dams. In addition, major disasters and emergencies are also coordinated through this program. Water Management. The control of flow releases from the many USACE lake projects is done by the district and divisions responsible for the various river basins. The flows of the Missouri River are managed by the USACE Northwestern Division. Eight authorized purposes must be addressed, including flood risk management. Flows on the Missouri River are managed by two districts. The Kansas City District Water Management handles reservoirs in Kansas and Missouri that drain to the Missouri River. The Omaha District handles major dams upstream of Rulo, Nebraska. Missouri lakes that are managed by the Kansas City District Water Management include Blue Springs Lake, Harry S. Truman Reservoir, Long Branch Lake, Longview Lake, Pomme de Terre Lake, Smithville Lake, and Stockton Lake. Upstream in Iowa is Rathbun Lake, which flows via the Chariton River to reach the Missouri River. The eastern side of Missouri is part of the USACE Mississippi Valley Division, which does water management for tributaries of the Mississippi River. Reservoirs on that side of the state, including Mark Twain Lake, Clearwater, and Wappapello Lake, are managed in the St. Louis District. St. Louis District also addresses the navigation mission and water management for the associated locks and dams. In southern Missouri, Bull Shoals Lake, Norfolk, and Table Rock Lake are managed by the Little Rock District, which is part of the USACE Southwestern Division. Flood Risk Management Projects. The USACE Civil Works program has planning studies (General Investigations, or GI, and other programs), projects under design phase (Preconstruction Engineering and Design, or PED), and others in construction phase (Construction General, or GI) within the State of Missouri. Those in the Missouri River Basin are part of the Kansas City District. Those USACE projects in the Mississippi
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Lake Level Management Plans Water Year 2021
    LAKE LEVEL MANAGEMENT PLANS WATER YEAR 2021 Kansas Water Office September 2020 Table of Contents U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, KANSAS CITY DISTRICT .................................................................................................................................... 3 CLINTON LAKE ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................4 HILLSDALE LAKE ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................6 KANOPOLIS LAKE .....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................8 MELVERN LAKE .....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................10 MILFORD LAKE ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................12
    [Show full text]
  • Securing Water for Southwest Missouri's Future
    Securing Water for Our Future Securing Water for Southwest Missouri’s Future The Story of Water is the Story of Us H20 Relative volume of the oceans (left), atmosphere (right) and Earth. Dr. Adam Nieman If every drop of water in the world was collected in a sphere, it would be just 869 miles in diameter. The illustration above shows a comparison of the volume of water and the size of Earth. The ball of water seems shockingly small, with a volume of only 338 million cubic miles (1.41 billion km3). – www.theresilientearth.com …the water cycle and the life cycle are one. -Jacques-Yves Cousteau MULTIPLE COUNTRY BASINS and INTERNATIONAL CONFLICT World Water & Conflict Chronology • The Water and Conflict Chronology traces the history of water as a tool of war and conflict going back 5,000 years. http://pacinst.org/issues/water-and-conflict/conflicts-over-water/ egion, conflict type, and date. http://www2.worldwater.org/chronology.html Global factors - WORLD POPULATION GROWTH SCARCITY American per capita daily use = 80-100 gal World’s poorest nations subsist on 5. http://water.usgs.gov/edu/qa-home-percapita.html 54 %: Amount of groundwater wells surveyed in India where water levels declined over the past seven years. 16% of those wells decreased by more than National Geographic, Water: Our Thirsty World 1 meter each year. Bloomberg A billion people do not have access to safe drinking water. In African~1/3 of population lacks access to water. These women in Kenya spend up to 5 hours a day carrying water.
    [Show full text]
  • Kansas Resource Management Plan and Record of Decision
    United States Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management Tulsa District Oklahoma Resource Area September 1991 KANSAS RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN Dear Reader: This doCument contains the combined Kansas Record of Decision (ROD) and Resource Management Plan (RMP). The ROD and RMP are combined to streamline our mandated land-use-planning requirements and to provide the reader with a useable finished product. The ROD records the decisions of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for administration of approximately 744,000 acres of Federal mineral estate within the Kansas Planning Area. The Planning Area encompasses BLM adm in i sterad sp 1 it-estate mi nera 1 s and Federa 1 minerals under Federal surface administered by other Federal Agencies within the State of Kansas. The Kansas RMP and appendices provide direction and guidance to BLM Managers in the formulation of decisions effecting the management of Federal mineral estate within the planning area for the next 15 years. The Kansas RMP was extracted from the Proposed Kansas RMP/FIES. The issuance of this ROD and RMP completes the BLM land use planning process for the State of Kansas. We now move to implementation of the plan. We wish to thank all the individuals and groups who participated in this effort these past two years, without their help we could not have completed this process. er~ 1_' Area Manager Oklahoma Resource Area RECORD OF DECISION on the Proposed Kansas Resource Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement September 1991 RECORD OF DECISION The decision is hereby made to approve the proposed decision as described in the Proposed Kansas Resource Management Plan/Final Env ironmental Impact Statement (RMP/FEIS July 1991), MANAGEMENT CONSZOERATXONS The decision to approve the Proposed Plan is based on: (1) the input received from the public, other Federal and state agencies; (2) the environmental analysis for the alternatives considered in the Draft RMP/Oraft EIS, as we11 as the Proposed Kansas RMP/FEIS.
    [Show full text]
  • Tri-State Water Resources Coalition to Secure Area Water
    by Bob Kirby Tri-State Water Resources Coalition to secure area water s population surges across Oklahoma joined together to form and Veatch to perform a study to the United States, one of the the Tri-State Water Resources examine area water supply needs foremost concerns heard is Coalition. The to the year 2050 water supply. On the goal of the and available water evening news, water stories coalition is “to supply options in about major metropolitan develop a the area. On Aareas such as Phoenix, Arizona good quality September 29 the and Las Vegas, Nevada are water resource results of the common. These arid regions face to provide for $200,000 study seemingly insurmountable issues the area were revealed to to supply the people who live there with adequate water. Right here in Kansas water issues are very prevalent on the minds of the populace, particularly in the western areas. The last few years however that concern has moved a little further east. New area of concern Recently, water suppliers in southeastern Kansas have had a heightened awareness of water issues. Deep aquifer water The towers and supplies have state border shown disturbing signs represent trends due to water and the increased geographic demands here in relationships in Kansas and the area. In 2002 across state lines water suppliers in Missouri and and other Oklahoma. In interested parties November 2004, formed the Tri-State Water Bob Kirby the State of Resources Coalition. The group Tech Assistant Kansas issued a is composed of representatives moratorium on from Kansas, Missouri and any new appropriations in the Oklahoma.
    [Show full text]
  • Lake Level Management Plans Water Year 2019
    LAKE LEVEL MANAGEMENT PLANS WATER YEAR 2019 Kansas Water Office September 2018 Table of Contents U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, KANSAS CITY DISTRICT .................................................................................................................................... 3 CLINTON LAKE ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................4 HILLSDALE LAKE ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................6 KANOPOLIS LAKE .....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................8 MELVERN LAKE .....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................10 MILFORD LAKE ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................12
    [Show full text]
  • Sac River Basin Watershed Summary 111315
    The State of Our Missouri Waters Sac River Watershed The Missouri Department of Natural Resources seeks to improve the availability of water resource information to communities where impact to these water resources is felt most. The information presented in this summary is intended to increase awareness of how activities on land and in water have an influence on water resource quality and quantity. The department greatly values local input and engagement regarding the mission of ensuring safe and ample water resources, and will continue to seek local guidance to further focus department efforts and funding strategies for the betterment of Our Missouri Waters. HUC-8: 10290106 September 2015 Sac River Watershed The State of Our Missouri Waters Key Points In the northern portion of the watershed, low dissolved oxygen levels in water bodies often Importance of cause negative impacts to aquatic life and create challenges for the watershed. These low dis- Water Quantity solved oxygen levels are often a result of excess organic materials, which consume oxygen, and may be discharged from wastewater treatment system types less effective in removing and Quality organics. Other sources of excess organics in water bodies may include excess animal waste, excess nutrient loads (fertilizer) and excess sedimentation from stream bank and erosion. Water shortages can have severe and expensive In the southern portion of the watershed, there are challenges regarding bacteria levels in wa- consequences. Adequate ter bodies, which can cause serious public health and recreational safety issues. Nonpoint water supplies are vital not sources of contamination, such as animal waste and contaminants carried by stormwater run- only to human health and off, can have a serious cumulative impact on surface waters in a largely rural watershed.
    [Show full text]
  • A Summary of Missouri Fishing Regulations 2019
    A SummarySummary of Missouri of Fishing Regulations MissouriEffective March 1, 2019 Fishing Regulations Effective March 1, 2019 DAVID STONNER DAVID DAVID STONNER DAVID Contents Sport Fishing in Missouri . .1 Permits: General Information . 2. Purchasing Permits . .3 Missouri Fishing Permits . .4 General Fishing Rules . 6. Game Fish . .8 Nongame Fish . 10 Live Bait . 12. Bullfrogs and Green Frogs . .14 Mussels and Clams . .14 Turtles . .14 Trout Fishing . .16 Reciprocal Fishing Privileges . 21 Illustrated Guide to the Fishes of Missouri . .22 How to Measure a Fish . .27 Special Area Regulations . .28 MO Fishing App . 4. 1 Fish Consumption Advisory . .42 Definitions . .44 Think You Have a Record? . .45 Contact Information . Back cover What’s New for 2019? ◾◾Lessees may no longer fish, hunt, or trap without a permit on the land that they lease . ◾◾Due to federal and state regulations, you are now required to provide a Social Security number to obtain fishing, hunting, and trapping permits . See Page 3 . Sport Fishing in Missouri When it comes to fishing, Missouri has a In Your Hands lot to offer . More than 200 species of fish The information in this live in the Show-Me State, and more than booklet is only a summary of four dozen species offer opportunities for the fishing rules and contains anglers . Seasons are long, and daily limits only those rules that affect are generous . Regulations exist to improve the ordinary sport angler . It and maintain the quality of fishing, ensure is NOT a legal document and that everyone has an equal chance of is subject to revision during catching fish, and protect aquatic resources .
    [Show full text]
  • Fellows Lake
    Section 319 NONPOINT SOURCE PROGRAM SUCCESS STORY Implementing Best Management PracticesMissouri and Education Efforts Restores Lake Point source and nonpoint source pollution from agricultural and Waterbody Improved suburban land sources affected water quality in Fellows Lake, prompting the Missouri Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) to add the lake to Missouri’s 1994 Clean Water Act (CWA) section 303(d) list of impaired waters for mercury and nutrients. The Watershed Committee of the Ozarks (WCO) launched outreach and education activities, worked with landowners to implement best management practices (BMPs) and conducted water quality monitoring. Water quality improved, and MDNR removed Fellows Lake from the state’s 2004/2006 CWA section 303(d) list of impaired waters. Problem Fellows Lake (Figure 1) is an 826-acre lake in south- west Missouri’s Greene County. It was formed when a dam was constructed on the upper Little Sac River in 1957. The lake serves as a drinking water supply for the city of Springfield, along with McDaniel Lake, Stockton Lake, the James River and Fulbright Spring. Fellows Lake and McDaniel Lake provided the city of Springfield with approximately 52 percent of its annual raw water in 2000. Elevated nutrients in Fellows Lake supported excess algal production, which caused odor and taste prob- lems in the finished drinking water. Mercury levels Figure 1. Fellows Lake is in the McDaniel Lake watershed. in fish tissue also showed mean values higher than the national tissue criterion of 0.3 milligrams (mg) sampling sites were monitored following a WCO- per kilogram (kg). Further water quality concerns developed Quality Assurance Project Plan.
    [Show full text]
  • Final Copy of 4 Mussels Recovery Plan
    Recovery plan for freshwater mussels in southeast Kansas PREFACE The Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks (KDWP) is required to develop recovery plans for all state-listed threatened and endangered species under the authority of K.S.A. 32- 960(a). The concept of developing state recovery plans for Kansas' endangered, threatened, and SINC species (species in need of conservation) was conceived by the Kansas Nongame and Endangered Species Task Force, which was created by passage of substitute Senate bill No. 473 during the 1996 Legislative Session. The Task Force, which consisted of 17 members1, met six times during the summer and fall of 1996. Issues and concerns addressed by the Task Force included listing procedures for endangered, threatened, and SINC species, incentives for affected property owners, recovery and conservation plans, and funding. After receiving the Task Force's report, the 1997 legislature enacted into law the Task Force’s recommendations by amending existing state laws and by enacting new laws (H.B. No. 2361). As part of that legislation, KDWP was required to implement several of the measures through regulation. Regulatory language addressing these measures was drafted by Department staff and presented to the KDWP Commission and the public. These recommendations were approved by the Commission in the fall of 1997. A new regulation, K.A.R. 115-15-4, outlined procedures to establish recovery plans 2. These procedures included the appointment of an advisory group to evaluate recovery plan development priority. The advisory group determined that the highest priority was the immediate development of a joint recovery plan for four threatened and endangered mussel species that occur in southeast Kansas.
    [Show full text]
  • Reallocation of Water Supply Storage Project: John Redmond Lake, Kansas
    DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Prepared for the: REALLOCATION OF WATER SUPPLY STORAGE PROJECT: JOHN REDMOND LAKE, KANSAS VOLUME I JUNE 2002 United States Army Corps of Engineers; Tulsa District 1645 South 101 East Avenue Tulsa, Oklahoma 74128-4609 DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Prepared For: Reallocation of Water Supply Storage Project: John Redmond Lake, Kansas U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; Tulsa District 1645 South 101 East Avenue Tulsa, Oklahoma 74128-4609 VOLUME I JUNE 2002 Prepared By: engineering-environmental Management, Incorporated 1510 West Canal Court, Suite 2000 Littleton, Colorado 80120 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY John Redmond Dam was initially authorized as the Strawn Dam and Reservoir under the Flood Control Act of May 17, 1950. The intent of design and construction was to provide flood control, water conservation, recreation, and water supply for communities along the Neosho River in southeastern Kansas. The John Redmond Project is also operated for wildlife purposes. Up to the time of construction the Neosho River had flooded 57 times in 34 years of recorded history. The project was renamed John Redmond Dam and Reservoir by an act of congress in 1958, to posthumously honor John Redmond, publisher of the Burlington Daily Republican newspaper, and one of the first to champion the need for flood control and water conservation along the Neosho River. Dam construction by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) was undertaken between 1959 and 1964, at a site west of Burlington, Kansas. Water storage began during September 1964, collecting drainage from an approximately 3,015-square mile drainage basin.
    [Show full text]
  • 2020 Stockton Lake Management Lands Management Plan  Page 2
    Stockton Lake Management Lands 25-Year Area Management Plan FY 2020-2044 Joel W. Porath 7/25/2019 Wildlife Division Chief Date 2020 Stockton Lake Management Lands Management Plan Page 2 Stockton Lake Management Lands Area Management Plan Approval Page PLANNING TEAM Kyle Hedges, Wildlife Management Biologist Ben Parnell, Fisheries Management Biologist Guerric Good, Resource Forester Rhonda Rimer, Natural History Biologist Jeremy Edwards, Conservation Agent Rick Rath, Private Land Conservationist Andy Rhodes, Outdoor Skills Specialist Francis Skalicky, Facilitator SOUTHWEST REGION RCT Chair Andrew Austin 7/19/2019 Signature Date WILDLIFE DIVISION Wildlife Management Chief Alan W. Leary 7/24/2019 Signature Date 2020 Stockton Lake Management Lands Management Plan Page 3 OVERVIEW • Official Area Name: Stockton Lake Management Lands, #7701 • Year of Initial Acquisition: 1977 • Acreage: Currently 16,572 acres of land lying within the Big Sac and Little Sac arms are managed by the Missouri Department of Conservation (MDC) under a 25-year license agreement with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), which expires Feb. 1, 2021, at which time the license may be renewed. • County: Cedar, Dade, and Polk • Region: Southwest • Division with Administrative Responsibility: Wildlife • Division with Maintenance Responsibility: Wildlife • Statements of Purpose: A. Strategic Direction Manage for wildlife associated with grassland, old field, glade, wetland, woodland, and forest resources with emphasis on upland game, and for compatible recreational opportunities. Manage fisheries resources to maximize recreational sport-fishing opportunities. B. Desired Future Condition The desired future condition is a diverse mix of restored glades, grasslands, and woodlands interspersed with old field habitats. C. Federal Aid Statement N/A GENERAL INFORMATION AND CONDITIONS I.
    [Show full text]
  • Springfield, Missouri Integrated Planning Support: Task 1 Data Collection Plan
    Springfield, Missouri Integrated Planning Support: Task 1 Data Collection Plan Draft July 2015 Contents Introduction ................................................................................................................................................................... 4 Water Supply Users ....................................................................................................................................................... 4 Surface ....................................................................................................................................................................... 7 Groundwater ............................................................................................................................................................. 7 Industrial ................................................................................................................................................................. 12 Agricultural .............................................................................................................................................................. 12 Available Data ..................................................................................................................................................... 12 Methods for Estimating Cattle Access ................................................................................................................ 15 Recreational Users ......................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]